Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The July newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem • Siege of Brest (1342) • Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser • Action at Sihayo's kraal Featured article review Augustus Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Tailhook scandal • HMS Hyperion (1807) • Operation Matterhorn • First Jewish–Roman War • Manhattan Project feed materials program • SMS Fürst Bismarck • Battle of Jackson • Battle of Guam (1944) Peer reviews Florence Nightingale • Battle of 42nd Street • Francis L. Sampson • German AB-Aktion in Poland Good article nominees Pete Hegseth • Allied prisoners of war of Japan • Prisoners of war in World War II • Aaron Burr • July 1936 military uprising in Barcelona • Java War • Hugh Roe O'Donnell • Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists • Fernald Feed Materials Production Center • Cuscatlán Battalion • Killing of Yahya Sinwar • Donavon F. Smith • Beaune-la-Rolande internment camp • Arthur Herbert Thompson • Gordon Klingenschmitt • Soviet submarine L-4 • Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station • HNLMS Piet Hein (1927) • Battle of Edington • Joe Kent • Émilienne Morin • James "Spanish" Blake • Raid on Tybee Island • Airport of the Pacific • Prince of Ning rebellion • Edwin Boxshall • John S. Bennett • CRINK • M1844 32-pounder howitzer • Vinod Bhatia • HMS Heroine (1783) • Guy of Lusignan • Kanawha Valley Campaign of 1862 • Ahmad Shah Durrani • Pikysyry campaign • New Coimbra Fort • SMS Habicht (1860) • Owodo • SMS Jaguar • SMS Scorpion (1877) • SMS Hay (1881) • James E. Jackson • Trichy assault rifle • HMS Sepoy (1918) • William J. Fox • Proclamation 4483 • Baldwin I of Jerusalem • John S. Westcott • Alan Macfarlane Sloan • Battle of Manupur • Song Sanghyŏn • French ship Suffren (1803) • United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps • Lam Sơn uprising • Mukund Varadarajan • Battle of Mynydd Hyddgen • Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood • Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) • Type VII submarine • Battle of Hrvatska Kostajnica Good article reassessments Oleg the Wise • Siege of Fort William Henry • Manuel Belgrano • German submarine U-853 • Haapsalu Castle • Satake clan • British Army during the First World War • Max Boot • The Good, the Bad and the Ugly • Suharto Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (151,940) • only work on referencing and citation (43,053) • work on coverage and accuracy (128,039) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,940) • work on structure (32,333) • only work on structure (346) • work on grammar (8,178) • only work on grammar (53) • work on supporting materials (33,127) • only work on supporting materials (407) • assessment (3) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (1) • assessment checklists added (2) • assessment checklists completed (5) • task forces added (2) • attention to task force coverage (647)

Requests for project input

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.

Requested move at Talk:2025 Cambodia–Thailand border conflict#Requested move 26 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Cambodia–Thailand border conflict#Requested move 26 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)#Requested move 11 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)#Requested move 11 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2025 Dhaka fighter jet crash#Requested move 22 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Dhaka fighter jet crash#Requested move 22 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wahhabi war#Requested move 22 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wahhabi war#Requested move 22 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present)#Requested move 25 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present)#Requested move 25 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash#Requested move 27 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash#Requested move 27 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

B-Class Assessment Request: Charles Thau

Hello, I’d like to request a reassessment of the article Charles Thau, currently rated C-class. I believe it now meets the B-class criteria and would appreciate a review. Below is the checklist:

B-Class checklist

B-Class checklist

| 1 = N
| 2 = y
| 3 = y
| 4 = y
| 5 = y
| 6 = y

Comments

The article covers the life and military history of Charles "Chaim" Thau, a Jewish partisan during the Holocaust who later served as a Red Army translator during World War II. It is structured with appropriate sections (Early life, Partisan resistance, Red Army, Postwar period, Recognition), is well-sourced using reliable publications (e.g., *Der Spiegel*, *Freie Presse*, *The Forward*, *Military History Now*, *Milwaukee Journal*, *Dayton Daiy News*), and includes a historical image with proper licensing. All six criteria appear to be met. The article has been stable and neutrality was last confirmed in June 2025.

COI has been declared on the Talk page.

Thank you! Milwaukee911 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added three citation needed tags. All paragraphs, even if they are only one sentence long, need to end with a citation. When those are added, the article will meet B class criteria. Requests for assessment should be made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. They are more likely to receive faster attention from editors who regularly assess articles for B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks much Donner60! Appreciate your guidance! Milwaukee911 (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Completed in later item below. Donner60 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Kingdom of Italy vs. Fascist Italy

Does anyone remember a debate about which to use, after someone began to change Kingdom of Italy to Fascist Italy in infoboxes then had them changed back? I'd like to refer to it but don't know where to look. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Ahem! Didn't bother to check first. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Technically, my own stance was to use the Kingdom of Italy on infoboxes but we should not forget about Fascist Italy either, instead, we should list it on the body of the article (if it is supported by reliable source) since I believed Fascist Italy is the common term used by historians to describe the Kingdom of Italy during the Fascist period from 1922 to 1943. Suggestions?.... PrimeNick (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Fascist Italy is not a country. It is a term equivalent to "Edwardian England" or "Biden administration", which are also common terms used by historians to describe a country in a particular period. Do not use it in the Infoboxes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you put that rather well. Pity that infoboxes excite such interest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. It looks like we got an agreement here but I think we need others about their opinion...... PrimeNick (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Support just having Italy in infoboxes. I notice every German WWII ship infobox has Nazi Germany as the country, to my mind the same logic should apply and these should just be Germany Lyndaship (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it should be just Italy on infoboxes, but what link should we use, is it either the Fascist Italy or the Kingdom of Italy?

Italy (Fascist Italy)

---

Italy (Kingdom of Italy)

PrimeNick (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Eyes needed at List of military operations on the Eastern Front of World War II

An editor has added a large number of unsourced list items, whose names are either red links or links to disambiguation pages - ie there is no sourcing supplied in this list. (I was alerted when I had a report of a link to a disambiguation page I'd created.) PamD 09:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete them. They can be added back when the article is created. A long list of red links to articles that do not exist and may never exist is of no use to the readers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Request for 2nd for B-Class Assessment :Charles Thau

Hello All, This is a 2nd request to assess this article to B-class: Charles Thau

As indicated in the below grading, the 1st request was satisfactory with all checklist items except Referencing and citation.

B-Class checklist

1st attempted results to satisfy B-Class checklist

| 1 = N
| 2 = y
| 3 = y
| 4 = y
| 5 = y
| 6 = y

All known shortfalls to the citations and references are now corrected, as well as the addition of more than three (3) new citations as your reviewers clearly conveyed as lacking.

This article now was re-verified against the B-class checklist, and believe all the criterion are met.

Comments: The article covers the life and military history of Charles "Chaim" Thau, a Jewish partisan during the Holocaust who later served as a Red Army translator during World War II. It is structured with appropriate sections (Early life, Partisan resistance, Red Army, Postwar period, Recognition), is well-sourced using reliable publications (e.g., *Der Spiegel*, *Freie Presse*, *The Forward*, *Military History Now*, *Milwaukee Journal*, *Dayton Daiy News*), and includes a historical image with proper licensing. All six criteria appear to be met. The article has been stable and neutrality was last confirmed in June 2025.

COI has been declared on the Talk page.

Respectfully request a 2nd assessment toward meeting B-Class rating. Milwaukee911 (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Assessed B class. Thanks. 04:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Strength of subdivisions of Roman Legions and calones

The edits by 2603:8081:4D08:3642:936:C3F8:1AEB:D090 include "support staff" among the strength of various sub-divisions of the Roman Legions. This "support" refers to the calones, military slaves discussed in some detail in e.g. this source. That's problematic. Firstly, sources generally do not include the calones when discussing these strengths. For example, the contubernium as set by Augustus is given by the same source as "eight men" (p. 21), which does not include any calones or "support". Secondly, some of 2603's edits, e.g. this, include the calones not just in the count of "men" but "legionaries", which the unfree calones weren't. Thirdly, there is little clarity in sources about the number of calones per sub-division, and none of the edits by 2603 cite a source confirming the given numbers. For these reasons I'll partially revert those edits and give the strengths of subdivisions on a legionnaires-only basis while noting that they were accompanied by unfree support staff. Huon (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Which article(s) are we discussing? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Contubernium (Roman army unit), Centuria and List of Roman army unit types, as given in Special:Contributions/2603:8081:4D08:3642:936:C3F8:1AEB:D090. The edits to Cohort (military unit) had been reverted immediately, so I didn't need to edit that one. Huon (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

U-boat.net user generated?

Since when is u-boat.net considered [1] user generated? I know that there have been discussions about its reliability before, but I've never seen it concluded that it is user generated.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Potential protection needed for several articles Input needed on how best to display information

@Buckshot06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of ADM files as references

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lieutenant General Sir Charles Dobell

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

Alma Mater

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

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

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