Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 176
![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 170 | ← | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | Archive 176 |
This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- I agree to some extent.
- Maybe keep the article but maybe add "a dubious battle used by the kurds as propanganda" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, The article is cited by so many kurdish websites or sources, marked as a kurdish claim there isn't even a single book (English or western source) or academic source that is cited there, It talks about a battle that happened during the 1980s Which means During Iran Iraq War, There are so many scholars and plenty of books that described the war with it's operations, battles, etc.. and I don't think they have mentioned the "Battle of Hamek" in anywhere, Otherwise users would have added it in some redirect or a create a new page with it. On the other hand it gave off some type of Exaggeration, additionally one of Wikipedia policy is that you should use verified sources or scholarly sources, the article hasn't got any of that.. I suggest we nominate this article for deletion. Best R3YBOl (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Would not suggest delete, but instead mark it as a propaganda myth from the kurds Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well this is not the first article that these sources were used, and it's not the first article that was made without Reliable sources, You can see these list of articles that also was made, For example this page Penjwen Revolt the Kurdish sources itself describe this revolt as a Suppressed revolt,I hope if some Administrators check this article additionally with these articles:Battle of Haj Omran (1966), Kirkuk executions (1991), Sulaymaniyah massacre, and Displacement of Arabs in Kirkuk under KRG administration. I am not trying to accuse anyone personally, but it's worth nothing that the user who created Penjwen Revolt and created other articles I mentioned, and there appears to be a possible pattern of battleground mentality or POV-pushing in their editing behavior, A closer review might be necessary. R3YBOl (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Tonnes of POV-pushing in kurdish related topics. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Would like to state that I've seen the creator of this page on other sides, and it's clear why he makes them (nationalist purposes). Although this doesn't always mean that the pages are unreliable, in this case it seems to definitely be for Kurd nationalism purposes rather than helping out Wikipedia. Setergh (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Tonnes of POV-pushing in kurdish related topics. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure how one can do this though? I mean, I don't know any issue template as such, and we can't state this without a source. Setergh (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well this is not the first article that these sources were used, and it's not the first article that was made without Reliable sources, You can see these list of articles that also was made, For example this page Penjwen Revolt the Kurdish sources itself describe this revolt as a Suppressed revolt,I hope if some Administrators check this article additionally with these articles:Battle of Haj Omran (1966), Kirkuk executions (1991), Sulaymaniyah massacre, and Displacement of Arabs in Kirkuk under KRG administration. I am not trying to accuse anyone personally, but it's worth nothing that the user who created Penjwen Revolt and created other articles I mentioned, and there appears to be a possible pattern of battleground mentality or POV-pushing in their editing behavior, A closer review might be necessary. R3YBOl (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Would not suggest delete, but instead mark it as a propaganda myth from the kurds Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, The article is cited by so many kurdish websites or sources, marked as a kurdish claim there isn't even a single book (English or western source) or academic source that is cited there, It talks about a battle that happened during the 1980s Which means During Iran Iraq War, There are so many scholars and plenty of books that described the war with it's operations, battles, etc.. and I don't think they have mentioned the "Battle of Hamek" in anywhere, Otherwise users would have added it in some redirect or a create a new page with it. On the other hand it gave off some type of Exaggeration, additionally one of Wikipedia policy is that you should use verified sources or scholarly sources, the article hasn't got any of that.. I suggest we nominate this article for deletion. Best R3YBOl (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Setergh@R3YBOl Wikipedia:Dashboard
- Update:
- The creator of the article, User:Gueevkobani appears to be affiliated with the Kurds and may have potential COI. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see that. Setergh (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Setergh, Thehistorianisaac, and R3YBOl: There are several noticeboards where matters such as these can be posted to get administrator and even community consensus. One of the more general administrator noticeboards might be an appropriate one to report this. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and subdivisions such as incidents for the right one. Note the guidelines for posting and user talk page notice to a user being reported.
- In addition to administrator noticeboards, for more general information on other noticeboards, as well see Wikipedia:Dashboard. Many of the of the topics listed in addition to the administrator boards seem to be single topic notice boards. I am not sure whether these are directly related to the main administrator notice boards. I also am not sure it is appropriate to list on several of these with respect to several problems caused by the same editor. In any event, these appear to include Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard It seems to me that this is the type of situation where trying to resolve issues on talk pages would be futile.
- Note that while I am familiar with the existence of these noticeboards, I have almost no experience in using or commenting on them in nearly 15 years on Wikipedia. I am just bringing these to your attention, especially since some further action may be needed and you may wish to, and to be in the best position due to your familiarity with the problems, to take the action by reporting with the facts and your observations. This problem seems to require administrator attention and handling to make any real progress with it.Donner60 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Adding this note in case anyone will want to add to or correct what I wrote above - or in case you may want to pursue this in some way. This type of problem is not novel, of course. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice! I had asked on the (biggest) Wikipedia discord and I was told to go here, hence why I did. Setergh (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Setergh, Thehistorianisaac, and R3YBOl: There are several noticeboards where matters such as these can be posted to get administrator and even community consensus. One of the more general administrator noticeboards might be an appropriate one to report this. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and subdivisions such as incidents for the right one. Note the guidelines for posting and user talk page notice to a user being reported.
- A user on Reddit claims to have written this article: https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/ Fernweh0 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see that. I also see posts like "Can someone gives me names of battle between the Kurdistan Region and Iraq which ended in a kurdish victory? I need it for an edit", so I find it quite clear that the user who made the article about Hamek may not be trying to serve Wikipedia's best interests to begin with. Setergh (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Upon looking at the article, it’s pretty evident that this is the case. Lots of subjective language (resolute defense, unwavering resolve, courageous Peshmergas, etc.) and referring to the Iraqi side as “the enemy”. I’m going to place an encyclopedic language template, even if we are reworking the article to a propaganda battle there still is quite a bit of language to change. Tylermack999 (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see that. Setergh (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Another thought: the idea that ~12 militants fended off a superior force of around 8,000 WITH helicopter support is incredibly dubious. At the very least, why would the Iraqi forces have withdrawn if they had such a large force and had only taken 87 casualties (62 killed, 25 wounded according to the article)? You would think they would've at least attempted to besiege the village considering they supposedly "surrounded it". Everything about the details of the battle seem either massively exaggerated or come off as outright fiction. Tylermack999 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I’ve taken a quick surveillance pass across the article; it does appear more as a minor footnote, and some of the language does suggest a particular point of view. That being said, unlinked articles from the battle article given in the header suggest some truth to what’s being reported, primarily within the greater context of the apparent Destruction of Kurdish villages during the Iraqi Arabization campaign which matches the year given. Under the circumstances, it may be more appropriate to redirect the article here for more context and better references. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- May have misunderstood, but have you found any better references to be exact? I don't fully understand what you mean by matching whatever year given, and I still have no clue what reliable sources may mention such a battle. Setergh (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies for the misunderstanding and apparent confusion here. The linked article in the header is given as Battle of Hamek, it claims that pershmergas fought Iraqi Baathist soldiers in 1982. According to the internet, Hamek is a village in the vicinity of kirkut. According to the article on kirkut, it was part of a major ethnic cleansing campaign from about the mid 70s to the late 80s (figure c.75-c.89). This fits the time frame the alleged battle occurred, suggesting that the battle may have been part of larger and then ongoing destruction of the Kurdish villages during the Iraqi arabization campaign. If so, then the article could be safely redirected to one of the Iraqi arabization pages to better cover the content. A further look back into the article history though shows that the article could have been hijacked, it’s first edits are about a more ancient battle, and a thread on Reddit [1] suggests there could be a copyright violation here as well. In short, we could redirect it, but if we are keeping it we need to roll up our sleeves and do a lot more work to either polish the article or better source the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 229, May 2025
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Quite surprised to see we don't have an article on this, and for it not to be mentioned at Military history#Historiography of military history, some sources for anyone interested:
- Palgrave Advances in Modern Military History, chapter: New military history (2006)
- Handbook of Military Sciences, entry: “New” Military History (2025)
- The "New Military History" and Army Historians (1984)
Kowal2701 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Origin of battlefield archaeology
There is a discussion about the origin of battlefield archaeology that may be of interest to members of this project here. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Partial reply. Official Marine Corps sources online support the sparse text. Each of the three units also have separate pages. The immediate problem for me in providing the sources is that I could not readily discern whether the composition of the three component units is the same as when the article was first added to Wikipedia. Maybe someone can pick this up from here. I can't spend more time on it now. I committed to work on a GA reassessment in addition to usual coordinator tasks that I handle. I have a few "real life" commitments presently as well. If this sits long enough without improvement, I will try to look at the sources again to see if the current composition of the units and necessary citations can be found and added. I thought it would be a little progress to post this note about available sources online. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Is Military Factory a reliable source?
https://www.militaryfactory.com/
What do you guys think? Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not really. It has no clear ties to a media publication and is a self-published source. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- It has been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard both in 2018 and in 2022 and both times it has been characterised as scraping content from other sources with no oversight. I'd steer well clear - Dumelow (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Possible conflict of interest question
Editor 12.171.47.210 has used data from BRUCE OLIVER NEWSOME, I wonder if the books are self-published and should be subject to scrutiny in case the editor and the author are the same. Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly seem to be self-published - one of the books is published by "Tank Archives Press", which is described here as "the brainchild of Bruce Oliver Newsome". Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Should Leslie McNair be included in the infobox of Operation Cobra if he held no command
Currently the "commanders and leaders" section of the infobox for Operation Cobra lists Lesley McNair, who was killed in action due to friendly fire during the battle and was the highest ranking US officer to be KIA in the European Theater of Operations. However, at the time McNair had no actual command and was listed commander of the fake First United States Army Group only there as an observer to add to the deception tactics of Operation Quicksilver. There should definitely be more written about McNair in the article itself and also there should be a mention of his death in the lede, but I don't think he should be listed in the infobox as he didn't command any combat units. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I will remove him for now per WP:BEBOLD, but also added a discussion at Talk:Operation Cobra. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Does the scope of WP:MILHIST also include unarmed coast guards?
Does the scope of WP:MILHIST also include unarmed coast guards like the CMSA or the Canadian coast guard? Additionally, do unarmed coast guards used for paramilitary purposes like the CMS fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST even though they are unarmed? On the same topic, do armed agencies with a civilian law enforcement role (like the CBP Air and Marine Operations) fall under WP:MILHIST?
If there are no rules on this yet, I propose one of 5 solutions:
- All coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST
- Only armed, military coast guards like the USCG or CCG fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST
- Unarmed coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST if they are used for non-search and rescue military purposes (e.g. CMS)
- Unarmed coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST if they are organizationally under the military, such as Mexican Maritime Search and Rescue
- All armed coast guards with military weapons(e.g. CBPAMO) fall under WP:MILHIST regardless of role
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would say (4). Even if unarmed, if they are organizationally part of the military, they're...well...part of the military. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you that agencies organizationally under the military fall under WP:MILHIST, though this could lead to some pretty funny situations, such as with the China Fire Services , who as part of the MPSASF were manned by People's armed Police personnel (though in terms of command it was under the ministry of public security) and whose firefighters were often referred to "soldiers" in chinese media and received active service member benefits(In fact, i saw on social media people claiming to be CFS veterans say CFS firefighters were armed, though I found no reliable sources on this).
- That said, I do agree that all agencies under the military or manned by what is legally speaking military personnel should fall under WP:MILHIST, regardless of their role. Main problem is whether unarmed agencies not under the military with military roles or armed agencies with a civilian law enforcement role should fall under WP:MILHIST, like the CMS and CBPAMO Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is clear that coast guards which are not under military control are not within the scope of the project. Civilian law enforcement and search and rescue by non-military coast guards cannot be considered "military" in any sense without military control, as I interpret the topics we cover. I know about some strange organizational set-ups by the Chinese and used the same interpretation to find one of them within the scope of the project (reluctantly) while I would have considered it outside the scope before the reorganization. I think that the Chinese calling firefighters and others "soldiers" is a euphemism used for their own purposes (morale?, more general government control? something else?) that we cannot take literally for purposes of the project. See note 2 of what topics do we cover. I have done quite a few bot assessment reviews and there are occasional close calls or judgment calls. I think the coast guard variations do not present one of them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- CMSA and canadian coast guard I agree that it should not count as WP:MILHIST
- For pre-2018 Chinese firefighters, there can be some debate; Post 2018 chinese firefighters are definitely not under Wikiproject military history; If you want the full context see Ministry of Public Security Active Service Forces#China Fire Services and People's Armed Police#Forestry Corps; Regarding your claim that the term "Soldiers" was used as a euphemism, firefighters being referred as "soldiers" only really happened between 1982 and 2018 during the existence of the China Fire Services, and it only referred to the CFS firefighters who were people's armed police personnel, NOT volunteer or private firefighters which were simply referred to as "firefighters". The official use of the term "soldiers" does not happen to National fire and rescue administration firefighters since they are officially civilian government employees.
- Summary:
- People's Armed Police Forestry Corps When it was originally founded in 1949 it was meant to conduct forest patrol and counterinsurgency against IJA and KMT holdouts. After the 60s it primarily was used to fight forest fires, however some forestry corps personnel were still seen with guns in photos and they also partially had a law enforcement role. After 2018 it became provincial forest fire contignents and lost their firearms and law enforcement role. Between 1982-2018 it was under the command of the PAP.
- China Fire Services /Firefighting corps: From start to end it was always primarily a firefighting agency HOWEVER was part of the MPSASF meaning it was under the command of the Ministry of public security however were manned by PAP personnel and had military ranks. However unlike the forestry corps it was always solely used for firefighting, although apparently they were also used in show of force parades(from some biographies on the Ministry of Public Security website's Honor roll), and according to some less then reliable sources on Chinese social media claiming to be CFS veterans, they would have firearms.
- Both PAPFC and CFS firefighters were considered active service members since they were from the People's armed police and would receive veterans benefits. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is clear that coast guards which are not under military control are not within the scope of the project. Civilian law enforcement and search and rescue by non-military coast guards cannot be considered "military" in any sense without military control, as I interpret the topics we cover. I know about some strange organizational set-ups by the Chinese and used the same interpretation to find one of them within the scope of the project (reluctantly) while I would have considered it outside the scope before the reorganization. I think that the Chinese calling firefighters and others "soldiers" is a euphemism used for their own purposes (morale?, more general government control? something else?) that we cannot take literally for purposes of the project. See note 2 of what topics do we cover. I have done quite a few bot assessment reviews and there are occasional close calls or judgment calls. I think the coast guard variations do not present one of them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- FYI I usually follow 3 and 4 when it comes to adding wikiprojects to the talk page banner shell. 4 is due to them being in the military after all, and 3 is because many coast guards similar to the CMS are associated with the military. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- For me the general rule would be (4), but with the possibility open for exceptions where relevant. For instance, the canonical example in my opinion would be the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, whose actions during Dunkirk certainly merit scope of coverage under MILHIST, but they're a purely civilian entity.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- !vote for #1 because... sure, why not? - \\'cԼF 05:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is, presumably, a discussion concerning an amendment to or a clarification of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover?, and this talk page is absolutely the right place to do that. But on a procedural note, this shouldn't have been taken to an RfC. There are two reasons for this:
- I see no indication that a prior discussion on this matter has reached deadlock (see WP:RFCBEFORE)
- It has long been established that each WikiProject defines its own scope (this is one of the few areas where WP:OWN does not apply), so it should be a discussion for Milhist participants. An RfC pulls in all manner of random outsiders. Like me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh ok understood. thanks for the clarification. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I quite agree and suggest that this be closed and a discussion opened as whether and why we need to do more than consider each "coast guard" article against what the reliable sources say. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Concur; we don't need to try to adopt some project-wide decision about scope when each situation is a little different. Each should be evaluated on their own, based on what the sources say. And if there's a dispute about a specific service, then we can resort to a project discussion/RfC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Thehistorianisaac, Gog the Mild, and Parsecboy: Indeed, we would first determine what is in the scope of the project from whether reliable sources clearly put the subject of an article within our stated topics. I did not mean to imply otherwise (if I did).
- Ambiguity can arise, however, when the article does not have much content that is military. Also, ambiguity might arise if there are few, if any, reliable sources in English and if as many as we have from citations in an article or can find in a further quick search about a topic do not give enough specific information about the control, affiliation or details concerning an organization, incident, operation or person.
- I think a coast guard being armed, especially only with small arms, is not determinative if only law enforcement or rescue is the task and is the clear subject of an article (without more). Even civilian coast guards might carry small arms. Note 2 also mentions other excludable possibilities. There probably will continue to be some close calls on whether articles are within our scope. Reliable sources may often, but maybe not always, be available and lead us to sure and indisputable assessments.
- We can try to be sure our guidelines are clear enough and comprehensive and enough to make appropriate decisions and to amend them if necessary. Of course, this is a project matter and we would likely find comments by random users who do not participate in writing or reviewing military articles helpful. This should not be the subject of a Wikipedia-wide vote, for sure. This has arisen with respect to a certain category of articles but it seems to me it could arise about other article topics apparently on the margin of the project.
- In the end, a coordinator or other assessor occasionally will need to make their best judgment with the sources available and within the guidelines.
- Offered for what all this random analysis this late at night may be worth as we consider further steps. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Updated no 2 to only include military armed coast guards;
- For the "reliable sources" part, categorization into one of the 5 categories only occurs if there is agreement on which one it is Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Thehistorianisaac, Gog the Mild, and Parsecboy: Indeed, we would first determine what is in the scope of the project from whether reliable sources clearly put the subject of an article within our stated topics. I did not mean to imply otherwise (if I did).
- Concur; we don't need to try to adopt some project-wide decision about scope when each situation is a little different. Each should be evaluated on their own, based on what the sources say. And if there's a dispute about a specific service, then we can resort to a project discussion/RfC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note to everyone:
- Number 2 now specifically refers to military armed coast guards like CCG and USCG Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Translation of sources in KrAZ-260
Can somebody please translate the titles or links of the sources. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Did I translate this correctly?
Recently translated the Chinese Milita's oath; Can somebody make sure I translated it properly? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
HMS Ringdove

Is this the 1806 ship or the 1833 ship? Needs categorization at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: This is HMS Ringdove (1833); see the caption mentioning John Tarleton as first lieutenant. Per his O'Byrne he was in Ringdove from 1837 to 1841, which is inclusive of the date of the image. The image is replicated in Winfield's 1817-1863 volume, confirming it as the Ringdove of the Racer class of brig-sloops. Per that caption, the author is H. John Vernon. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- The National Maritime Museum holds a finer version of the image, coloured, here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, another image categorized.
Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, another image categorized.
- The National Maritime Museum holds a finer version of the image, coloured, here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
New article about tattoo policies
I just started the article at military tattoo policies because there was a chunk of material on this topic in history of tattooing that didn't really belong there. I'd love for people to check it out, fix any issues, and add more historical context. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
At the uploading of the original cropped version in 2008, this was identified as being taken by PFC David Epstein (US Army). However, NARA does not so identify it, and I can't find any particular information to confirm this attribution. Anyone have something? We don't want to be the source of errors when avoidable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not directly related, but are we really going with the continued use of that file name? I think history is quite clear that that is primarily an image of a man being tortured. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Fair point. Perhaps if we rename it to the caption at Stress position? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- That seems OK, but if anyone has access to reliable sources that use, and caption, the image, they may be useful indicators of which way to go. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm giving it a few days for further comment. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 18:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's in Taylor & Francis Online, titled "A suspected National Liberation Front prisoner awaits interrogation at a Special Forces Detachment close to Da Nang in 1967." It's in the NYT, but behind a paywall. Latham's Quarterly "A Vietcong prisoner awaits interrogation at the A-109 Special Forces detachment at Thuong Duc, January 23, 1967." Neue Zürcher Zeitung [2] "A captured Viet Cong fighter awaits interrogation by American special forces in Thuong Duc in January 1967." Most source it to U.S. National Archives, Identifier Number 531447. I assume there may be a certain amount of circular and unstated referencing, but, still, plenty of RSs using the title. None that I have found credit the photographer. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Very strange to my mind, but if that's what they call it then we keep it like that. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I'd imagine that's the catalogue name for it; doesn't mean it's not minimising the content. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Any information as to photographer? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- None of the photos I looked at had a photographer credited, and a more specific search for "Epstein" threw up nothing. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Then I think I'll leave it as is. Better than being the source of potentially false information. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 12:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- None of the photos I looked at had a photographer credited, and a more specific search for "Epstein" threw up nothing. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Very strange to my mind, but if that's what they call it then we keep it like that. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's in Taylor & Francis Online, titled "A suspected National Liberation Front prisoner awaits interrogation at a Special Forces Detachment close to Da Nang in 1967." It's in the NYT, but behind a paywall. Latham's Quarterly "A Vietcong prisoner awaits interrogation at the A-109 Special Forces detachment at Thuong Duc, January 23, 1967." Neue Zürcher Zeitung [2] "A captured Viet Cong fighter awaits interrogation by American special forces in Thuong Duc in January 1967." Most source it to U.S. National Archives, Identifier Number 531447. I assume there may be a certain amount of circular and unstated referencing, but, still, plenty of RSs using the title. None that I have found credit the photographer. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm giving it a few days for further comment. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 18:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- That seems OK, but if anyone has access to reliable sources that use, and caption, the image, they may be useful indicators of which way to go. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Fair point. Perhaps if we rename it to the caption at Stress position? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Regia Aeronautica question
Kingdom of Italy Is this the right one for Regia Aeronautica tables? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh come on, I'm not that boring. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not boring, just more information needed. Explain a little further: which tables? MinorProphet (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was putting the Operation Pedestal orders of battle into tables and couldn't find an air force flagicon. Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not boring, just more information needed. Explain a little further: which tables? MinorProphet (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh come on, I'm not that boring. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Which Panther?

Hi all, I wondered if anyone could identify which Ausf. of Panther tank is shown in this photo. Any other details, however minor, would be welcome. I'm including it in my nearly-finished draft at User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/WW2 ZF gearboxes: any comments or edits would be welcome, particularly the perceived usefulness of the whole 'Background' section. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- There's a meme in that, given the very phallic shape of the gearbox. More seriously, I think seeing the internals is a unique perspective, so I'd probably include it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 12:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Either an Ausf. A of G, given that it has the ball mount for the MG34 (as seen here, as opposed to the earlier Ausf. D, which did not). Given that the G only began production in March 1944, it's more than likely an A. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that it isn't a D because of the gun port. It's not a late G because it doesn't have the updated turret which removed the shot trap. I'm not discarding the possibility of it being an early G rather than an A, because the photograph is actually dated May-June in the archives, giving slightly more leeway on production and delivery. I believe another difference between A and G was an updated hull, but this is apparently most obvious at the rear of the vehicle. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, while I'm not an expert, I'm going G here. The A had a visual port to the right (facing) of the gun port which the G didn't, and the A had the headlight on the hull while the G had it on the track cover. While it isn't easy from the image to see whether there is another port next to the gun, the headlight is clearly on the track cover rather than the hull. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is, by the way, part of a series of images held by the archive. There is another that provides a frontal view which may be of interest to those with more expertise than I. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, while I'm not an expert, I'm going G here. The A had a visual port to the right (facing) of the gun port which the G didn't, and the A had the headlight on the hull while the G had it on the track cover. While it isn't easy from the image to see whether there is another port next to the gun, the headlight is clearly on the track cover rather than the hull. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that it isn't a D because of the gun port. It's not a late G because it doesn't have the updated turret which removed the shot trap. I'm not discarding the possibility of it being an early G rather than an A, because the photograph is actually dated May-June in the archives, giving slightly more leeway on production and delivery. I believe another difference between A and G was an updated hull, but this is apparently most obvious at the rear of the vehicle. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Either an Ausf. A of G, given that it has the ball mount for the MG34 (as seen here, as opposed to the earlier Ausf. D, which did not). Given that the G only began production in March 1944, it's more than likely an A. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks all for your welcome contribs. The second shot that P-C refers to[3] shows that the crane is mounted on one of the half-tracks - somewhere (hah! Spielberger somewhere?) there is an identification chart showing the different-shaped holes in the road wheels...
-
- So, I dug around in my extensive library and re-discovered Panzer Tracts 5-3. Page 5-153 shows 24 rim bolts on the roadwheels as opposed to 16 on the D (Panzer Tracts 5-1, p. 127.) Pz.Tracts 5-2, p. 5-89, shows the driver's/radio hatches (shown on the ground in the pic) set at a distinct angle with a semicircular inner edge, so maybe not an A either... Pz.Tr. 5-3, p. 5-156, shows the square-set driver's/radio operator's hatch - but without grab handles, which may indicate some sort of G... but not a late G from September 1944 with rubber-cushioned road wheels with no rim bolts , given the date of May 1944.(Pz.Tr. 5-3 p. 190)
-
- And yet, aha! On Panzer Tracts 5-3, p. 5-194, is Hilary Doyle's exact drawing of the hatches with 'bump stop' and grab handle. I'm going with Pickersgill-Cunliffe with an Ausf. G of some sort. Many thanks, MinorProphet (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Found that ID chart of half-track road wheels,[4] 8 round holes, so it's probably a 6-ton crane mounted on a Sd.Kfz.9/1. MinorProphet (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- And yet, aha! On Panzer Tracts 5-3, p. 5-194, is Hilary Doyle's exact drawing of the hatches with 'bump stop' and grab handle. I'm going with Pickersgill-Cunliffe with an Ausf. G of some sort. Many thanks, MinorProphet (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Do these Chinese military award/decoration guarantee notability?
So, most countries have a military award where, anything above it is notable. In USA, usually it is the medal of honor or stuff like the navy cross. As for China, I think we can all agree the recipients of the August 1 Medal and Order of Heroic Exemplar (defunct) are definitely notable. However, I would like to hear your thoughts on whether these awards/decorations also warrant notability:
- Martyr status - Very high award overall, however keep in mind all of them are dead. And they can also be handed out in groups, like all the firefighters killed in the 2015 Tianjin Explosions or all 16 border policemen killed in the 2008 Kashgar Attack.
- Meritorious service medal 1st class - It's still a pretty high decoration but bit more common
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- There is no level of award that guarantees notability; WP:SOLDIER advised that top level awards for valour were "usually safe" indicators of notability but that was only ever an essay and is now deprecated. The relevant Wikipedia guideline for notability of people is WP:BIO, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. You would need to assess potential article subjects on an individual basis as to whether they cross the threshold - Dumelow (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- No. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven@Dumelow May I ask what happened to WP:SOLDIER? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- No idea, I assume people just decided that as an SNG, it creates too many dubious exceptions. One line stubs that are list entries and no enclypodoc ones. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RfC or something about it a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly the main point of dispute centered on rank for notability, but decorations (especially those of the third rank or lower) also factored in. Intothatdarkness 15:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I still would assume the highest military decoration typically would be notable in most cases, considering the amount of the secondary sources, and well, it's still the highest military decoration. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- If there are secondary sources establishing their notability, use those. Also highest and "very high" aren't the same. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- There is a wide gap between typicality and a guarantee. If I remember correctly one of the problems we encountered with Soviet and PRC awards is that especially early on you have a number of awards given to fictional or semi-fictional people or given to real people for fictional acts for propaganda purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I still would assume the highest military decoration typically would be notable in most cases, considering the amount of the secondary sources, and well, it's still the highest military decoration. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RfC or something about it a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly the main point of dispute centered on rank for notability, but decorations (especially those of the third rank or lower) also factored in. Intothatdarkness 15:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who lived through this, I can state that WP:SOLDIER was originally intended to be an exclusionary SNG-like essay, adopted in Wikipedia's early days when a high concern was random newbies writing new articles about their worthy veteran relatives. SOLDIER was established to clearly define a floor of qualifications below which it might be difficult to support an article with RS. Over time, newer editors began treating SOLDIER as inclusionary, that is, the subject might be presumed notable because they met some or all of those criteria. Eventually this project corrected itself, by re-establishing the higher GNG and ANYBIO as the best thresholds for inclusion. WP:SPORTSPERSON is an example of the sorts of policies which are more modern, since it requires sourcing directly detailing. BusterD (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- No idea, I assume people just decided that as an SNG, it creates too many dubious exceptions. One line stubs that are list entries and no enclypodoc ones. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Image discussion (2025) at Talk:Second Cold War
Link: Talk:Second Cold War#Consensus on "event" to warrant images or infobox. George Ho (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
1917 French Army mutinies
1917 French Army mutinies Does anyone have a copy of Poitevin, Pierre (1938). La mutinerie de La Courtine: les régiments russes révoltés en 1917 au centre de la France [The Mutiny of La Courtine: The Rebellion of the Russian Regiments in 1917 in Central France]. Collection de mémoires, études et documents pour servir à l'histoire de la guerre mondiale (in French). Paris: Editions Payot. OCLC 715735154, it is cited without page numbers, does anyone have them? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think you'll be lucky. The British Library has a copy. It also has a copy of Pedroncini, but only the original edition and not the 1983 edition cited in the article (which is also without page numbers). I wonder if much more material was released after the centenary and whether any French historians have covered it. The French language article doesn't indicate much new. —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Identity of soldiers in a Franco-Prussian war painting

Hello, are all the soldiers in the painting on the left Prussian? Or maybe the one in the red uniform is French? And are the soldiers in the blue uniform Prussian, or come from an other German army? פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 15:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- The two in dark uniforms with red facings are uhlans. In the right corner is the concierge and her daughter. Von Werner was travelling with the Prussian Army to prepare for a painting of Helmuth von Moltke the Elder with his staff, and as this painting is before the siege of Paris ended (this building is Chateau de Brunoy outside Paris), I think it likely all soldiers present are German, and probably Prussian. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- The red-dressed man on the right is German, wearing a husar jacket and a cap for enlisted men. The cockade looks like Prussia (white and black, or black white black), though I'm not entirely sure about that with the angle and grading. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you two! פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 18:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about the Prussian army of this war but I do have a copy of the Osprey Men At Arms which covers the uniform distinctions quite well. As far as I can tell the gold, square-edged collar and the lace bar on the cuff on the standing Uhlan officer marks him as belong to the Guards (as does the yellow lace bars on the collar of uhlan trooper playing the piano). Red trim and epaulettes with gold buttons would place them with the Prussian 2nd Guards Uhlans. I think the hussar is a trooper of either the 3rd (Brandeburg) or 5th (Pomeranian) Prussian regiments, depending on if the jacket is "red" or "madder red" and the undress cap band is black or dark blue respectively. There's nothing obvious from the cuffs, collars and buttons I can see of the two men in armchairs to place them - Dumelow (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Got round to finishing it and wonder if the military operation box is enough? I added the Atlantic campaignbox and put Eisbar in it but I'm not sure if it's the right place. Suggestions welcome. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Re-read the military box advice and added the military conflict infobox after all. Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Heavy guns
As noted at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Is there such a thing as a "heavy gunner" in real life?, the page Heavy gun is a redirect to Heavy machine gun, but most occurrences of "heavy gun" appear to refer to crew-served artillery. Perhaps those here with knowledge and understanding could judge how appropriate this is, and possibly find a more appropriate link? -- Verbarson talkedits 19:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I've just stumbled onto the above page via a Reddit thread. This WWII operation has scattered mentions in secondary sources, but most of them are not more than a couple pages long. The article itself says that this operation is "relatively unknown". Unless I've missed something, it doesn't meet WP:N.
But while I'd go ahead and redirect it, there's no clean place for it: the operation had objectives in both the Netherlands and Germany, and our articles are split by that (Netherlands in World War II § Final year, Rhineland Offensive, Western Allied invasion of Germany, etc.). Does anyone here have a better suggestion? Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Leave it as it is. I have good sources for it, and can fill in the references. It is not actually part of the Rhineland Offensive (now there's a really poor article). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, it's one of several thousand articles I haven't go round to. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- A battle fought between two corps-sized formations in western Europe is highly likely to be notable. I suspect that the lead is right though, in that the western Allied battles in the invasion of Germany during 1945 have been grossly under-covered by historians. I have the relevant volume of the British official history in case it would be of assistance with sources here. I also read an Osprey book that covered this battle, but can't remember which one. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Let me know if you remember it. I have assembled a large library on the 1945 campaigns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Glad I came to this page first! Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Let me know if you remember it. I have assembled a large library on the 1945 campaigns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- A battle fought between two corps-sized formations in western Europe is highly likely to be notable. I suspect that the lead is right though, in that the western Allied battles in the invasion of Germany during 1945 have been grossly under-covered by historians. I have the relevant volume of the British official history in case it would be of assistance with sources here. I also read an Osprey book that covered this battle, but can't remember which one. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Page move discussion. The Holocaust → Holocaust
For those interested: Talk:The_Holocaust#Requested_move_21_May_2025 (Hohum @) 19:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Should we bring back guidelines regarding military personnel?
WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated for some time by now(before I even started editing lol), and although I do agree that it was overly vague, I think there needs to be some sort of guidelines regarding military personnel. WP:BIO in itself is even vaguer, and probably is not really the best at determining notability. Additionally, literally every single notable person in the military would fail to pass WP:1E despite being notable(see Douglas Albert Munro, Xie Jinyuan, Yang Jingyu, Jimmie W. Monteith and so on for some examples).
Now, I would suggest that we should have some new guidelines for military personnel. Basically, we should follow the previous WP:SOLDIER suggestions, but make them less vague and turn it into an actual guideline.
If anybody thinks it should be further adjusted, feel free to post below Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Why is GNG not good enough? Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- None of those looks like a WP:1E fail, can you explain that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I have misinterpreted WP:1E, but overall I have seen many people interpret it that way Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- If many people interpret it that way why do these articles exist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Rank was always far more problematic than decorations in my view. Too many people don't understand how it works or the innate differences (at least in the US) between branches of service. As far as I can tell the decorations piece seems to work within GNG...provided the decoration is high enough. There may still be challenges, but it's far easier to resolve those than it is to argue about what general officer rank is considered notable. Intothatdarkness 15:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- WP:GNG works fine for me. With WP:SOLDIER it seemed ridiculous to me that we were deeming someone to be notable solely by rank when CEOs of huge companies are not automatically notable. Also lets remember in the UK we now have more Admirals than ships! Lyndaship (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- That has been the case my whole life - they joked about it in Yes, Prime Minister. The purpose of WP:SOLDIER was to supplement WP:GNG, not supplant it, listing subjects that are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I have misinterpreted WP:1E, but overall I have seen many people interpret it that way Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Clarification: My post is just here to state that we need new guidelines, what the modified version would say is completely another topic. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. GNG seems to work fine, honestly. And as for your 1E examples: Medal of Honor winners tend to generate a reasonable amount of RS coverage based on the medal alone...especially those awarded after the number of decorations the US could award was expanded in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. I'm sure the same applies to VC winners and so on. Intothatdarkness 00:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I likewise don't see any reason to have anything beyond GNG. The old WP:SOLDIER guideline was deeply flawed and I don't think we need to be inserting that level of subjectivity into the notability process. The longer I've edited, the more I've felt that we should really just be sticking to the sources to tell us what is encyclopedic or not - we've had these subjective fights over whether certain military ranks, existence of state highways, inclusion of a place name in an overarching database, etc should be considered notable and it's usually more heat than light. If you can find two or three decent RS about the subject, that should be the bar for inclusion. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree that WP:GNG is the best option here. As an example of the problems with the old WP:SOLDIER is that it declared that all star-ranked military officers were automatically notable, despite modern militaries typically having large numbers of totally obscure such officers. For instance, the most recent annual report from the Australian Department of Defence states that there were 238 star-ranked officers in the Australian Defence Force on 30 June 2024. Perhaps a dozen of them would have attracted enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with comments by others that WP:SOLDIER is neither helpful nor needed. Moreover, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? Point 2 of the eight broad area that we cover and Note 3 (as well as GNG) provide adequate guidance and flexibility. User Hawkeye7's comment that the guidelines require some flexibility as he notes there are persons who "are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion". This only deals with notability only for military service as within the scope of the project. A former, possibly even a current, soldier may be notable for other reasons and be covered by other projects even if they are not notable for their military service or it does not contribute to their notability. (On the other hand, they might have served and be within the project for other achievements in one of the eight broad areas, such as becoming a notable military historian in addition to or after having served.) Donner60 (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
New Article on Oka Takazumi
Last year, There is biographical article about Oka Takazumi, the chief of Japan's Military Affairs Bureau from 1940-1944. At present, it consists of only three paragraphs and has a total of six sources as references. Considering that the aforementioned figure exercised signicant influence over Japan's decision to go to war against the West and subsequently played a sizable role in the ensuing war effort, there is a lot of room for improvement. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to set aside time to expand upon it. Thank you for your consideration. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
UK military hierarchy question
Interesting question was posted on Talk:Commandant General Royal Marines (Reports to). Thought I'd follow it up here to get more eyes and hopefully some answers. Does the Commandant General Royal Marines (CGRM), a 4-star General, currently report to Fleet Commander, a 3-star Vice-Admiral?
Some confusion may come from the fact that prior to 2012, Fleet Commander was titled "Commander-in-Chief Fleet" and was a 4-star Admiral post, and prior to 2022, the post of CGRM was a 3-star Lieutenant General.
Is there an error here, or if it's indeed correct, is there more info that can be added to help with clarity? Cheers - \\'cԼF 13:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- A few years ago (2017) Fleet Commander was a member of the Admiralty Board. The CGRM was not. According to the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions in force then (pp. xviii-xix), the Admiralty Board, under the Defence Council, had "command over the officers, ratings and marines of Her Majesty’s naval and marine forces" and also administered them. If that is still the case then rank presumably doesn't matter. The administrative titles of the Navy change so often, and information published so infrequently, it's difficult to know what the current situation is though (for example the most recent issue of The Navy Directory published online is five years old now). —Simon Harley (Talk). 14:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Your best bet might be a freedom of information request. The Fleet Commander article cites this 2020 FOI request for the reporting lines. This pre-dates the change (made in 2021 with the appointment of Lieutenant-General Robert Magowan) to the Commandant General role which upgraded it from a 2* to a 3* (maybe 4* now?) appointment - Dumelow (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- (Yep, he was a 3*, but he was succeeded by Jenkins, who's a 4*. - \\'cԼF 06:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC))
- I've submitted an FOI, will update you all on how it goes! RedMonkey09 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, things are moving now... ;-) - \\'cԼF 06:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- My 2 cents: CGRM was, up until about 10 years ago, a real and substantive appointment, when it was linked to COMUKAMPHFOR. Matt Holmes seems to have been the last. There was no more justification or sense in keeping a two star to administer one brigade and the training /support organisation. Now it is a Colonel Commandant or almost "Royal Colonel" type post which is almost automatically in the gift of the seniormost Royal Marine officer on active service. Robert Magowan had another role; General Gwyn Jenkins' *task* is Chief of Naval Staff (1SL). He also has the protocol and ceremonial role of Head of the Royal Marines - CGRM.
- Commander 3 Cdo Brigade (yes, an old title, I know) for operational and most administration reports to the Fleet Commander. Director Royal Marines, a colonel, reports possibly through an intermediary to the Fleet Commander. But in the 2-9% of time that Gwyn Jenkins has for his old corps, he can overlook and supervise and advise regarding RM matters, almost exactly as a senior Army officer as Colonel Commandant of his old regiment (Mike Jackson for example, who was accused of favouring his old regiment the Parachute Regiment, retaining 1 Para --> SFSG.) Buckshot06 (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, things are moving now... ;-) - \\'cԼF 06:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Your best bet might be a freedom of information request. The Fleet Commander article cites this 2020 FOI request for the reporting lines. This pre-dates the change (made in 2021 with the appointment of Lieutenant-General Robert Magowan) to the Commandant General role which upgraded it from a 2* to a 3* (maybe 4* now?) appointment - Dumelow (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Having spent a couple of days putting the OOB into tables, the section has ballooned, shall I put it into a separate article like the Convoy PQ 18 OOB? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Good grief! Yes, I think so. Nice work there. Perhaps the infobox could also be usefully slimmed down. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- As I've plodded through the Med articles improving the OOBs (or putting them in) I have averted my eyes from this one but I've been surprised at how many sources I have accumulated since we wrote it. Med fleet operations next, then Axis air OOBs. Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of beginning to restore the image of the Italian cruiser Raimondo Montecuccoli (probably the best image in the article.) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 14:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- And done. Do wish the IWM gave higher resolution images, but... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keith-264 I have admired you slogging through all this updating with the most recent information. I have been going over Admiral Lumley Lyster's career; it appears he commanded the carriers [plus the sortie scheduling?? I do not know] for this operation. He may only be listed once - might be worth a look. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- And done. Do wish the IWM gave higher resolution images, but... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of beginning to restore the image of the Italian cruiser Raimondo Montecuccoli (probably the best image in the article.) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 14:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- As I've plodded through the Med articles improving the OOBs (or putting them in) I have averted my eyes from this one but I've been surprised at how many sources I have accumulated since we wrote it. Med fleet operations next, then Axis air OOBs. Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Operation Vigorous question
I have a ship in the OOB called Rembrandt but can't find any details. Can anyone help? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
have a look at https://codenames.info/operation/rembrandt/Nthep (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision#Requested move 26 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision#Requested move 26 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Flavian dynasty
Flavian dynasty 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Founding of Moldavia
Founding of Moldavia 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
10th Battalion of the King Own's Yorkshire Light Infantry
Does anyone have a reliable source of when they arrived in France? I've found this https://www.wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/battalion.php?pid=6463 but it isn't a reliable source. Crispybeatle (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Crispybeatle According the battalion war diary it disembarked at Le Havre on 12 September 1915. Nthep (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The History of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry in the Great War, 1914-1918: Volume III, says on pp. 784-785: "The 9th and 10th Bns... the men were put through a hurried course before their departure for France in September 1915", and on p. 793 says (discussing the 9th and 10th KOYLI): "The 64th Infantry Brigade had landed in France so recently as 12th September". Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the infobox is overhanging the campaign boxes? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- The Template:Nowrap is used several times in the infobox. It prevents unwanted linebreaks, here e.g. within longer names, resulting in the infobox accordingly being broader. ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I had a look for one but didn't see any, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Do flatlist and plainlist have the same effect? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Plainlist has not (it is used in that infobox, too, containing the nowrap entries). While there also is a nowrap option avaliable for the list template as a whole (|class=nowrap|) it doesn't work with the images. Flatlist hasn't either; meanwhile it is its very own thing and ignores even the intended linebreaks between list entries. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Do flatlist and plainlist have the same effect? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I had a look for one but didn't see any, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Article needed
Recently heard of the new AVIC Jiu Tian/Nine sky flying aircraft carrier, can somebody make an article? it already exsists on ZH-wikipedia(https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E4%B9%9D%E5%A4%A9%E6%97%A0%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%BA) and has gained significant coverage by Chinese media Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think we need better sourcing than that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah definitely, but I'm seeing so much media talk about it that maybe it's time for an article; I'm not that good at making plane articles so would like some help here Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well there is the issue, these sources (plus social media posts) are not enough to establish notability, we need rather more than what may well be propoganda. We need independent third-party RTS going "I say, look a this". At this time we may be able to ahve a mention here Airborne aircraft carrier. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven, here is a list of all sources below, rated in terms of how independent it is. My main problem is not notability, since it's pretty obvious it is notable, main problem is the name; Should we call it the AVIC Jiu Tian per it's pinyin name, or AVIC Nine Sky per it's translated name like AVIC Dark Sword?
- (Sources; I separated them in terms of where they are from and how independent they are)
- International Sources in English:
- https://www.euronews.com/2025/05/19/chinas-new-drone-mothership-expected-to-launch-for-first-test-flight-within-days
- https://www.twz.com/air/new-heavyweight-chinese-jet-drone-looks-to-be-a-swarm-mothership
- https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/chinese-nine-heavens-drone-mothership-piques-interest
- https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/j-15t-massive-strike-uav-break-cover-at-zhuhai/160634.article
- International sources in Chinese
- https://chinese.aljazeera.net/news/political/2025/5/23/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E9%A3%9E%E6%9C%BA%E8%AF%81%E6%98%8E%E4%BA%86%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E7%A9%BA%E5%86%9B%E7%9A%84%E8%A1%B0%E8%90%BD (Al jazeera chinese)
- https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20250521-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%AE%E5%87%BA%E5%8F%AF%E8%BD%BD%E7%99%BE%E6%9E%B6%E8%9C%82%E9%98%9F%E6%97%A0%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%BA%E7%9A%84-%E4%B9%9D%E5%A4%A9-%E7%A9%BA%E4%B8%AD%E6%AF%8D%E8%88%B0-%E7%AB%9E%E4%BA%89%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD-%E6%AD%BB%E7%A5%9E-%E6%97%A0%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%9D%80%E6%8B%9B (Radio international france)
- https://www.zaobao.com/news/china/story20250518-6416873 - Lianhe Zaobao
- University sources
- https://news.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1002/128559.htm - Northwestern Polytechnical University
- Taiwan/ROC sources
- https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20250523000874-260407?chdtv
- Chinese Sources From local governments and hong kong sources (Local government media tends to be more independent overall compared to central government sources)
- https://m.thepaper.cn/kuaibao_detail.jsp?contid=29297091&from=kuaibao - The Paper
- https://www.nfnews.com/content/mobZejKzok.html - Nanfang daily
- https://www.takungpao.com/news/232108/2025/0520/1088161.html - ta kung pao
- https://i.ifeng.com/c/8jS8TUaptH4 - Phoenix television
- https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20250518/bkn-20250518083447030-0518_00822_001.html - Oriental daily
- https://www.hk01.com/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B/1074636/%E7%8F%A0%E6%B5%B7%E8%88%AA%E5%B1%95-%E5%BD%A9%E8%99%B9-7%E7%84%A1%E4%BA%BA%E6%A9%9F%E7%9C%9F%E6%A9%9F%E9%A6%96%E4%BA%AE%E7%9B%B8-%E4%B9%9D%E5%A4%A9-%E7%84%A1%E4%BA%BA%E6%A9%9F%E6%88%90%E7%A9%BA%E4%B8%AD%E8%88%AA%E6%AF%8D - HK01
- https://focus.scol.com.cn/zgsz/202505/82968402.html - Sichuan online (owned by Sichuan Daily)
- Chinese sources from central government
- https://www.stdaily.com/web/gdxw/2024-11/12/content_257190.html - Science and Technology Daily
- http://www.81.cn/yw_208727/16351820.html - Chinese Military themselves
- http://www.news.cn/milpro/20241108/6d1e4d4c924747f89108916fbb79bfd5/c.html - Xinhua
- https://www.chinanews.com.cn/gn/2024/11-14/10319268.shtml - China News
- https://military.china.com/news/13004177/20250527/48387824.html - China .com Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- "The aircraft, which may be a mock-up,", so no these are not good enough to have an independent article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Which source says that? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- www.flightglobal.com, https://www.twz.com/ Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those are only two of the sources, and also it's likely gonna have it's first flight quite soon; Either way, it fits WP:GNG, just main problem is what to name it, Jiu Tian or Nine Sky Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Source seem to be either from around Nov 2014, presumably around the time the object appeared at the trade show, or very recent stuff claiming an imminent flight or something. So I am inclined to say that it does not fit GNG per WP:SUSTAINED. This is typical for trade show stuff; something appears, lots of hype, then limbo.
- I'd wait for significant coverage after it flies before thinking about adding anything. Patience solves a lot of problems. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those are only two of the sources, and also it's likely gonna have it's first flight quite soon; Either way, it fits WP:GNG, just main problem is what to name it, Jiu Tian or Nine Sky Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- www.flightglobal.com, https://www.twz.com/ Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Which source says that? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- "The aircraft, which may be a mock-up,", so no these are not good enough to have an independent article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well there is the issue, these sources (plus social media posts) are not enough to establish notability, we need rather more than what may well be propoganda. We need independent third-party RTS going "I say, look a this". At this time we may be able to ahve a mention here Airborne aircraft carrier. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah definitely, but I'm seeing so much media talk about it that maybe it's time for an article; I'm not that good at making plane articles so would like some help here Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @RovingPersonalityConstruct@Nick-D@Slatersteven@Swatjester:
- I think we have achieved consensus the notability is fine, but to make sure it doesn't get AfDed, I won't make it till the first flight starts(which will be soon anyways). Now the main problem is the naming. Should it be AVIC Jiu Tian (per pinyin) or AVIC Nine Sky(per translation, similar to AVIC Dark Sword)? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have strong opinions, but I think the notability is fine, the sourcing can be improved but IMO it's good enough to start -- I've done more with less. I think it will remain to be seen in the draft copy if there's enough to stand alone as an independent article vs. a section on Airborne aircraft carrier. As far as the naming is concerned, my suggestion would be the Western name as per the Dark Sword example. But again, I think the threshold question is going to be is there enough content for an independent article in the first place. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Notability is fine here. We have lots of articles on aircraft prototypes. I was able to start the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel on the basis of much thinner sourcing than is available here. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Identity of John C. Roberts–class DE in Battle off Samar photo (Moved from WP:SHIPS)

Question in original discussion:
In this photo at Wikimedia Commons, the original caption from NHHC's files states,
USS HERMAN (DD-532) and a destroyer-escort lay a smoke screen to protect their escort carrier group from attacking Japanese surface ships. During The Battle Off Samar, 25 October 1944. Photographed from WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66).
The Commons file name begins with "USS_Heermann_(DD_532)_and_USS_John_C._Butler_(DE-339)_ ...". It's likely the person who uploaded and named the file assumed the 2nd boat was USS John C. Butler rather than merely a John C. Butler–class ship as stated by NHHC's caption.
User:Micheal Harrens states Lundgren The World Wonder'd, p. 85, identifies it as Samuel B. Roberts, and has updated the caption at Commons. Are there other sources that identify the DE, or identify it differently? If it is Sammy B., we should rename the Commons file. But I'm not convinced a single recent (relatively) source, even Lundgren, is enough to definitively state more than what was in NHHC's original caption. — sbb (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
— sbb (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Question about US Army organization
Hello! I'm conducting a GA review and I'm a bit lost with US Army organizations. The original source I'm looking at says that this guy "served with the 101st Airborne Division and the 187th Airborne Combat team". From what I can tell, the 187th is a regiment within the 101st Airborne Division. Would this mean he did something in the 101st at the division level and then did something else in the 187th at the regiment level? Or does this actually mean "he served with the 187th, as a part of the 101st"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would phrase it as he "served with the 187th Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division." The 187th (at the time a glider infantry regiment) was assigned to the 101st.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's not quite exactly the same thing as the 187th regiment -- it was an augmentation.
With the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the 187th, now a parachute unit, was called up for duty. Under the command of COL Frank S. Bowen, the 187th was paired up with the 674th Field Artillery Battalion and supporting units to form the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team (RCT).
I'd suspect the usage of "combat team" at that time almost certainly represents the ad-hoc RCT formation, rather than the modern standardized Brigade Combat Team (in this case, 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division), and would suggest the better edit is "served with the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division." This will also make more sense to readers because regiments are not necessarily functional in their organization and can cross brigade, division, and corps lines within the same regiment. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)- An RCT was a infantry formation with attachments [usually artillery, engineers, combat support etc], like Commonwealth brigade groups or today's US Army "brigade combat teams." There may have been a standardized organisation - the reference for digging further should be "Maneuver and Firepower." [5] Buckshot06 (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, and those attachments were what made it an ad-hoc formation, unlike the standardized modern BCT. Regardless, the point remains that the Airborne Regimental Combat Team remains the correct name for the entity, and a more accurate and understandable one than simply naming the regiment.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agree completely we must use the term ARCT. The point where maybe further clarification is required is whether a TOE was issued for independent RCTs. Given that airborne regiments frequently did separate things, much more than infantry regiments, I believe it's quite possible that "standardized and modern" could be applied to Airborne RCTs of the time if a TOE was drawn up, and, possibly, especially for the Korean War, for infantry RCTs. 6th in Berlin; 27th Inf Regt Wolfhounds are the ones that spring to mind from Hackworth's autobiography. Thoughts?? Also, do bear in mind that historians apply the term modern to anything after 1500. Post Cold War, or C21, might be a term that might work better. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Chapter 6 of Maneuver and Firepower appears to indicate that infantry divisional RCTs were TOE organisations. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and no. The org chart in Maneuver and Firepower is still showing three distinct infantry regiments with no indications of attachments (although the text calls them RCTs they aren't labeled as such on the chart). Shelby Stanton's World War II Order of Battle discusses them the same way. So while there was clearly an idea of what an RCT should contain, I don't think there was ever a formal TOE for them (at least not during the WW2 period and probably into Korea as well). The name RCT may have come into common use for regiments deployed without being part of a division framework. Intothatdarkness 12:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Intothatdarkness. FYI I found what appeared to be a reasonably complete listing of Infantry TOEs from the Second World War. https://www.militaryresearch.org/army_photocopy_index.htm#Infantry There was no Regimental Combat Team TOE, so "ad-hoc" may be actually truly the best description. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. Shelby Stanton touches on them again in his Vietnam Order of Battle and directly compares them to the ROAD division brigade...which also didn't have a formal TOE aside from the headquarters elements (which in an RCT would have come from the base regiment). Stanton's World War 2 OOB also does not have any kind of TOE for the RCT. Intothatdarkness 22:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Intothatdarkness. FYI I found what appeared to be a reasonably complete listing of Infantry TOEs from the Second World War. https://www.militaryresearch.org/army_photocopy_index.htm#Infantry There was no Regimental Combat Team TOE, so "ad-hoc" may be actually truly the best description. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and no. The org chart in Maneuver and Firepower is still showing three distinct infantry regiments with no indications of attachments (although the text calls them RCTs they aren't labeled as such on the chart). Shelby Stanton's World War II Order of Battle discusses them the same way. So while there was clearly an idea of what an RCT should contain, I don't think there was ever a formal TOE for them (at least not during the WW2 period and probably into Korea as well). The name RCT may have come into common use for regiments deployed without being part of a division framework. Intothatdarkness 12:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, and those attachments were what made it an ad-hoc formation, unlike the standardized modern BCT. Regardless, the point remains that the Airborne Regimental Combat Team remains the correct name for the entity, and a more accurate and understandable one than simply naming the regiment.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- An RCT was a infantry formation with attachments [usually artillery, engineers, combat support etc], like Commonwealth brigade groups or today's US Army "brigade combat teams." There may have been a standardized organisation - the reference for digging further should be "Maneuver and Firepower." [5] Buckshot06 (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's not quite exactly the same thing as the 187th regiment -- it was an augmentation.
- During World War II, the 187th was part of the 11th Airborne Division, not the 101st. Originally a glider unit, it became a parachute regiment when the organisation of US airborne divisions was changed from two glider and one parachute to two parachute and one glider in 1944. It served as a separate RCT in the Korean War, and joined the 101st in 1964. It was never an RCT of the 101st. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh, I think I know what happened. The source that I quoted above was written in 1969, so, after the 187th joined the 101st. Betting the author didn't check backwards to see where the 187th had been during this guy's time in the military. Seems to be backed up by a second source that directly quotes his army record but doesn't mention the 101st at all. Thanks all for the help :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is a $100 prize for history and a few other topic. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles for your project improved during the month, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Portuguese–Safavid wars#Requested move 17 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Portuguese–Safavid wars#Requested move 17 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:War of the cities#Requested move 25 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:War of the cities#Requested move 25 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Use of the term "Contingent" for People's armed police
Man, this is not gonna be fun at all. I sort of knew I would have to reveal this at some point before, but I was so scared of the pandora's box and the amount of stuff that would have to be changed so I sort of avoided revealing this.
So most of the time, I saw the term "总队" being translated as "Contingent" for People's armed police units in English sources. This was already previously proven wrong with provincial units when I found multiple Chinese MOD articles calling it "corps" such as "PAP Tianjin Corps". At the time, I thought only provincial "总队" were called corps, while the 1st and 2nd Mobile corps/contingent used the term contingent. Additionally, since for defunct corps like the transportation corps, border defense corps, guard corps, hydropower corps, forestry corps and gold corps(Not including firefighting corps/China Fire Services, whose official translation is "Fire Department") I could not find an official translation for 总队, I simply went for "Contingent".
I recently found the following sources(https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/161592, http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/Videos/16377587.html, http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/Home/Focus/16383704.html) from China Daily and the Chinese MOD using the term "Corps" for the 2nd Mobile corps, meaning mobile units also use "Corps", and that all use(since for the defunct corps, the only reason I used ) of the term "Contingent" is simply a mistranslation from english sources, and that all official sources point to the translation of 总队 being "Corps" in the context of the People's armed police(outside of the China Fire Services, where it is department). Same thing applies to Post-2018 Chinese forest fire departments, which I mistranslated as "Contingents". Correct them as "forest fire departments".
If you see any use of the term "Contingent" other than mentioning that it is a mistranslation, please do change it Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Add the sources for the names to the articles. Don't just list them here. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- @RovingPersonalityConstruct
- Added them to the 2nd Mobile Corps. As for the others, they were simply mistranslated by me and aren't controversial Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Let me clarify: adding the sources demonstrating the use of the term to the mobile corps articles (I believe 1st Mobile Corps is missing a ref) is to preempt any need in the future for anybody to ask "where does this come from?"
- Right now, someone would need to dig through the article history to find your edit, then dig through the WikiProject Military history talk archive to find the discussion referenced in your edit comment, and then do a bit more processing to find the important part of your post (i.e. the sources demonstrating the usage.)
- Keep in mind that this is an English-language Wikipedia. It's unlikely to be obvious to the average reader or editor that a translation is "correct" without corroboration via reliable sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any MOD article that explicitly states the 1st Mobile Corps uses "Corps"(Or really, any Chinese coverage of the 1st Mobile Corps), but I saw the 2nd Mobile Corps using Corps, meaning the 1st Mobile Corps also uses Corps. Could I use the 2nd Mobile Corps reference for the 1st Mobile Corps? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I found some things for "First Mobile Corps"/"first mobile corps" (close enough lol).
- How about:
- https://www.cna.org/our-media/newsletters/pla-update/issue-5 (non-Chinese source referencing a Chinese-lang article)
- and a Chinese stat source like:
- - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 13:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks man Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any MOD article that explicitly states the 1st Mobile Corps uses "Corps"(Or really, any Chinese coverage of the 1st Mobile Corps), but I saw the 2nd Mobile Corps using Corps, meaning the 1st Mobile Corps also uses Corps. Could I use the 2nd Mobile Corps reference for the 1st Mobile Corps? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Darius the Great
Darius the Great 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. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
First sentence: put rank before or after name?
I'm working on Captain James Cook article, and I notice that top-quality military biography articles do not start with rank as the first word "General George Patton was .... " but instead put rank after the name e.g. "George Patton was a general...." (or some variation such of that wording). Is there a MOS guideline that covers this?
I want to confirm that that "rank after name" is the preferred style, even for the Royal Navy. This is an important decision for James Cook, because he is invariably described as "Captain James Cook" the first time he is mentioned in any source. Thanks in advance. Noleander (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's a strange one. Generally American military people do not start with their rank, but British ones do. A quick browse of MILHIST FAs provides the examples of Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet, George Jones (RAAF officer), Fabian Ware, and Robert Poore. More specifically, for Royal Navy officers of the period there's Peter Heywood, Murray Maxwell, and Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe Excellent info, thanks. So, I gather there is no MOS on this? I'm not surprised the British articles have the rank more prominently displayed (they love their titles :-) Noleander (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of that's directly relevant. The MILHIST content guide only says that the lede should include "The highest rank achieved", it doesn't specify where or in what form. In this instance I would suggest having the rank before the name. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Noleander (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- But putting rank of any kind after the name seems to be general WP practice, so perhaps should be added to MOS. Examples: we don't put "Professor" or even "Queen" before the name. I don't see why military should be an exception. Errantios (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't describe either of those examples as ranks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- WP has a few guidelines that are similar to this issue: MOS:PREFIX, MOS:POSTNOM , WP:LEADCLUTTER, MOS:CREDENTIAL, MOS:OFFICE ... and the overall theme is to start a bio article with a name, and move the titles etc to after the name (sometimes even after the first sentence). It would be nice if military biogr articles had a more uniform convention. I know there may be per-country arguments for varying convention, but even Albert Einstein does not start "Dr. Albert Einstein". I'm not sure why military bios permit the rank before name ... seems to be an outlier. Noleander (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't describe either of those examples as ranks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- But putting rank of any kind after the name seems to be general WP practice, so perhaps should be added to MOS. Examples: we don't put "Professor" or even "Queen" before the name. I don't see why military should be an exception. Errantios (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Noleander (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of that's directly relevant. The MILHIST content guide only says that the lede should include "The highest rank achieved", it doesn't specify where or in what form. In this instance I would suggest having the rank before the name. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe Excellent info, thanks. So, I gather there is no MOS on this? I'm not surprised the British articles have the rank more prominently displayed (they love their titles :-) Noleander (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
The OP is not correct that top-quality FA bios on military people do not start with the rank. There are plenty of them. One of the points missed above is that by doing that you shorten the first sentence, as instead of “Foo was a naval captain” you start with “Captain Foo”. Neither Queen nor Professor is a rank, so the above examples are not relevant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, all. That there is an "overall theme" of starting with the name indicates that there is a general consensus to that effect and I see no reason why military practice should be an exception. It may be difficult to assess whether the policy, whatever it may be, should apply at all; but it could be still more difficult to determine whether an appellation, such as "Dr" or "Professor", is a "rank" or something else such as a "title" (although "professor" these days is sometimes a merely administrative moniker going with a job), and the issue might not always be either/or. To attempt also to take account of national differences would be asking for trouble: for one thing, there might not be any official source. Nor perhaps will a national practice be consistent: I like the British story of the fellow who, after World War II, insisted in civilian life on being addressed as "Captain"—until a man was appointed to a more senior position who had been a major and did not use the title. Errantios (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Rank and title are different things. Ranks always come before titles. Hence Brigadier Lord Lovat and General Sir Miles Dempsey. "Brigadier" and "General" are ranks, "Lord" and "Sir" are titles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- I question whether using the "highest rank achieved" is universally appropriate, when the most notable thing done by the article's subject was at a more junior rank. Compare John Chard with how he is mentioned in Battle of Rorke's Drift. Without him being at Rorke's Drift, I very much doubt that Wikipedia would have an article on him, even if he had reached high rank. His own article would be better if it mentioned his rank at the time of the event that makes him notable and then the highest rank afterwards. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 07:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's objective, while the most notable thing done by the article's subject is subjective. It can produce surprises though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- This may be an area where a Wikipedia style issue results in a poorer quality output. Yes, most military people do their most notable things at their highest rank, or are awarded that rank as a result of that thing. This might be why other encyclopaedias avoid stating the highest rank achieved at an early point. I have just been looking at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) as a point of comparison. Their article on the Duke of Wellington leads with "...army officer and prime minister", whilst Wikipedia's dives straight in with Field Marshall. That is arguably appropriate for him as a soldier (but he still did important things at a lower rank), but for a complete biography, I lean towards the ODNB offering. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should immediately follow the style of others, but I think we can use it to ask some questions about our own practices. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- The ODNB is perhaps not a good example as all their entries start with a surname, reflecting its alphabetical print layout, so it's rather difficult to open with a rank. However, the predecessor Dictionary of National Biography did have the rank straight after the name and title. For example Wellington's entry opened "Wellesley, Arthur, first Duke of Wellington(1769–1852), field-marshal, was fourth son of Garrett Wellesley, first earl of Mornington [q.v.], by Anne, eldest daughter of Arthur Hill, viscount Dungannon." Hugh Trenchard opened "Trenchard, Hugh Montague, first Viscount Trenchard(1873–1956), marshal of the Royal Air Force", John Jellicoe with "Jellicoe, John Rushworth, first Earl Jellicoe(1859–1935), admiral of the fleet", &c. —Simon Harley (Talk). 21:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure that I follow your argument about Wellington in the ODNB. The current entry starts with "Wellesley [formerly Wesley], Arthur, first duke of Wellington (1769–1852), army officer and prime minister, was the third surviving son of....". The point that I am making is that it does not state "field marshal and prime minister". It also is even handed about his military and political careers, whilst the first word of his Wikipedia article, by its very position, emphasises the military aspect of his career. Dwight D. Eisenhower has the emphasis the other way round. I am not saying that is wrong, just that any belief that there is a standard way of dealing with this is not borne out in reality. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 22:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion to a rank might have been by mere seniority. Thus Post-captain states (though unsourced) that in the Royal Navy at one time: "Once an officer was promoted to post-captain, further promotion was strictly by seniority; if he could avoid death or disgrace, he could eventually become an admiral (even if only a yellow admiral)." Errantios (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Now if only you had posted this a few days ago! I have been reading some good quality sources, one of which stated the promotion to admiral was on the basis of the seniority of the date of promotion to post captain. I am now trying to discover exactly where I read it so that I can add it to the article. I did not note it at the time because I felt it to be a well-known fact. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion to a rank might have been by mere seniority. Thus Post-captain states (though unsourced) that in the Royal Navy at one time: "Once an officer was promoted to post-captain, further promotion was strictly by seniority; if he could avoid death or disgrace, he could eventually become an admiral (even if only a yellow admiral)." Errantios (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure that I follow your argument about Wellington in the ODNB. The current entry starts with "Wellesley [formerly Wesley], Arthur, first duke of Wellington (1769–1852), army officer and prime minister, was the third surviving son of....". The point that I am making is that it does not state "field marshal and prime minister". It also is even handed about his military and political careers, whilst the first word of his Wikipedia article, by its very position, emphasises the military aspect of his career. Dwight D. Eisenhower has the emphasis the other way round. I am not saying that is wrong, just that any belief that there is a standard way of dealing with this is not borne out in reality. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 22:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- The ODNB is perhaps not a good example as all their entries start with a surname, reflecting its alphabetical print layout, so it's rather difficult to open with a rank. However, the predecessor Dictionary of National Biography did have the rank straight after the name and title. For example Wellington's entry opened "Wellesley, Arthur, first Duke of Wellington(1769–1852), field-marshal, was fourth son of Garrett Wellesley, first earl of Mornington [q.v.], by Anne, eldest daughter of Arthur Hill, viscount Dungannon." Hugh Trenchard opened "Trenchard, Hugh Montague, first Viscount Trenchard(1873–1956), marshal of the Royal Air Force", John Jellicoe with "Jellicoe, John Rushworth, first Earl Jellicoe(1859–1935), admiral of the fleet", &c. —Simon Harley (Talk). 21:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- This may be an area where a Wikipedia style issue results in a poorer quality output. Yes, most military people do their most notable things at their highest rank, or are awarded that rank as a result of that thing. This might be why other encyclopaedias avoid stating the highest rank achieved at an early point. I have just been looking at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) as a point of comparison. Their article on the Duke of Wellington leads with "...army officer and prime minister", whilst Wikipedia's dives straight in with Field Marshall. That is arguably appropriate for him as a soldier (but he still did important things at a lower rank), but for a complete biography, I lean towards the ODNB offering. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should immediately follow the style of others, but I think we can use it to ask some questions about our own practices. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's objective, while the most notable thing done by the article's subject is subjective. It can produce surprises though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- I question whether using the "highest rank achieved" is universally appropriate, when the most notable thing done by the article's subject was at a more junior rank. Compare John Chard with how he is mentioned in Battle of Rorke's Drift. Without him being at Rorke's Drift, I very much doubt that Wikipedia would have an article on him, even if he had reached high rank. His own article would be better if it mentioned his rank at the time of the event that makes him notable and then the highest rank afterwards. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 07:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Rank and title are different things. Ranks always come before titles. Hence Brigadier Lord Lovat and General Sir Miles Dempsey. "Brigadier" and "General" are ranks, "Lord" and "Sir" are titles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
On Chinese navy ship emblems(yet again)
I've been asking this for quite some time already, but I think i should ask again:
Can Chinese ship emblems be uploaded? Currently, to avoid any issues I just add an external media template.
But seeing how military insignia fall under the PRC copyright law's article 5(" laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof;"), may I ask again if navy ship emblems can be uploaded or at least given non free fair use? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: can I hear your opinions pls? obviously a external media template is fine, but it would be much better to have the ship badge itself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe that miscellaneous navy images would fall under Article 5; that language is pretty narrowly tailored, unlike US copyright law that exempts "[any] work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" from copyright protection. Many countries have language similar to the PRC's, and as far as I understand, it has always been interpreted much more narrowly. They generally only apply to literal laws, government proclamations, etc., not anything that the government creates. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I mean in navy insignia. Military insignia is under it if I remember correctly, so why not navy ship insignia Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe either of those would be covered by Article 5. Where did you read that it applies to those? Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nearly every single military/government insignia file cites article 5. Idk if it is the template but that's what happened Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just because people are using a template doesn't mean they're using it correctly ;) There are probably millions of incorrectly licensed images on Commons because people either do not understand or do not care about copyright law. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, but it's used on practically every insignia on wikipedia. If i remember correctly, I think I was also told the same thing by another user on wikimedia commons help desk. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Article 5 states ", other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof; "
- I think this can be interpreted as(or has been interpreted as) including insignia and emblems of military units, gov agencies and so on. What matters is whether navy ships insignia should also receive the same treatment of mil unit insignia. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any way that a unit logo could be interpreted to be an "administrative document". We're talking about the equivalent of laws, executive orders, judicial decisions, etc. If the Chinese government intended to make any work produced by itself to be free of copyright, they would have said so. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Parsecboy. The wording seems to specifically refer to written documents. CMD (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- https://web.archive.org/web/20250225115857/http://gjw.gxzf.gov.cn/xwdt/gzdt/t12660000.shtml - Guangxi Regional Department of veteran affairs on the Guangxi's emblem - it cites the PLAN account on Weixin for the photos
- https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074401/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/con/2023-04/24/3613_824304.html - Anhui Provincial national defense education office on ship emblems - it says the source is the Chinese military on weixin but never explicitly mentions the photos. The text at the bottom says "all use of photos without permission is not allowed", however this is not elaborated further.
- Same article as above is also found on beijing daily https://news.bjd.com.cn/2023/04/23/10408220.shtml, which also cites the chinese military on weixin. Beijing daily copyright statement(https://www.bjd.com.cn//common/about.html?name=%E7%89%88%E6%9D%83%E5%A3%B0%E6%98%8E) states(my simplified translated version):
- All media on the beijing daily website is subject to PRC copyright law
- If content on beijing daily is used for commercial or advertising purposes, there must be written permission first and there must also be attribution.
- without permission, no media or individual can copy or recreate stuff from the beijing daily website
- I sort of have problems finding the PLAN on weixin, if not any account on weixin as I don't have the app, which basically leads us to a dead end.
- Ultimately, the main goal is to find the PLAN's written copyright.
- Additionally, may I ask if it turns out that the article 5 thing has been misinterpreted(most insignia images do come from sources where article 5 does apply, e.g. the PAP flag, and I doubt that this article 5 has been misused considering the scale that it has been used), then would the entirety of Chinese government agency and military unit insignias need to be removed?
- Personally, I sort of doubt article 5 has been misused, considering the scale of which it was used, and that even though it seems to refer primarily to written documents, i think insignia technically counts in both section 1 and 2. It likely does not apply to government photos(e.g. MOD website photos) but i think insignia are not really covered properly here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis@Parsecboy
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg
- PRC flag also cites article 5. Again, may be someone using it wrongly, and I do agree that the wording sounds like it was meant for written articles, but I'm starting to really doubt the extent of misuse here.
- Additionally, on wording, PRC copyright law article 3 states it also applies to photographic works in section 3. So even though it is worded for written documents, the copyright law also applies to photos. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- The national and PAP flags likely do not meet the Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality, so should be fine. The use of a licence of Commons does not imply it is right, licences are misapplied on Commons all the time. Copyright does apply to photos, but that doesn't affect Article 5. Article 3 defines 作品, whereas Article 5 is about specific 具, which is clearly a subset. CMD (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thehistorianisaac - I see you've been editing here for a couple of years; I've been here for 19, and have been active in the copyright space for more than a decade. Believe me when I tell you that misuse of copyright tags is rampant. A particular favorite of mine is the assumption that because we don't know the identity of some European image now, the photo was published anonymously 80 years ago, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies. No, that's not what the law requires; they have to have been published anonymously originally, which is generally very difficult to prove (i.e., how do you know what the original publication is?)
- In your situation, just because some part of the Chinese government produced an image does not mean that it's automatically PD. Again, if they had intended to make a blanket rule like you interpret Article 5 to mean, they would have simply said as much. I realize that's not the answer you want, and frankly, there are plenty of cases where I've been frustrated by stupid copyright law (for example, paintings by Willy Stöwer without a definitive date of publication may still be copyrighted in the US, despite the fact that they've been out of copyright in Germany for over two decades, which means I can't use them). It is what it is, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I understand. I also agree with the fact that not all Chinese government produced images are PD, and I do agree that misuse of tags is very rampant. But as @Chipmunkdavis, there is threshold of originality, which may apply to some of the ship emblems, especially Chinese frigate Xuzhou's emblem or Chinese frigate Xianning's emblem.
- Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but does commons have special copyright rules on insignia, and are navy ship insignias covered by them? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how either of those emblems would be under the threshold of originality, they're quite complex. I don't think Commons has special copyright rules on insignia, why would it? CMD (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Good luck convincing Commons users of that; in my experience they wildly misunderstand where the threshold of originality lies and think everything falls below it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how either of those emblems would be under the threshold of originality, they're quite complex. I don't think Commons has special copyright rules on insignia, why would it? CMD (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- The national and PAP flags likely do not meet the Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality, so should be fine. The use of a licence of Commons does not imply it is right, licences are misapplied on Commons all the time. Copyright does apply to photos, but that doesn't affect Article 5. Article 3 defines 作品, whereas Article 5 is about specific 具, which is clearly a subset. CMD (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any way that a unit logo could be interpreted to be an "administrative document". We're talking about the equivalent of laws, executive orders, judicial decisions, etc. If the Chinese government intended to make any work produced by itself to be free of copyright, they would have said so. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just because people are using a template doesn't mean they're using it correctly ;) There are probably millions of incorrectly licensed images on Commons because people either do not understand or do not care about copyright law. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nearly every single military/government insignia file cites article 5. Idk if it is the template but that's what happened Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe either of those would be covered by Article 5. Where did you read that it applies to those? Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I mean in navy insignia. Military insignia is under it if I remember correctly, so why not navy ship insignia Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe that miscellaneous navy images would fall under Article 5; that language is pretty narrowly tailored, unlike US copyright law that exempts "[any] work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" from copyright protection. Many countries have language similar to the PRC's, and as far as I understand, it has always been interpreted much more narrowly. They generally only apply to literal laws, government proclamations, etc., not anything that the government creates. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Help Identifying Greek Expeditionary Force (Korea) Uniforms
Took those photos yesterday. Feel free to add details to each file's descriptions on Commons. 1, 2 Catlemur (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Not a battle, so relatively insignificant that it does not appear in James "A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France" (1924, 1990) or OH 1916 I (1932). I think that a move to Attack on the Boar's Head might be better but as yet I can't find a RS that mentions it except for the ones in the Biblio. Can anyone help? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- The intent was to capture the Boar's Head, not raid it. Keith-264 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have three books that are solely about the Battle of the Somme. Hart, Peter. The Somme: The Darkest Hour on the Western Front. New York: Pegasus Books, LLC, 2008. ISBN 978-1-60598-081-2; Prior, Robin and Trevor, Wilson. The Somme. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Originally published Bury St. Edmunds: St. Edmundsbury Press, 2005. ISBN 978-0-300-10694-7; Roberts, Andrew. Elegy: The First Day on the Somme. London: Head of Zeus, 2015. ISBN 978-1-78408-001-3. I had thought this action was significant enough to be covered in the chapters on the background and prelude to the battles. It was not. Roberts mentions 23 place names given by the British for various locations on the Somme, page 46. Boar's Head is not one of them. I assume it would not be worth the time to try to find mention of this in overall histories of the war or books that cover a greater, much less a different, period of time. I realize this is of no help for the articles but it is an example of the difficulty in finding other sources for this article. Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Senior has written about it in two books but in the later one, a biography of Richard Haking, (XI Corps commander) is about a page long. It's the insignificance that led me to change it to Attack... rather than Battle... I'm open to opinion though. There's a bit of a debate on the talk page. Thanks for taking the trouble. Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I forgot to look at Duffy, Christopher. Through German Eyes: the British & The Somme 1916. London: Phoenix, an imprint of Orion Books Ltd., 2007. First published in Great Britain in 2006 by Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-7538-2202-9. In this book, there is this brief mention on page 126 which may refer to the June 30 action although, as described, it does not seem to me to definitely refer to such a large operation or even to the same time of day: "On the night on 30 June another failed British raid, this time against the 119th Reserve Regiment, helped convince the Germans they were going to come under attack on the Beaumont-Hamel Sector the next morning." I did not mention Hart, Peter. Somme Success: The Royal Flying Corps and the Battle of the Somme 1916. Barnsley, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2012. ISBN 978-1-84884-882-5. (Originally published Leo Cooper, 2001.) because it did not mention this incident, and as might be expected, has little information on the land war overall. I will post the information from my two posts here on the article talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Discussion on Friendly Fire during the Gaza War
Friendly fire during the Gaza war has been proposed for deletion, following a dramatic edit which I've reversed for now. Various editors have tried to start a discussion on the future of the page but have not been noticed by active editors.
I've called for a discussion on the talk page here, please let us know your views.
The ongoing deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendly fire during the Gaza war, I am proposing that an AfD be postponed until more editors have engaged. 20WattSphere (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
On public domain
I heard that regarding public domain, really old photos can automatically be PD after a certain amount of time
Recently found a Xinhua image gallery of Sunwu County Militia from the 1940s-1960s. Could I use these photos, since the militia article is really lacking in any photos of militia;
Here's the photos that I may upload if it turns out they are PD and can be uploaded; I added the dates just in case only some qualify for PD
1950s
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_9.htm - Militia train with mortar
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_11.htm - Female militia aims bolt action rifle(I can't identify the version, i think it's either a mosin nagant or a M1903)
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_13.htm - militia in military exercise
1958
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_7.htm, http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_8.htm - establishment of Sunwu County Militia division
1960s
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357.htm - Militia train with recoilless rifle
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_17.htm - Militia fire rifles
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_18.htm - Militia in anti-air exercises
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_24.htm - Militia in a guard post
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_16.htm, http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_25.htm - Militia on border guard tower on China-Soviet border
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_27.htm - Militia use RPG(RPG-2 I think, correct me if I'm wrong)
http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_38.htm - Female militias conduct bayonet charge with Type 56 carbine(SKS licensed copy)
By the way, I think some may be better to illustrate the militia then others, so I don't plan to upload all, maybe some could be uploaded but others we do not need Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China may be helpful. Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, but what if the exact date is unknown but the decade is known? And what if the photographer is unknown? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the link Curbon provided, none of those images would be public domain in the US. They would have to have been published before 1946 to have been already in the public domain when the URAA went into effect in the US, which extended copyright protection (even if they've since lapsed in the country of origin). Images must be PD in the US to be hosted on en.wiki, and also in the country of origin to be hosted on Commons. While most of those are PD in China by now, they're not in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, but what if the exact date is unknown but the decade is known? And what if the photographer is unknown? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
What constitutes a "Tank Battle"?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A debate has arisen regarding what is the proper definition for "tank battle" over on Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?. There appear to be two competing definitions up for selection. Which of the following definitions should be used when deciding whether to classify a military engagement on Wikipedia as a "tank battle"?
- (A) A "tank battle" should be defined as any military engagement where tanks are employed by at least one side.
- (B) A "tank battle" should only refer to military engagements where tank-on-tank combat constituted a significant proportion of the fighting.
Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- C: A tank battle is what reliable sources describe as a tank battle. It would be WP:OR to apply a label that isn't supported by reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- How do RS define a "tank battle" though? Is said definition closer to A or B? Assuming that A and B are not sufficiently broad to cover RS's definition of a tank battle, what do RS say it is then? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- The trouble with RS is that 'tank battle' seems like an alien post hoc construction. They don't have a concept of 'not tank battle' either. Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- If an RS calls it a tank battle so can we, As you say, it's not really clearly defined, and we can't use OR to define it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes C seems the safest, we go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- In terms of how RS define a tank battle, doesn't this misunderstand RS? These are independent sources, who do not need to have a shared definition of anything. The best you can hope for is "widespread consensus", and this may not exist in all cases. From my own reading I'd guess most histories think of a tank battle as one in which tanks played a significant role, as opposed to simply being present, but beyond that vague idea I don't feel qualified to venture. Monstrelet (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- It does not. RS do not have to agree with each other -- it's great if there is a clear consensus, but if not we can point out narratively how said sources describe it through attribution or by appropriately caveating. For instance, "The Battle of 73 Easting was, according to Source X, one of the most significant tank battles of the 20th century" or "The Battle of Kursk was a 1943 tank battle" (with an appropriate footnote citing both sets of the disputed references after "tank battle"). The point being that we do not have to -- nor should we -- use our own OR here. We have a number of ways for handling situations where RS disagree or a clear consensus does not exist. Also, folks should consider that the absence of an RS describing something a certain way, is not the same thing as them disputing that characterization. If one set of sources all describe something as a tank battle, it is not in dispute simply because other sources omit describing it as such; it *is* in dispute if they expressly contradict that distinction. The opposite of "tank battle" is "not a tank battle", not simply "a battle" or even "an air battle" as these things are not mutually exclusive. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- In terms of how RS define a tank battle, doesn't this misunderstand RS? These are independent sources, who do not need to have a shared definition of anything. The best you can hope for is "widespread consensus", and this may not exist in all cases. From my own reading I'd guess most histories think of a tank battle as one in which tanks played a significant role, as opposed to simply being present, but beyond that vague idea I don't feel qualified to venture. Monstrelet (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support B
- was on the fence but Monstrelet point convinces me - not every reliable source is going to use the exact words, this is only a category I think some common sense needs to prevail and allow us to categorise according to reasonable understandings of English and sense.
- Also in support of North8000, A is far too inclusive to the point of not being useful as a category LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Invited by the bot. Of course if the sources give guidance that's the best. But you don't need a source for every word used. "B" is pretty safe for this. "A" is far too inclusive to support using the term unless there is a good source which characterized it as such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Tank losses aren't always a good criteria for this determination, either (and although no one is mentioning that here, it does feature in the linked discussion that prompted this query). The Germans in particular had excellent maintenance and repair units operating very close to the front lines, and it took quite a bit for them to declare a tank as having been destroyed. Tanks engaged seems a far better benchmark, especially if you're not using RS. I would support "B" if it came down to it.Intothatdarkness 12:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
What does "significant proportion of the fighting" mean? Consider the Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux. This was the first time that one tank fought another. (Three German tanks engaged three British tanks.) For that reason, it passes C, as many sources tout it as the very first tank battle, but passing B requires "a significant proportion of the fighting" to refer to the historiography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly there will be exceptions. This appears to be one. But once you leave, say, World War I B becomes more viable. Intothatdarkness 02:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- With regards to Villers-Brettoneux, context is important. During World War I, armored warfare and tank production itself was in its infancy so it naturally follows that tanks didn't play nearly as big a part as in later conflicts. However, even considering that tank-on-tank engagements in World War I played a smaller role in warfare and were smaller in general compared to later wars, it was Villers-Brettoneux which witnessed the very birth of that kind of combat. The fact that it set the precedent for all future tank battles to come merits its inclusion. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Until someone can adequately explain how B is going to be enforced (and you will not be able to), it's a dead letter. "Well, Battle A is a tank battle, because 20% of the forces engaged were tanks, but Battle B isn't, because only 19% of forces were tanks." Hard pass, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Operation Brevity is where the question arose. Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- RS show that there were tank-on-tank engagements between large groups of tanks. That is the requirement which must be met. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what B says. But setting that aside, who defines "large groups"? Give me a number of tanks.
- You seem to think this is an easy question to answer, because you have a particular end state for a single article in mind; but as someone who routinely has to manage the implications of these sorts of policy decisions in their day job, I can assure you that things get far messier, far more quickly, than you seem to be thinking. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- The easiest solution might be to simply quote an RS that describes an engagement as a "tank battle" and go from there. If there's disagreement in the sources, that can be added to the article as well. Intothatdarkness 19:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Why are we trying to decide what we think a tank battle is? Present reliable sources that provide that answer, or on a case by case basis describe an article as a "tank battle" where the sources do the same. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not provide our own input on events. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- How about subjecting each military engagement to the following test?
- (a)Do one or more RS specifically classify it as a "tank battle"? IF NOT, THEN proceed to (b).
- (b)Do RS show the following?
- (1)There were at least a dozen tanks employed by each side in the engagement AND
- (2)Tank-on-tank combat took place in the engagement.
- Emiya1980 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Keith-264, Parsecboy, and Intothatdarkness: Any thoughts on aforementioned proposal? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, my thoughts are that your fundamental conception of the issue is fatally flawed; I would have hoped that it was predictable from my previous comment that any number you came up with would be arbitrary, and I would immediately ask what's special about 12 tanks. To whit: why would an action between 11 tanks per side not count as a tank battle? "B" is unworkable on its face, because as I and numerous others here have tried to explain to you, the only thing we should be considering is what reliable sources say. Parsecboy (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Stick with RS. If it doesn't say, don't make things up. That's already happening in enough areas of wikipedia (see the ongoing battles over capitalization). Intothatdarkness 14:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Keith-264, Parsecboy, and Intothatdarkness: Any thoughts on aforementioned proposal? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Why are we trying to decide what we think a tank battle is? Present reliable sources that provide that answer, or on a case by case basis describe an article as a "tank battle" where the sources do the same. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not provide our own input on events. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- The easiest solution might be to simply quote an RS that describes an engagement as a "tank battle" and go from there. If there's disagreement in the sources, that can be added to the article as well. Intothatdarkness 19:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- RS show that there were tank-on-tank engagements between large groups of tanks. That is the requirement which must be met. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Operation Brevity is where the question arose. Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- C seems the only option here, given that per WP:V and WP:RS we need to follow what reliable sources say, not whatever the views of Wikipedia editors are. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- What about cases where RS do not explicitly refer to military engagements as "tank battles" even while providing significant evidence that large groups of tanks fought against one another? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Trust the judgement of the editor who puts the category in.Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- If RS do not expressly characterize it as a "tank battle", then it is OR. That seems to be the take-away of the discussion here. Emiya1980 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Trust the judgement of the editor who puts the category in.Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- What about cases where RS do not explicitly refer to military engagements as "tank battles" even while providing significant evidence that large groups of tanks fought against one another? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- (D) - invalid RFC - at least run askew of the goal, it was supposed to get input for *one* article or *one* category.
- The causative discussion in question at Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?, which was and should be referring to the unsatisfactory category definition Category:Tank battles of World War II - Wikipedia and might be done in the talk page of the category to hopefully improve the WP:CATDESC at that category. Not applicable to other categories such as tank battles of WW I for example.
- It seems also not applicable to just say refer to RS as this is not a cite discussion or about article body, it is a purely WP-structure question. There is no RS talking about what WP uses as a category definition, and whether RS used the term for the event may or may not be chosen as a criteria. The article discussion already went a bit into that, but basically it was an insufficient answer which is why this went to RFC. Would that be period RS said during WW II or is it a current historian retrospective? Is it required to be a majority of the descriptives, large WEIGHT, or sufficient if anyone says it ? Is it where RS mention tanks as meaning tanks were significant or must it be tank-on-tank and if so does that exclude combined arms battles ? Or is it RS as in an official NATO terminology definition or has a period-official designation ?
- The answer seems - WP says we make this one up, however we want. WP:CATEGORY says the proper use is navigational by defining characteristics, with WP:CATNAME as much as possible defining the category's inclusion criteria in the name itself. And WP:CATDESC says the TALK page should give any required further description, preferably with examples and specific criteria. There is no WP requirement for RS. To my mind the name means an informal category of WW II battles which involved tanks, I assume notably, and a RS explicitly saying so for WP:Category is not required if the category definition does not specify. (There is no such criteria there at this time.) That would cover the largest combined arms battles (e.g. Battle for Kursk) down to the Eagle 7 tank battle at the Cologne cathedral - though generally described as a "tank duel" and not a "battle". It would allow for all events where only one side really had tanks and if there were few or no tank losses. (Which was why the question initially came up). The CATDESC edits could list all of this and say "If tanks are being mentioned in RS is sufficient." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- General consensus seems to be in favor of C. Anyone want to close this? Emiya1980 (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
RfC about what are proper names
There is a RfC about proper names at MOS/Caps/RfC: What is a proper name. This seems simple but is often a very contentious subject and really could use "outside eyes" from uninvolved editors. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing is simple once the capitalization brigade gets involved. It's crap like this that makes Wikipedia a horrible place in my view. Intothatdarkness 02:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I abandoned an article on a fairly obscure battle I was intending to develop to at least a GA a few years ago when a group of editors who hadn't consulted the sources turned up out of the blue, decided that its title was slightly wrong and moved it via a RM in which they also didn't consult the sources. It was really frustrating and a total waste of everyone's time. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Quite. There was a thing a few years back about the use of Western when referring to the movie (and literary) genre. In pretty much every RS I'd ever seen Western is capitalized. But they argued it shouldn't be based on a series of relatively meaningless Google analytics (their favorite tool it seems...without considering the internet is functionally illiterate for a number of reasons). There was even a contention that 'Western' meant 'Western civilization' and not the actual genre. And any time you mentioned RS or specialist literature they just conjured the Google stuff again. Intothatdarkness 11:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I abandoned an article on a fairly obscure battle I was intending to develop to at least a GA a few years ago when a group of editors who hadn't consulted the sources turned up out of the blue, decided that its title was slightly wrong and moved it via a RM in which they also didn't consult the sources. It was really frustrating and a total waste of everyone's time. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)#Requested move 12 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)#Requested move 12 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The article Dark Ages reenactment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No reliable sources online Google; literally one total hit on Google news. Only very passing mentions in books. No serious scholar uses the term "Dark ages" anymore. Appears to be mostly original research.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- This seems to have been wound up. Should it be removed as part of process? Monstrelet (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Indiana World War Memorial Plaza
I've started several discussions at Talk:Indiana World War Memorial Plaza, if any project members are interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Came across this page recently - it's very detailed in places and includes a lot of unsourced claims, one of which stood out:
- The new commanding officer of the 21 LAA Regt, Lt-Col Martin Saunders, was called to the War Office in the third week of November [1941] and was given instructions on the regiment's destination and operational tasks. It was a secret operation known only to a few. He was the only one among the regiment who knew that they were to be a part of a small advanced force for a landing in French Algeria and then a subsequent 500-mile (800 km) dash to capture the airfields at Tunis and Bizerta. (...) While at sea, the planners at the War Office decided to reschedule the operation which had been one of Winston Churchill's pet projects, but without letting him know. The Operation would eventually take place a year later as “Operation Torch.”
This seems very improbable to me - not least that I can't see any reference to it anywhere else, and presumably any landing would have needed more than some AA units. I am going to guess that this is some post-war rumour that has been misinterpreted, but is there potentially some real event it was referring to? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Operation Torch was the Anglo-American invasion of French North Africa in November 1942. The story of how it was cancelled in early 1942 and then revived later in the year is a long one. I don't think the writer meant to imply that the AA regiment was the only unit that would have been involved, but it definitely would have been needed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Digging into the early iterations of Torch found a reference to Operation Gymnast (which redirects but is not mentioned in that article), and from there
- vol 3 of the Mediterranean official history:
- ... suggested that there might be ways of eliciting an invitation from the French. They felt that this was more important than capturing Sicily, which would create a very difficult maintenance problem. Their view was accepted in London and it was decided, instead, to make ready to respond to any request for help that might come from General Weygand in North Africa. To this end an expedition—‘Gymnast’—was to be prepared which would land at various ports, the most easterly being Algiers.
- [...] Having had time to examine the ‘Gymnast’ plan the Commanders-in-Chief commented upon it on 28th November. The objective, they thought, should be Tunisia, in order to keep open the Sicilian Channel. The occupation of Morocco or Algeria would be of little value. The port of disembarkation should not be too far to the west; it should be Philippeville, Bone, Bizerta, or Tunis. They admitted that this would expose ‘Gymnast’ to air attack, but they suggested that the support of our air forces from Malta and the enemy’s other preoccupations would lessen it. The Chiefs of Staff did not answer this proposal; their next step was to appoint General Sir Harold Alexander to the command of ‘Gymnast’. If the French invited us the initial force would consist of three fighter squadrons flown in from Malta and Gibraltar, for which the ground crews and two anti-aircraft regiments would go by sea. (These troops did in fact sail on 8th December, but their destination was changed a few days later and they went round the Cape with convoy W.S.14, of which more will be heard presently.) The main force of ‘Gymnast’ was to be roughly two divisions and one armoured division, which could leave the United Kingdom from twenty-three to thirty-two days after the decision to collect the shipping had been taken.
- [...] From convoy W.S. 14, due at Durban on 9th January, the following were to be diverted: the heavy and light anti-aircraft regiments that had been originally intended for the first flight of ‘Gymnast’, and ground staffs and limited equipment of Headquarters No. 266 Wing with three fighter squadrons, but no aircraft. Forty Hurricanes were to be lifted from Takoradi and taken by sea to Bombay to provide the first instalment of aircraft for this Wing.
- So this really does make it sound like it was fairly well advanced, to the point of having landing forces held ready at Gibraltar, and also that the AA units on that convoy were the landing force - they would presumably secure airbases, and French troops would provide the main defence until reserves could be shipped in from the UK. Amazing. I feel an article may need to follow on from this! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The article would be Operation Gymnast, which is currently a redirect. November 1941 saw Operation Crusader, which relieved Tobruk and threw the Germans and Italians out of Cyrenaica so there was optimism. The French did not provide an invitation, and Gymnast was cancelled as impractical. The invasion of Sicily in July 1942 then looked like a prospect. The Americans wanted to invade France instead (Operation Sledgehammer). Then Rommel counter-attacked in February 1942 and a long series of British defeats followed. Having cancelled Gymnast in 1941 after much argument with the PM, the British chiefs were then forced into argue for it over Sledgehammer with the Americans in 1942. If they could not have Sledgehammer, the American chiefs thought that the next best way to help the Soviets was action against Japan in the Pacific, but President Roosevelt overrode them because he wanted US ground forces in action against Germany in 1942. The upshot was that the war in the West was ultimately put back a year, Sicily to July 1943, and Normandy to June 1944. I have Sledgehammer on my to-do list, but will not get around to it until later in the year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Photos from a British Army museum
I took a range of photos of interesting exhibits while at a British Army museum last weekend. Unit data, badges, etc, all 1980s or more recent. Now I cannot find a copyright category to upload them under. What category should I use? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:U.S. Army 250th Anniversary Parade#Requested move 14 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:U.S. Army 250th Anniversary Parade#Requested move 14 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. DCAllStar (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Two MilHist featured topic candidates
I have two nominations at featured and good topic candidates for Featured Topics: Roman invasion of Africa (204–201 BC) and Scottish invasion of England (1648). If anyone has a few moments to stop by and record whether they feel they meet the FT criteria I would be grateful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The article Reza Hosseini has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Tagged for Notability concerns for 3 months. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect this is a memorial page written by a friend, family member or editor as the tag indicates. Page creator has only the single edit creating the page under that user name. Article on the incident with list of victims, including this person, should suffice. I think this should not be shown as a military history article as it does not fit the criteria under the What topics do we cover? on the project page and I will delete the project banner. However, I think the entire article should be deleted for the concerns expressed in the tags. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Not everything is a paramilitary
The article "Paramilitary forces of China" needs to redefine what is a "Paramilitary" since definitions have been awfully horrible. Additionally, many chinese government agencies have been inaccurately described as "paramilitary" by both wikipedia(including both Chinese and English) along with some sources, so I'm here to clear up some things
People's Liberation Army Reserve Force - Not a paramilitary
I have no idea how this even ended up on the Paramilitary forces of China article, but it does not fit the description of a paramilitary at all. It is a reserve force, not a paramilitary
Chengguan - Not a paramilitary
Somehow was part of Category:Paramilitary organizations based in China; the Chengguan is not "paramilitary" in any way outside of brutality incidents, and most of the time, people calling it a "paramilitary" is a chinese internet meme and is not intended to be serious
China Marine Surveillance - Not a paramilitary
It's not even armed. To some extent, you could argue it's role is semi-military due to maritime rights protection and how it operates ex-navy ships though it still ain't a paramilitary
Sources: http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2013/0710/c70731-22146670.html (People's Daily)
China Fire and Rescue - Not a paramilitary(or only a paramilitary in terms of organization)
No seriously - It is officially considered a paramilitary due to it's organization which came from their predecessors in the People's armed police
Irrelevant, but the article needs to be split into the NFRA and China fire and rescue so please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Articles on Chinese firefighting are awfully inadequate and confusing
Sources: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_21450412 (The Paper)
http://fj.119.gov.cn/gok/zcjd/202311/t20231103_94278.htm (Fujian provincial fire and rescue department)
http://www.zichuan.gov.cn/gongkai/site_zcqrlzyhshbzj/channel_6572c1f67aac538e843528a2/doc_6763ce2fcbc9b8d285716ca2.html (Zichuan district government)
People's Police SWAT - Technically a paramilitary
Similar situation to other police tactical units. Yes, some of them are technically paramilitaries in terms of capabilities, though they are still mostly civilian police in nature.
By the way, the current chinese civilian SWAT is a draft, if possible help out
People's Armed Police, Ministry of Public Security Active Service Forces and China Coast Guard: Debatable
The PAP is often mistakenly called a paramilitary, though I think this is rather debatable(at most, the MPSASF is sort of paramilitary in terms of organization for their role).
Members of the people's armed police are active service personnel and receive veterans benefits after they retire. Additionally, PAP members who commit crimes are sent to military court and not civilian courts.
In fact, the only real reason it is called a paramilitary is since it is not under the PLA(though they do share common history, as most PAP units were formerly part of the PLA).
The current coast guard, internal guard corps and mobile corps are rather military in both role and organization;
The defunct transportation corps(now part of mobile corps), gold corps, hydropower corps and forestry corps were much less military in role, with the transportation corps and hydropower corps being more of disaster relief, gold corps in charge of finding gold(and law enforcement) while the forestry corps were simply firefighters(though they still had the law enforcement role and started out as a counterinsurgency agency in the 1940s)
Sources:
http://sgzz.lzre.edu.cn/info/1123/1430.htm
https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1864827
Militia, Maritime Militia - Debatable
Militia are more of a part time force and a reserve force, and are not treaty as active service military members, and are led by provincial military districts(who are under control of the provincial government). I would say they are sort of a paramilitary in terms of capabilities.
Sources:
http://big5.www.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2011/content_1860763.htm
https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_22139564
Xinjiang production and construction corps - Debatable
It is overall similar to the concept of Tuntian, and have military organization, though I am unaware if they are armed, and it overall seems to be treated more as a provincial government inside a provincial government.
In fact, the XPCC is not the only production and production corps, it is simply the oldest and only remainiding one, in the 1970s there was stuff like the Jiangsu PCC, Guangzhou mil district PCC(ironically in hainan) etc which all lack articles on english wikipedia. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Yao Yuanjun#Requested move 30 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yao Yuanjun#Requested move 30 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Al-Najjar family massacre#Requested move 9 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Al-Najjar family massacre#Requested move 9 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (💬 • ✍️) 11:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:The Holocaust#Requested move 21 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Holocaust#Requested move 21 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (💬 • ✍️) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
MilitaryFactory (deprecated source)
@Battlesnake1: since they noticed the widespread use of the source.
Ever since I saw this discussion at RSN, I have been slowly removing (if another inline citation exists) or replacing (if it doesn't) the source in articles. In a lot of articles it is used once or twice, so it isn't a big deal. But in some articles it is used dozens of times. Those are the articles where it'd be nice if an editor experienced with military stuff could take a look at it, as they could judge whether it can be wholly removed, or should be done piece by piece. I'll keep updating the list below.
- Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun (used 39 times)
Total number of articles citing MilitaryFactory: 621
TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Advice on dealing with slow edit war SPA
After advice on the best way to deal with a situation at Battle of Gangwana where an SPA is changing the result from a fairly stable result of inconclusive and no willingness to discuss. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is a much more general problem for the project and in general, not just in this article. I stand to be corrected but I think that about all the coordinators can do is downgrade the assessment, tag any obvious problems and ultimately get an administrator involved if necessary. If so, that is about all an experienced editor can do as well. Some of the edit warring users on this topic in general have been blocked or topic banned in the past. This is the subject of the arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history. The case is moving toward a conclusions as the time for statements and evidence has concluded. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Guidelines for flags in military person infobox
Is there a standard/guideline for flags/rank emblems, etc. in the military person infobox? I've worked on U.S. military biographies and have seen both with and without. I appreciate the color added with the flags/emblems, but usually don't add them when I'm creating a biography.
User:2600:387:F:7D15:0:0:0:9 (contributions) has been doing a mass deletion on military biographies with edit summary "The reason why I removed the image because it is redundant. Take a look at Pete Hegseth, Dan Caine, Omar Bradley, etc. They don't have any flags for their allegiance, rank, etc."
— ERcheck (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- @ERcheck: You're looking for WP:MILFLAG. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- MOS:INFOBOXFLAG may also provide guidance. Curbon7 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @The ed17 and @Curbon7. As I mentioned, I don't use them; however, while back, it seemed to be the "flavor of the day". — ERcheck (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- See MOS:MILFLAGS as well, which gives a bit more detail than MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. If they are not acting as a key to link other information in the infobox they are not serving a useful purpose that might make them permissible. Icons must be introduce with the corresponding text on first use - just like initialisms. If they are not used more than one, then the icon is redundant in respect to the text. As such their use would be primarily decorative. We should not be using such icons where their use is primarily decorative. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @The ed17 and @Curbon7. As I mentioned, I don't use them; however, while back, it seemed to be the "flavor of the day". — ERcheck (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- MOS:INFOBOXFLAG may also provide guidance. Curbon7 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Normandy massacres
I am having problems with an editor on the Normandy massacres page who wants to list all the people who were killed in the massacre as some kind of memorial. I removed the list as WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, but they say I am not interpreting the policy correctly and are looking for someone with the same view of the policy as they do, which would allow them to include the list of dead. I was hoping I could get some help with this. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I should add, the conversation happened on my talk page. Llammakey (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me to be over-linked, the prose is a bit laboured and it does lean far too much on one source. Naming every victim might work in a table under 'commemoration' but not in the body of the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- We did get it sorted out and the list won't be added (I originally just thought it'd help folks who wanted to research individual stories more), but I just want to clarify that I did not say they were interpreting it wrong, nor did I try to find someone who would agree with me. We just had different interpretations of a policy, and since it there isn't a clear-cut answer (as noted by the other respondent in the talk page), I just wanted to ask some other experienced editors; I'm in the Wikipedia discord group so it's easy to do. If you look at the conversation in the aforementioned talk page, you'll see I was cordial and did not cause a fuss at any point, nor did I start an argument.
- The matter is settled and I'm not saying this to litigate anything; I just wanted to add my perspective since this was described in quite a unflattering way.
- Thanks to the folks who chimed in, or took the time to copy-edit while you were in the article :)
- CplKlinger (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think that it is clear that an article about a person who is a victim of some crime, massacre or tragedy but would who not have the notability to qualify for an article about their life (even if upstanding and praiseworthy in general) other than as a victim in the notable event, should not have an individual article about their life.
- As Ed wrote and Keith-264 implies, the guideline may not be so clearcut when the name of a victim is simply listed in an article about a noteworthy event and a compromise of a sort would not seen to be out of the question, at least in some cases. I am not surprised "much ink has been spilled" on this question. I am not entirely sure that a list of casualties in high profile event in a separate list article would never be proper. In any event, I am glad this instance has been resolved.
- I think there are probably articles where all the victims are named despite no individual notability for many or all of them. Except in rare instances, I suspect the list is short. (Of course, we could bring up the "other stuff exists point to add further complications.) I also suspect no one has thought to bring up the notability of the names of a short list. In many such articles, only the otherwise notable persons in what would be a length list of all names are mentioned with a plus the number of others.
- One could see how the length of such lists could get out of hand. Should articles about other military events, such as battles, list all the casualties? In modern wars, the names are likely to be available somewhere and if so they all could be listed in many articles. Some would be quite long. On the other hand, an internet search would reveal them to anyone interested if there are sources for such names.
- For an example, I looked at USS Arizona reasonably carefully. I saw only three names although perhaps I missed a few. I scanned Attack on Pearl Harbor and think that a reasonable estimate is that there are a few dozen names listed. Only the name of the surviving senior officer is in the article on USS Arizona Memorial. There is a picture in the article of the inscription of the names of the 1,177 men who died on a marble wall. One would need a larger computer screen than I have to enlarge it and read the names. It is a long list. (I have stood at the spot and can say it is an emotional experience to see that wall of names and know that almost all of them are buried beneath you.) Total killed at Pearl Harbor was 2,403. It would be an even longer list.
- I added the previous three paragraphs of this comment to show why I think ink has been spilled on the application of this guideline in some instances. I also note that if there is no definitive agreement on the interpretation, or it is not readily available, or someone is not familiar with the (likely obscure) pages where it has been discussed, another discussion and its participants should not be criticized. In fact, I perceive the discussion about different interpretations to have been civil and to the point. All involved, and you in particular for bringing the matter to a resolution, should be congratulated. Donner60 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wrote overlinked but I meant overcited, no need to repeat citations to the same page three times successively. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Apropos, Battle of Le Mesnil-Patry has a list of names. Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wrote overlinked but I meant overcited, no need to repeat citations to the same page three times successively. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
WikiProject pages vs. articles
The latest run of Special:WantedCategories features about 150 redlinked class-ranking categories being generated by your {{WikiProject Military history}} at the form "[Class] pages", but this appears to apply for some reason only to a subset of that template's usages: while I haven't checked all of them, in every single case that I have spotchecked, a "[Class] articles" category already exists for the exact same class, and remains populated by many, many pages that remain in the "articles" category without a "pages" redlink on them.
So, basically, the same template is generating "articles" categories on some pages and "pages" categories on others for the exact same criteria, and I can't find any recent edit to the template that would be causing this.
Since pages aren't allowed to be left sitting in redlinked categories, however, this needs to be resolved one way or the other. If you want the categories to be named "pages" instead of "articles", then they need to be moved to the pages form — and if you want them to stay at "articles", then they need to be corrected back to "articles" on the partial subset of pages where it's spewing out "pages" categories.
So could somebody look into figuring out how to fix this, preferably before June 16 so that they don't carry over to the next update of the redlinked category report? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe MSGJ Knows. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The number of these has now surpassed 200. This needs to be dealt with, as they're actively interfering with the process of getting redlinked categories cleaned up — if I go with the "ignore these and deal with everything else" approach, it's become untenably difficult to find the everything else in the list because there are so many of these to ignore, and I can't just keep working like that. This needs to be fixed as quickly as possible. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Every one of the "Stub-Class military history pages" is a talk page. Someone needs to turn off a bot, I think.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The reason for this issue, is the same that I discussed with the project at Template_talk:WikiProject Military history#Redlinked class-rating categories, again. Basically the milhist template is allowing editors to mark redirects and other non-articles as Stub-class, which is incorrect. It will need some edits to Template:WikiProject Military history/class. The default code handles all of this, but this project has opted out of the standard scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've had a go at updating the project's class mask. It will now detect redirects, disambiguation pages and SIAs automatically — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Tinkering with the article and looking for a better loc map of the west African coast between Takoradi in Ghana and Freetown, Sierra Leone. Can anyone help. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Is it desirable to accompany a unit's COMMONNAME with its MUCDs in lists/tables (like People's Liberation Army Rocket Force#Base 61)? It just seems like extra work and mass for something that's close to being trivia. Is this sort of thing done with Unit Identification Codes and Military Unit Numbers?
Pinging User:Thehistorianisaac. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- MUCD is a bit different, and is used far more than UIC and MUN.
- In fact, in the PLA and Chinese government often doesn't use the standard name(E.g. 611st brigade) when releasing info and instead opts to use the MUCD(For units under a brigade) in things like handing out awards. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
RFC
There is a Request for Comments at Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack. Participation is invited. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Should the People's Armed Police be called a "paramilitary"?
I recently posted this discussion, and I think the PAP should primarily be called a "gendarmerie", not a paramilitary. Yes, it technically fits the description of being a paramilitary(it's not part of the PLA, at least it no longer is) and is called that by many foreign sources. However, PAP troops are considered active servicemembers(unlike the Militia), recieve veterans benefits, and go to military court if they commit crimes. They are also referred to as "soldiers", share common traditions with the PLA along with identical rank structure, and in fact the PAP flag is also a derivative of the PLA flag.
The only thing that makes the PAP a paramilitary instead of a standard military is because it's not part of the PLA. Thoughts? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Our gendarmerie article says that they are either paramilitary or military, so given the PAP is not part of the military this does not appear to actually be a distinction. CMD (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis However, the PAP is under the CMC and in fact on the MOD website it is listed as a "military service"[6]
- On a similar note, we also need to ask whether the IRGC is a "paramilitary", as it is not under the standard iranian army. I think this is a similar situation, as even though the PAP is not under the PLA, it is under the CMC, and it's troops are treated the same as the PLA. As per before, when discussing branches of the PLA, the PAP is often mentioned.[7][8]
- In fact, from the perspective of this[9] The Paper article, after the 2018 reforms(where border defense, guards, China Fire Services/Firefighting Corps, Forestry Corps, Gold and Hydropower corps) were disbanded the PAP became even less paramilitary(or more, depending from your point of view), and more similar in role to the US National guard.
- I would say that outside of not being part of the PLA, the PAP is basically standard military. It's personnel are considered active service members after all, and it is under the CMC. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Iran–Israel war#Requested move 20 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iran–Israel war#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)#Requested move 12 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)#Requested move 12 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 14:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The article Imperial Japanese Navy bases and facilities has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. WP:LISTCRUFT.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
When to add Chinese-language translations
There are situations where the article body (beyond the lede sentence/section for the article's subject) uses an English COMMONNAME for a Chinese organization or somesuch, and then the term is immediately followed by the Chinese translation (lots of that going on in Militia (China), and then unit lists like People's Liberation Army Rocket Force#Base 61 and 78th Group Army#Organization.) I've caught myself adding them too. But it's all very haphazard; sometimes it's done, and sometimes it's not. (It's not so clearcut as WP:CHINESECHARACTERS which deals with clarifying romanizations.)
As of late, my thought is to not do this in general, with exceptions being made for "interesting" cases (technical terms, cases where the English COMMONNAME is ridiculously different - however one decides that - from the Chinese term.) So typically not organization names, or unit names, stuff that is very mundane and needs no clarification. Thoughts?
Pinging User:Arrorro and User:Thehistorianisaac. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think this ain't just for Chinese, I think this applies to all languages.
- I personally think that it's not such a big deal, though having the Chinese name(What I added is the original Chinese name, NOT the chinese translation) does offer several advantages, such as easier info verification and I don't really see why not. Another thing is, I think if they don't have an article yet maybe having the chinese name is better, as that allows it to be easier to do research. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I generally support letting the English COMMONNAME stand alone when articles exist for those topics, including when a non-English language Wikipedia article is linked.
- I don't see the value of adding non-English names for simple cases or where the English name is adequate. Does something like "5th Regiment" need its native language name added if its really just "5th Regiment" there as well? I would consider names that are "simple" and with clear unique identifiers in the name (the "26" in "26th Division") to be good enough to start a search. Or in Ribbon bars of the armed forces of China, does the native lang version needed for "ribbon bars", "badges", "formal uniforms", etc..?
- If it's just basic unit type designations (eg. what is the native translation of "division") that seems like something that might go in a footnote for the first occurrence rather then repeat the native lang version every time the English name appears. For example, in China Marine Surveillance, many/most of the ship names follow the same pattern; a footnote for the native lang version of Haijian would be more efficient than effectively repeating the same native language name over-and-over again.
- For lists, I am thinking about cases like this (not military history, but since there's a set of editors working on Chinese military/paramiltiary/law-enforcement articles this may recur): large lists where every item is provided with the native lang version (in full, it seems). Is this something desirable for all such lists? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- @RovingPersonalityConstruct I think it really depends on context. Maybe for the ribbon bar parts, certainly it would not be useful. However for the MPS article I do agree for having the Chinese name. In a lot of cases, there is a lot of bad quality in translations(for example, the MPS revision you showed me, I could point out so much wrong with the translations), and having the chinese name would allow for easier corrections. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- @RovingPersonalityConstruct I broadly agree with what appears to be your overall point which is that articles should use English whenever possible since this is the English version of Wikipedia, and would suggest that the reason why the translation issue appears haphazard (i.e. not a project-wide problem) is that a lot of it may be user-specific. The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem. Nghtcmdr (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Nghtcmdr
- Again, you have yet to respond to the ANI discussion regarding your own misconduct, which I would suggest you respond to instead of continuing to harass me. You are giving yourself very little plausible deniability at this point
- Adding Chinese is not some "Political move". It's something that helps user understanding, and allows editors who understand Chinese to correct translations much easier
- It is community consensus that chinese state-affiliated sources(and state affliatted sources) have been accepted in the past depending on context(outside of CGTN and globaltimes), and you have failed to understand WP:NEWSORG or WP:REPUTABLE.
- Chinese state related sources have NOTHING to do with adding Chinese translations. You have now been doing WP:HOUNDING from what it seems, and having spread completely baseless accusations towards me, by falsely claiming
Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem.
. I would highly suggest you stop your harassment campaign and understand Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning.
- Again, I request that you address your own misconduct on WP:ANI before harassing me(Or even better, just stop harassing me). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Use of state-owned sources
Following on from the recent discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I would like to know when state-owned sources (sources with no editorial independence) can and should be used on military-related articles, specifically when it comes to descriptions of casualty events involving the armed forces from the same state. Many of the participants on the discussions there said state-owned sources can be used for non-controversial/exceptional/political details, claims and topics but that to me doesn't provide a specific enough of a criteria to determine its usability when the article topics are about military affairs where what counts as controversial/exceptional/political and non-controversial/exceptional/political are greatly blurred and where countries have arguably the greatest incentives to engage in propaganda and disinformation. Nghtcmdr (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Again, it really depends on context.
specifically when it comes to descriptions of casualty events involving the armed forces from the same state
- This is exactly when State owned sources are best used. To demonstrate the official statistics. For example, stuff like "Per iran: ### deaths, ### injuries and Per israel: ### deaths, ### injuries". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Anyone interested in rescuing some drafts about history of Chinese military?
Draft:1958 air battles around Fujian Province and Draft:History of Chinese Air Force have been draftified. They are creations of a student of mine, but I fear they are unable to or not motivated sufficiently to fix the issues. Still, there's some useful material there. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 05:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre#Requested move 22 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre#Requested move 22 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of American Civil War units by state#Requested move 29 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Army of the Czech Republic#Requested move 15 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Army of the Czech Republic#Requested move 15 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
A RSN discussion which may be relevant to this wikiproject
I have recently opened Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Should WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources from military veterans/personnel count as WP:ABOUTSELF in the context of discussing military topics? which may be of interest to members of this wikiproject. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to ask. But I recently reverted some changes at Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 which claimed that the project is dead i.e. tenses were changed to the past tense. I have recently been reverted for this. From what I can tell the project is still largely up beyond the damage near Denmark i.e. the line itself is largely intact. Would appreciate some clarification. Gotitbro (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- While someone might answer here, I suggest you post your question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Business, if you have not done so already. Although there is some mention of military in the article, this project's banner is not on the article talk page. Perhaps it might be of interest to the project if more info comes to light or if someone wishes to look into assessing it but at this time I am not sure there is enough to bring the article within our scope. My guess is that whether the pipeline is up and running is a news, or business, or energy matter not likely to be within the expertise or research interest of members of this project, at least unless further info comes generally to light. Donner60 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I will try at the RU project, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
What is maritime culture?
Hi everyone, I wondered if maritime historians might be able to help me a bit. I stumbled upon Category:Maritime culture and was puzzled by what it was supposed to be about, especially because there is no main article maritime culture. There is one in German Wikipedia, de:Seemannskultur, which autotranslates as "seafaring culture". As that article puts it, Seafaring culture refers to the historically developed cultural characteristics established in seafaring . They arose primarily from the sailors' tendency to fill an environment experienced as unpredictable and limitless with myths and customs. This way, they could fill the vast, unknown, and frightening—as the "foreign element," the sea, was experienced—with familiarity, thus reducing the fear of it. What follows is a range of beliefs and practices of (mostly European) seafarers over the course of centuries, both real and imagined (e.g. belief in sea monsters, but also walking the plank was apparently barely if ever a maritime practice), symbols, (in)discipline, food, health and survival, safety measures, and so on. Is this also what you would understand as "maritime culture", or not really? Because it seems to me that the current Category:Maritime culture is much broader than that, a catch-all for anything maritime-related, which is probably not helpful for navigation (pun intended). NLeeuw (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- The use of that kind of term in Australia tends to be broader, with commentators noting that it refers to public awareness of the importance of maritime industries and the navy. It's often argued that the Australian public under-appreciates this - e.g. [10] Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Royal Navy running out of admirals
With today's news that Ben Key has had his commission terminated, and with Tony Radakin retiring later this year, that will leave the only Royal Navy admiral as Keith Blount. His tenure as DSACEUR should end in 2026. Assuming the replacement DSACEUR is not Royal Navy as well, this opens the possibility that by about July next year there will be no admirals in the Royal Navy. Has this ever happened before? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have an answer to the question, but there are plenty of promotable flag officers. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that there are lots of senior officers who wouldn't mind that increase in pay, but I don't see an obvious way for them to get it. Gwyn Jenkins is FSL, removing the spot held by Key, and Radakin is being replaced by an RAF officer. My assumption is that VCDS won't be opening up for at least a few years either. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably they'll just make 2SL a 4* or invent another position at Navy Command HQ. Presumably the last time there wasn't an admiral was during the Commonwealth, so 365 years ago (but I don't know enough about pre-Restoration navy to swear to it). —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that there are lots of senior officers who wouldn't mind that increase in pay, but I don't see an obvious way for them to get it. Gwyn Jenkins is FSL, removing the spot held by Key, and Radakin is being replaced by an RAF officer. My assumption is that VCDS won't be opening up for at least a few years either. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I doubt the RN would want to do this, but it would likely be possible for the RN to source admirals from friendly navies. Until the 1950s the RAN and RAAF were generally commanded by British officers and the modern Australian Defence Force is notorious for having an absurd number of star-ranked officers - 238 of them as of 30 June 2024! This includes three 3 star admirals - the head of the RAN could be a potential contender if the RN needs another 4 star admiral, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Operation Mosaic
I have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Mosaic/archive1 at FAC, but it needs some more reviewers, or is liable to be closed in the next few days. It is about a British nuclear test series in Australia. If someone could drop by with a few words, that would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Some scrutiny of the edit frenzy please. Keith-264 (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've protected the page while discussion continues. Cheers to Ifly6, who has already jumped into that discussion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Naming scheme for articles about munitions
Munitions often have the same name as other things. That means that the name is disambiguated and a description is added in parentheses. In the M982 Excalibur RM we discovered that standardised article naming conventions and disambiguation descriptions don't exist. We have Full Metal Jacket (ammunition), Shell (projectile), Tomahawk missile, R-360 Neptune, M982 Excalibur, and so on.
Is it time to standardise the naming scheme?
@The ed17, 65.93.183.249, and Cinderella157: Pinging editors that showed an interest in this. TurboSuperA+(connect) 21:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Noting wrong with these names per WP:CRITERIA except that Full Metal Jacket should be lowecase (see [11]). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone here wants to get into a casing debate, given the ongoing open case request before Arbcom. That aside, I think you're dismissing this question without enough thought. The OP is essentially asking about WP:ATEC, not CRITERIA, and there could be value in having a standardized naming scheme on Wikipedia for military projectiles. Some differences are fine, but a wide variety make it harder for readers to find the topic they are looking for.
- (Somewhat separately but evidence of you dismissing this too quickly: R-360 Neptune and its thirty-seven [37] total results on Google Scholar strongly suggest that the article name is not the way most reliable sources refer to it.) Ed [talk] [OMT]
Can somebody please (1) add reliable sources, and (2) translate the lead into civilian-ese? Bearian (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect that this doesn't meet WP:N, and the article looks to have been copied and pasted from a US military website. I've just nominated the article for Prod deletion. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think the subject may be notable, but I don't have time right now to look into more carefully. I found the Army Program Review and Vision Guide at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA570645.pdf and a Security Watch Info article from 2007 https://www.securityinfowatch.com/home/article/10550026/caci-awarded-42-million-task-order-with-us-army-project-manager-force-xxi-battle-command-brigade-and-below. The project appears to go back to at least 2003 as an article from the National Defense Industrial Association web site suggests https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2003/11/30/2003december-armys-blueforce-tracking-technology-was-a-tough-sell. Unfortunately, most articles that I found in a quick online search use the Wikipedia article as a source, usually copying it wholesale. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Article creations on the military history on the continent of Africa
Hello. I have been working on drafting an article about Russia-Africa relations, given Russia/Wagner's increasing intervention there. Perhaps this is too ambitious of a project, or it has already been done and I just haven't found it, but I was wondering if we might create some articles about the military history over the entire continent of Africa. For example, we could have "African participation in WW2", "American military intervention in Africa", France, Russia, Germany, Britain, etc. Too much? Hopefully this is the right place, I wasn't sure where to go. Thank you for any responses. -IslaAntilia IslaAntilia (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Your in the right place, and you are certainly welcome to proceed with the article creation. If you need help or desire feedback, leave a link here and someone will read through the article(s) and let you know what they think. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- African participation in WW2 might be a little broad considering how much of WWII took place in Africa... But in terms of overarching articles for military intervention you will likely be able to find suitable sourcing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- France is covered by Françafrique. CMD (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW: Françafrique is about a later time period. If users search for "World War II in Africa", they will be redirected to North African campaign. However, perhaps African participation in World War II is a broader topic which would include any participation of African troops anywhere in the world in World War II as well as any other African military events or military leaders outside the North African campaign. I would assume that campaign would be discussed briefly and would include a "for further information see..." direction to the North African article in any new general article.
- I do not have the time, and probably do not have enough sources at hand, to be much help in adding new material on the topic. So I will comment that the topic would be a good addition if verifiable information exists but the expanded topic is not covered in Wikipedia.
- Assuming a lack of coverage or lack of complete coverage, writing or expanding any articles on recent Russian intervention in Africa appears to me to be worthwhile. As TomStar81 notes, this would be the place to ask coordinators or experienced users for feedback. Donner60 (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Donner60! That's exactly what I was going for. I appreciate the mention of Francafrique, but indeed, it simply has a list of times France has intervened in the modern era, plus a paragraph for every president of France, and their impact on France's colonial interests in Africa. It's not just about military intervention. (I've worked on the article myself!)
- I think what I have proposed is, indeed, a very BIG project, so I don't know how much like I will have with it, and maybe I should simply start by making first a list of pages of military interventions in Africa by France, America, or whoever else, and then a brief description of each. But I definitely did want to focus on troops from African countries in WW2. Maybe I could narrow the focus to just that. IslaAntilia (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you can find sources for notable actions outside the North African campaigns, your proposed approach sounds good. To summarize your intention as I understand it: First, write some shorter notable articles; then write at least one overall summary article if there is enough material for one or more. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW: Françafrique is about a later time period. If users search for "World War II in Africa", they will be redirected to North African campaign. However, perhaps African participation in World War II is a broader topic which would include any participation of African troops anywhere in the world in World War II as well as any other African military events or military leaders outside the North African campaign. I would assume that campaign would be discussed briefly and would include a "for further information see..." direction to the North African article in any new general article.
Image licensing assistance
I'm wanting to use File:Joseph Johnston.jpg in an article that has hopes of an eventual FAC, but in order to pass the FAC image review I'll need to be able to prove that this photograph or a clear derivative was published in the United States before 1930. The photographs of Johnston that I've been able to turn up published in 19th-century works are either a postwar photograph of Johnston in civilian uniform, or based on different photographs. Is anyone aware of any use of this image that I can use to pin down public domain status? It seems to me obvious that a photograph taken in the 1800s would not have any living copyright claimant, but that train of thought is not always accepted at FAC; there's apparently some strange edge cases in the copyright laws. Hog Farm Talk 23:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- A cropped version of the image was published in 1896 here. That might be useful? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- There's also this slightly wider crop published in 1928. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Pickersgill has the definitive answer, but assuming that wasn't the case, does this not qualify as effectively the same thing as commons:Template:Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions? Or commons:Template:PD-Brady-Handy? Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- There's also this slightly wider crop published in 1928. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Please add reliable sources. There are at least four languages that have sourced articles from which references might be extracted. Ping me if you have any questions. Bearian (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)