Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:55, 6 May 2012 editPeacemaker67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators95,467 edits →Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia: article move infobox and flag← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:04, 19 January 2025 edit undoCinderella157 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers18,576 edits →Angolan Civil War: c 
Line 1: Line 1:
:''Please add requests for MILHIST participation to ]. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.''
{{/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{/Header}}
|archiveheader = {{WPMILHIST Archive}}{{talkarchive}}{{archive-nav|%(counter)d}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{WPMILHIST Archive}}{{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 111 |counter = 174
|minthreadstoarchive = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 4
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
Line 8: Line 11:
}} }}


== GAN listings == == Requests for project input ==
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input}}


== INS Shankul (S47) has infoboxes for 2 different vessels ==
G'day. I wondered what the protocols are for GAN listings. It appears that editors can add articles at any place in the list. Some articles seem to remain at about the same place in the list, and never move up the list despite reviews of others above them on the list. What is the rule? Are they ordered chronologically based on date of listing or some other criteria? ] (]) 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


] has infoboxes for 2 different vessels. I assume this is a cut and paste error that needs fixing ] (]) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think they're ordered chronologically. Since people can review articles at any place on the list, newer articles can get reviewed before older ones, and vice versa; that probably causes the unpredictable movement you're seeing. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 14:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::The listing at ] are made in chronological order by a bot - editors don't need to manually add entries. As Kirill notes, the order they're reviewed in is dependent on the interests of the prospective reviewers. ] (]) 23:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks. ] (]) 02:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


:The two entries are for the same vessel. The second history section in the infobox refers to a refit and relaunch. Reference 1 show the refit date but no other details. The discussion in that reference mentions another refit between 2000 and 2006 but the text is rather vague. The information on that later work doesn't appear in this stub article. This article has obvious deficiencies. Perhaps someone can do some research and clarify the construction and refit history of the vessel as well as adding information. The reference has a little more discussion about it, for what it may be worth. ] (]) 03:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== "most severely neglected" list? ==


:Appears there was a name change (from ''Shankush'') which would be the reason for a second infobox. Refits on their don't require an a new infobox (afaik), they are just noted in the history in prose. - ] 07:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Is there a list somewhere of the "most severely neglected" Military history articles on Misplaced Pages, based on the importance of the event itself? If so, I nominate ] to the top of the list, with honorable mention to ]. later ] (]) 13:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:Well, there's ], which gives the top 500 MILHIST articles by page view - many of them are in dismal shape. I don't think I've ever seen a "most severely neglected" list that encompasses the whole project. ] (]) 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::I suppose you could go for a ] on those pages if you want to see them improved. —]<sup>]</sup> 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::: Popular is, of course, things popular on wikipedia which also happen to have a MILHIST tag. There is no reason why they should have any military importance. We of course don't do importance scale, so couldn't produce an importance-based list. While this saves us a lot of spurious ranking, it does mean we cannot target article improvement this way. ] (]) 16:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


== Angolan Civil War ==
"We of course don't do importance scale." Actually, several task forces have an importance scale, like the American Civil War, the American Revolutionary War, and the military biography task forces all divide their articles accoring to importance. ] (]) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:''We'' don't. What you see is a side effect of the dual-wikiproject nature of those task forces. Milhist (and the {{tl|MILHIST}} talk page project tag) isn't assessing the articles for importance, but the other partner in the wikiproject (] for the first two examples, ] for the third) do in their project tags. The software behind the assessment summary tables picks up that the article has ''a'' "Class" assessment and ''an'' "Importance" assessment and displays that in the results, not particularly fussing over which project's tag it these came from. -- ] 15:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::Well, the solution would seem to correct the software so the "side effect" doesn't show up. ] (]) 18:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi all. Recently the infobox to ] has been amended to include a long list of the various nationalities that served as foreign mercenaries or volunteers during that conflict. This results in the respective nations essentially being listed under the "combatants" heading of the infobox. I think this is highly unusual, and most of the other conflict-related articles I've read or revised do not have this feature, even those in which foreign fighters took part, whether as mercenaries or otherwise. As is it seems to make the infobox rather bloated, and I'm in favor of Thoughts? ] ] 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Members Library ==
:Agreed. "From that country" =/= "That country was a combatant". - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|SpinnerLaserzthe2nd}}: Please explain why the listing of different nationalities of mercenaries is necessary in the combatants section of the infobox. I've yet to see this in any other conflict-related article, so I'm genuinely puzzled at its inclusion at ]. --] ] 05:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Look at the ] article for example. You can see under volunteers. We could either:
***A. Place the mercenaries under the “units involved” section since the infobox had a Units section
***B. Keep it as it was ] (]) 05:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::] lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for ]. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --] ] 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::We could still list the indiviual nationalities under "units involved" section. ] (]) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Nationalities are not units. That’s the type of information that would be useful in the body of the article, but too granular for the infobox. --] ] 17:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


*Mercenaries do not represent their country of origin and should not be presented in a way that suggests they do. They are not state players or a faction in a civil war so they do not belong under "belligerents" in the infobox. They are not a "unit" unless they are organised into a specific unit. Per ], the infobox is not the place for nuance or detail. An extensive list of units would be inappropriate. ] arguments have no substance unless the ''other stuff'' represents ''best practice'' - ie two wrongs don't make a right. ] (]) 04:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I took a look on the Project Main Page and was wondering if there is any register where the members of the project can write down links to their user pages where they list the books of their private military history library. Otherwise there could also be a register with the books and which members own them. This could be a great advantage for article work as not every user has access to all the books he needs for an article but maybe another user has and can be asked to searched a certain fact in the book. If this already exists and I missed it, sorry guys! --] (]) 20:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Bomzibar, there's a list of editors' personal libraries (including mine) at ]. ] (]) 08:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::Ok, then I missed it, thank you Nick. --] (]) 10:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::On a related note, I've added a link to a LibraryThing list rather than manually copying it into WP (and then worrying about keeping it up-to-date) - I don't think this is likely to be objectionable, but as it's the only external link there I thought it worth checking opinions... ] &#124; ] &#124; 21:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I think that's fine. :-) ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


== Does anyone know where to find a list of the size of the major European navies in the 1680s? ==
== ] ==


I am currently making a wikipedia page for William of Orange's invasion of England and such a list would be valuable. ] (]) 17:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{clear}}
{{Collapse top|Click on for progress bar}}
{{Backlog progress bar|initial=24689|goal=0|category=Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists}}
{{Collapse bottom}}
<!-- ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
:The "needs grammar help" checks are really helpful, I'm going to see if I can get ] help with those. Great work! - Dank (]) 11:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:: I'll try and help out with these assessments when I can (not the copy editing though). If we all set ourselves a goal of doing 5 a day we could probably crack it in about a year. Thoughts? ] (]) 12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:::There are as of May 3rd 242 days left in the year. With a 23,500 backlog, around 97 article per day would need to be finished for the backlog to be completed by the end of the year. Not counting any influx of added articles.--] (]) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Thats seems like a lot... Mathamatactics never was my strong suit. ] (]) 06:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


:], I found a comparison of Dutch, British and French warship strength by decade from 1650-1700 at , if that helps. ] (]) 13:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== military biographies and videogame links ==
::A more comprehensive table is at . ] (]) ] (]) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And another that includes Spain and Russia, at . ] (]) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Personally I like Rodger's appendix II in ''The Command of the Ocean'': Ships of the line and cruisers for the six main European maritime powers every five years from 1650 to 1815. I can't find an on line version, but would be happy to photo and email it. ] (]) 19:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you guys. Luckily I found Rodger's book on the internet archive ] (]) 18:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== Help needed on People's armed police related pages ==
Should the military biographies of Three Kingdoms era generals contain links to ] ? Bear in mind these are real historical personages, who happen to be used in the videogames as playable fighters. ] (]) 03:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


The article ](currently it is known as the 2nd mobile contingent of the ] so I added a redirect) is completely out of date(simply by switching to the chinese wikipedia article there is much more info lol) and is lacking in tonnes of information that other articles have sources on; heck even the ] section on it has more information than the article itself.
:I would suggest not including them unless there's something substantive to be said about the individual's depiction in popular culture (per ]). Otherwise, we're likely to develop a long list of otherwise non-notable video game appearances; while Dynasty Warriors is perhaps the best-known game set in the Three Kingdoms period, there are dozens of others that also use these individuals as characters.
:Do we have, incidentally, any examples of articles where a military leader's depiction in a video game ''is'' given substantial treatment? ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 04:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


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


I have recently wrote and began working with ], an article about a specific military campaign of the Argentine War of Independence. The first military conflict of this campaign was the ], which took place on December 31, 1812 (yes, the last day of the year). In the campaign article, should I mention as dates "1812-1814" or 1813-1814"? ] (]) 13:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:I would think you'd be ok with using 1812, since there would have been preparatory action (maneuvers, troop shifts, political stuff, etc.) prior to the 31 Dec battle. ] (]) 20:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::Let me be fussy. Did the shooting proper begin after midnight 30/31 Dec & end before midnight 31 Dec/1 Jan? If so, you're fine with 1812 IMO. If the main action was over by midnight 31 Dec/1 Jan, I'd still say you're fine, even if there was some mopping up after that. My $0.02. ] ]</font> 09:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


Another issue is that the ] article claims it is part of the beijing contingent when almost all sources(including but not limited to chinese wikipedia) i can find online claim it is part of the 2nd mobile contingent. ] (]) 01:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Kniveton, G. Manx Aviation in War and Peace. Douglas, Isle of Man, The Manx Experience, 1985. ==


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


==B-class assessment==
Does anyone own this book "Kniveton, G. Manx Aviation in War and Peace. Douglas, Isle of Man, The Manx Experience, 1985."
I have been encountering articles that I feel have been prematurely promoted to ]. Many are ] articles. Examples: ] and ]. It could be that there is just not much to go on but that seems dubious. ] is somewhat of an improvement but I suspect there is more that could be written. Hero of the Soviet Union articles are a noble thing but if that is the only thing a person has done then the notability might be questionable. At least the article should contain more content and a better lead before being promoted to B-class. Others are military deserters like ] with an unsourced section. Articles like ], with the one sentence lead, and enough content to possibly fill the criteria for Start-class. Another is ]. I did not dig into any specifics, because I have been under the weather, I just thought I should mention this. -- ] (]) 19:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:B class is the minimum acceptable standard for Misplaced Pages articles. The ] requires that "it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." ] was assessed back in 2008, when criteria were less strict that they are today. Today it would be rated C class. ] ] 20:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks, what about a large amount of material possibly copy/pasted from the London Gazette such as in the ] article? -- ] (]) 04:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::It is out of copyright, hence PD. ] ] 03:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Still needs to be attributed, though. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* In the Thomas Alderson article, the text before the quoted paragraph in the "Second World War" section lists ''The Gazette'' as the source. There are no other Gazette references used there (uninvolved user comment). ] (]) 04:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Date of Battle of Argaon ==
If yes do you know what the ISBN is?


] (]) 22:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC) ] has 2 different dates for the battle quoted. ] (]) 10:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:The London Gazette (discussing campaign medals in 1851) has 29th November 1803 .
:A fairly detailed account in says it was late on 29th November.
:A more recent source, also has 29 November. I will update if nothing else comes to light. ] (]) 13:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Elizabeth Longford's ''Wellington: The Years of the Sword'' also dates it to 29 November. I have corrected the article. ] (]) 13:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== ''The Bugle'': Issue 225, January 2025 ==
:The only entry in COPAC has no ISBN; ditto WorldCat. I strongly suspect it was published without one; it's rare for a catalogue entry to omit them if present. ] &#124; ] &#124; 22:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:The asserts it has no ISBN. --] ] 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


{| style="width: 100%;"
::Thanks, i did search using a online search engine but every entry i found had the ISBN section empty, I thought it was a bit weird, thank you for help. ] (]) 23:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" |
{|
| ]
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div>
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
* Project news: '']''
* Articles: '']''
* Book review: '']''
* Op-ed: '']''
</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
</div>


== Draft article for review: FNSS ZAHA MAV ==
== Aviation combat losses ==


Hello to everyone. I have just created ], however my article needs review before it moved into article namespace. I would be thankful to who reviews it. I would be open to any suggestions for improving my article. ] (]) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Military aviation accidents are covered by a number of lists. Would there be any mileage in lists for aircraft lost in warfare. These could be by year or by war as appropriate.
I realise that this would be a huge task, but on the other hand there should be plenty of sources to document individual combat losses. ] (]) 18:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'd say to be fair we'd have to do casualty lists for ground forces too, broken up by nation and divided by conflicts. Would be a huge task considering we don't have any lists to that end that I know of. —]<sup>]</sup> 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
::There's also the question of what constitutes a combat loss. The U.S. Army in Vietnam has been accused of not considering a helicopter "lost" unless it was damaged beyond all salvage or recovery, and I'm sure that same sentiment could extend to other forces and nations. Technically a helicopter could be considered "shot down" if it was damaged and forced to land, but that didn't prevent it from being recovered, repaired, and put back into service. There are also a fair number of competing claims lists from various conflicts that haven't been fully reconciled. Just seems it might be more work, and end up requiring original research, if we wanted to do it properly.] (]) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::One approach might be to define a combat loss as an incident in which the aircraft in question was lost to the operator as a result of military action. Thus an aircraft damaged and force to land in an enemy/neutral country would be such a combat loss, even if the recipient returned it to service. Similarly, an aircraft ''declared'' as damaged beyond repair but subsequently returned to service anyway could be considered a combat loss. Severe damaged that was repaired wouldn't constitute a loss. ] (]) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
::::We do have at least two examples of such articles: ] and ]. ] (]) 08:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hmmm, so there is precedent then. I'd suggest that lists for WWI, the Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korean War and Vietnam War (subdivided by year?) would be viable. Other wars are available of course, such as the Six Day War. ] (]) 19:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Wikimania meetup ==


{{ping|Czech98006}} Request scrutiny of an editor changing the Infobox despite dialogue and pointers to ] Thanks ####
The last day of Wikimania in Washington D.C., Sunday July 15, is an "unconference", meaning most of the time isn't scheduled beforehand, you can create whatever sessions you want ... would anyone like to do a Milhist meetup for one of the sessions? - Dank (]) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
:Neither of you are referring to sources in the talk page discussion. Quoting the relevant sources (and considering the balance of sources in cases where there isn't a consensus, as might be the case here) is always a good way to resolve these types of debates. ] (]) 10:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I won't know until mid-summer if I can go (no scholarship!), but I'd love to if I go and if there is interest. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 11:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::I'll be in DC over the summer doing archival research, so I could come then. ] (]) 13:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


==Disambiguation of VC winners==
:::Doing a military history session/meetup on the unconference day sounds like a great idea; alternately, if people would prefer, we could get together for dinner sometime during the conference itself. In either case, I would encourage everyone to come to Wikimania if they're able—we're going to have a great program this year—and I look forward to welcoming all of you to DC! ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 04:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Please join the RM discussion. ]. -- ] (]) 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== Need Help Writing & Checking Already Written Summaries ==
== ] ==


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


Anyway, if anyone wants to help me write some summaries (1942 to 2025) or do some accuracy and grammatical checks on the already written summaries (1776 to 1941), feel free to help out. I started it in November 2024, so probably only a couple more months of work to do on it to get it ready for mainspace. '''The ]''' (] 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It has redlinks, I thought books were not supposed to contain redlinks? And are you supposed to credit yourself? since Misplaced Pages is a site anyone can edit, so if there are any changes it will no longer be a compilation by the original author... ] (]) 04:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


== Chinese navy ship prefix ==
== Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia ==


http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/TopStories/16278919.html
G'day, I'm looking for some advice/assistance regarding this article ]. I know that most experienced MILHIST editors will probably shake their heads and wouldn't touch a WW2 Balkans article with a barge pole, but please bear with me for a moment. The status of this territory is the subject of some controversy between a small number of editors, and I would like to enlist the help of a disinterested experienced MILHIST editor to help out on a few key issues. The 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' (slight variations between sources on the translation of the official German name) was established on 22 April 1941 after the invasion of Yugoslavia, and remained occupied by the Germans until October 1944. Essentially, the occupied territory consisted of a part of Yugoslavia as it existed before the war (there was no state or subdivision called Serbia between 1922 and 1941, and the occupied territory included parts of several banovina of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). From late May 1941 until they withdrew, the Germans were assisted by puppet governments they appointed to assist them to administer the territory, but the territory never achieved any level of independence or recognition, even within the Axis.


This source from the chinese MOD uses the CNS prefix for ], meaning that it is official that the chinese navy uses the CNS prefix. Chinese navy ship articles should not use names like "Chinese destroyer Nanchang" but be replaced with CNS Nanchang per norm(e.g. USS, HMS).
There are some pretty strongly held views on this article, and without wishing to oversimplify, there are those that see it as part of the historiographical continuum of current-day Serbia, and others that wish to see it made consistent with articles relating to similar territories. The two approaches seem mutually exclusive at present. Partly as a result, we have a real hodgepodge of an article, with a freeform infobox, non-standard structure and lack of clarity on what the article is about, plus a 1R restriction at the moment. What I'm after is not so much a 3O (there are several editors involved), but a go-to disinterested experienced MILHIST editor with some knowledge of German occupied territories who is willing to look at a few key issues in some detail and make some suggestions about a way forward. I know. I don't want much! I understand it is a big ask and it is a specialised area... ] (]) 11:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
:First question Peacemaker67, is this a ''territory'' or a ''military formation''? Second, completely not a Balkan specialist as I am, why can't both Serbian historiography and the similar-territories view be satisfied? Is there some specific reason why some compromise can't be reached as to a structure? Why don't you elaborate a little more? Good luck with this.. looking forward to hearing more. Cheers ] ] 07:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
::It is a territory not a military formation. The function of the Military Commander in Serbia was to be, in effect, the supreme authority in an occupied area of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia that roughly corresponds with modern Serbia. An occupied territory controlled by the 'Military Commander in Serbia', hence the official name. It is really part of the historiography of Yugoslavia (there was a Yugoslavia both before and after this period unlike Serbia which hadn't existed between 1929 and 1941). The issues revolve around the status of the territory. We are getting hung up on some key issues like the article title, type of infobox and what flags should be used to represent the territory. There were two puppet governments appointed by the Germans to help them administer the territory, but only one had more than a few months longevity, and it was completely subservient to the German military administration. I may not be giving some alternate views sufficient prominence here, but that is the gist of it as I see it. ] (]) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:::], the problem is that ] and ] are trying to present this territory as some "colony of Germany". While it was occupied by German army ("Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" was only a name of German military district that covered the area), the area was also commonly known as and was seen as de jure separate country in Axis Europe (it is presented as separate political entity in all history maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links ). Besides German military administrators, territory had civil Serbian government, its own armed units known as ], its own flag, coat of arms, currency etc. ] and ] are simply trying to exclude from the article these sources that referring to elements of statehood of this area and they aiming to present this area only as "occupied area" (for example they want to include in the infobox of this territory flag of Nazi Germany, which was not flag of the territory, while they do not want that actual flag of the territory is used in the infobox). ] 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: Ok, so there you have, in a nutshell, the problem here. There were numerous German occupied territories where the Nazis appointed puppet governments, but unlike the articles for those other territories, which have Nazi flags in their infoboxes. User:PANONIAN clearly wants this one to look like a country, hence the custom infobox etc. Everything done in the territory was done with the permission of the Military Commander. The Germans selected the leaders of both puppet governments, authorised the use of the flag etc by the puppet government, authorised the raising of the Serbian State Guard which served under the command of the Higher SS and Police Leader, and completely ignored numerous threats by the leader of the puppet government to resign because he wasn't being given any freedom of action. There was no proclamation of the establishment of a state (as happened in the puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, engineered by the same German that appointed Nedic) or any semblance of independence whatsoever. The maps thing is a furphy which has been thoroughly deconstructed on the talk page, as has the idea that there was any WP:COMMONNAME for the territory. Unfortunately, User:PANONIAN continues to use these arguments but has not engaged with the sources. It is pretty frustrating. ] (]) 23:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::But it is fully unclear why flag of Germany was added to other articles. It was added there by few Wiki users without any valid reason and that flag should be removed from these other articles as well, since there is no single evidence that flag of Germany was used as flag of any of these territories - all of them were separate political entities or countries, since ] is defined as "a distinct entity in political geography". Peacemaker67 wants to present that these were some provinces of Germany, which is not correct. And it is not true that my claims are not supported by sources. I collected numerous sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 It is Peacemaker67 who does not have a single source that would support these things: 1. that Serbia was part or subdivision of Germany, 2. that flag of Germany was used as official flag of the area, 3. that area did not had elements of statehood (civil Serbian government, armed units, flag, coat of arms, currency, etc). ] 06:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, all. This has degenerated as I feared it would. I've never said this territory was a province of Germany or part of the Greater Reich, or implied it. I have never advanced an argument that this 'Serbia' was a part of or a subdivision of Germany. I have produced masses of inline sources (in the article) for the complete lack of independent action and power of the 'Serbian' puppet regimes whose leaders were selected by the Germans, and that any raising of armed units, use of flags etc was all with the express permission of the Germans, to help them exploit the resources of the territory and get the locals to fight those that were interfering with that exploitation. They were not elements of statehood, they were limited concessions the Germans allowed them to get them onside so they could get the locals to collaborate with them. The German Military Commander remained the supreme authority in the occupied territory. Sorry for the distraction everyone, I'll take this back to the backwaters of Balkan history. ] (]) 12:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::In reviewing the ], this article is a perfect case in point of why they are sometimes unnecessary and distracting. Cheers. ] (]) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Hang on Peacemaker67, you deserve some help. Everything has to be a matter of ], yes and I sometimes wonder whether we need infoboxes - they distort the messiness of real human history sometimes. The problem as I understand is title (but that's minor), flag, and infobox. Well, there are two variations for the title, right, but they're not significant, yes? <s>For the rest, I would advise not showing a flag in the infobox; applicable flags can be shown in the article.</s> That leaves the infobox. Would you mind explaining please further what the different arguments for the infobox are? ] ] 02:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Panonian, looking at your sources page, none of your materials contradict anything Peacemaker67 is trying to prove. Would you like to explain '''exactly''' why if you dispute the current article title, what your prefered form of the infobox is, and why? ] ] 02:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Buckshot06, article title is acceptable for me, as well as usage of name "Territory of the German Military Commander", which is supported by the source. However, much larger number of sources is using terms "Serbia" or "Nedić's Serbia" and my point is that these two names should be also used on the top of the infobox below the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Second thing, title of new infobox is "Infobox former subdivision" and Serbia was not subdivision of any other entity, so I think that this infobox is misleading and that "Infobox former country" should be used instead. Third, It is the fact that symbols of Nazi Germany were not symbols of this territory and therefore these symbols should not be used in the infobox since they wrongly imply that Serbia was part of Nazi Germany. ] 08:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: @Buckshot06, I'm afraid I must disagree with PANONIAN on 'Serbia/Nedic's Serbia' and the infobox. This territory was a subdivision of Yugoslavia created by the Germans when they invaded and occupied the country (of Yugoslavia). We know its official name, and neither 'Serbia/Nedic's Serbia' is the WP:COMMONNAME (see talkpage discussion of the application of WP:TITLE). Using the official name and not various others in the infobox is consistent with WP:IBX and just keeping it reasonably tidy. We have recently moved to the infobox former subdivision for the above reason, not because anyone has ever suggested that it was a subdivision of Germany, although we don't seem to be able to get past that idea. I'm ambivalent about even putting a flag in the infobox, but I'm not the only editor involved here. My view is that the Militarbefehlshaber (Military Commander) flag is probably the most accurate, rather than the straight Nazi one. ] (]) 08:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::: I do not agree that "Serbia was a subdivision of Yugoslavia" - Germans officially destroyed Yugoslavia and created 3 new independent entities in its territory: Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. Germans did not regarded these entities as "subdivisions of Yugoslavia", but as new separate countries and Yugoslav government in exile also did not recognized existence of these entities. Furthermore, articles about two other entities are using "Infobox former country", see: ] and ]. Why double criteria are used here: one for Serbia and another one for other two entities? Regarding the official name, puppet Serbian government used name "Serbia" in its official documents, so there is no clear evidence that name "Serbia" was not official as well. As I pointed out on other talk page, two names ("Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" and "Serbia") are not excluding each other since "Serbia" was a name of the country and "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" was a name of German military district located in that country (therefore name of the district says that it is located "in Serbia"). ] 09:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::: This is WP:OR. You have no evidence that the Germans 'created' 'Serbia'. At all. @Buckshot06, can I ask for a a couple of minutes of your time to read this ]. Kroener et al is an incredibly detailed, long and authoritative text on Germany in WW2. This part of this volume (specifically pages 121 onwards for about eight pages) comprehensively debunks the OR on this issue that is being used here and elsewhere. ] (]) 09:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: But this author mention "Serbia" on various pages: . Since Serbia did not existed from 1918 to 1941, it is obvious that Germans created it. Also check map on page 86 in this book - "Serbia" written with big letters and "Territory of the Commander Serbia" with smaller letters below the name "Serbia". ] 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


More reliable sources(some third party) uses CNS:
'it is obvious the Germans created it.' is WP:OR. WP doesn't take 'judicial notice' of things you consider 'obvious'. You need a source for the 'creation' of Serbia, you can't just assume it, especially when it is so controversial and flies in the face of WP:RS on this issue like Kroener, Lemkin etc. There is no decree creating 'Serbia', no German order creating 'Serbia'. If there is, you need to produce it. I really think this discussion has deteriorated beyond what is reasonable on a project talkpage, and we are going to have to find some other way through this. I am disappointed by this, but it's just becoming embarrassing for everyone involved. I am not participating in any further discussion here except with disinterested editors such as Buckshot06 (assuming he still wants to help). ] (]) 11:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


https://news.usni.org/2024/09/18/chinas-liaoning-carrier-strike-group-deploys-to-philippine-sea - US naval institute
Now, I collected sources that saying that state/country of Serbia was indeed established by the Germans in 1941:
*
*
*
*
*
*


https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202407/12/WS6690f94ea31095c51c50dd2d.html - Chinadaily, with ties with chinese goverment ] (]) 00:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
] 19:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:Thankyou both for your comments. Peacemaker67, do not worry about what is appropriate or inappropriate on a project talkpage; you obviously weren't here when Mrg was around. This is exactly what we're here for, and it is much better that this issue is sorted out with many monitoring it than on some obscure talkpage.
:The article title issue does not appear to be a problem. 'Nedic's Serbia / Serbia' is not appropriate; the word 'Serbia' is already included in the title of the article, and 'Nedic's Serbia' is not encyclopedic language for the infobox - in formal English terms, it's too ]. The reference to 'Serbia' in 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' is enough to allude to the region. Panonian, I would advise you draft some sentences on the talk page so that 'Nedic's Serbia' can be incorporated into the first two or three lines of the article.
:On the infobox, this territory of Serbia was not a subdivision of anything, while as for infobox former country, the Independent State of Croatia and Kingdom of Montengro were both recognised at least by the Germans themselves, while this territory seems to have existed just about in legal limbo (or German right of brute force). It was not a country/state, though in making this judgment, there's no prejudice to the existence of the Serbian people etc. In my view, thus neither of the infoboxes in question is appropriate - time to call out the infobox experts, or make one up ourselves (which may have been done already). Peacemaker67, Kroener specifically uses the term 'Serbia' to designate this area under military administration, so unless you can offer further contravening evidence, I tend to agree with Panonian that ''de facto'', Serbia was 'created' in 1941 *by the creation of this administration*.
:Flag: having further investigated, I believe the flag of the Militarbefehlshaber is best, if we have it. In the interim, I have removed the flag and crest from the infobox while this is under discussion.
:Further thoughts welcome, especially from those who have not already participated. ] ] 03:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:: It is good to have your perspective, and I certainly appreciate having these discussions in front of at least some of the wider MILHIST community rather than on the article talkpage with only two or three other editors. The current article title issue is that whilst I am relatively happy with the current title, we have editors interested in moves to both 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' and 'Serbia (1941-1944)'. I certainly don't think the second one is appropriate, and I'm pretty ambivalent about the first one. We have already got a 'Names' section which doesn't contain any explanation but does have a number of different names used by a variety of WP:RS to describe this territory. I for one am comfortable with including 'Nedic's Serbia' in the first two or three lines of the lead. I agree with the legal limbo observation, and I believe the sources make it clear that is exactly why it was in limbo. Thanks for your time and effort. Given the outstanding issue of the article title, would you mind having a look at ] and ] as regards the title? ] (]) 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I think the proper article title is clear - as close an English translation as one can get of the official German military title, Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien, which appears to be ], though we may have to call out the German speakers for expert views. ] ] 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Hi Buckshot, um, was an accident? :) <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 03:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes, sorry Director, that was an accident. I had a couple of edit conflict warnings but they only showed me that I'd reloaded my own text. Please go ahead.. ] ] 03:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Well basically what I'm saying is I feel strange advocating the use of the Nazi flag, but since its common practice to use a German flag on a German occupation zone (go figure..), I think it ought to go back up until there's a real reason not to use it. PANONIAN is perfectly capable of "debating" ''in perpetuitas'' to keep it out, no question, so there's really no point in awaiting some sort of agreement from him. To quote his own words, he's apparently a "patriot" defending "Serbian statehood". <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Shall I personally go around and substitute the Militarbefehlshaber on all of them? ] ] 03:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I don't follow? Substitute the Militarbefehlshaber? If you're suggesting deleting the flags off all of them, and having infobox entries empty for the sake of PANONIAN, I couldn't disagree more. I think a German flag on a German occupation zone makes sense, these people answered directly to ministries in Berlin, and with all the confusion on that article, uniformity and clarity are definitely a good thing. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::No, I mean placing the Military Commander's flag, a military flag, on all the occupation zones: Belgium/N France, France, Norway, Netherlands, Ukraine, etc. See Peacemaker67's comments above. Seems more correct that way, as they were not formally made part of the Greater German Reich. And no this is not for the sake of Panonian - just seems more accurate. ] ] 03:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I'd vastly prefer the Military Commander's flag on this article. I can't speak for the other articles, because as Kroener et al point out, the German's had a pretty confusing set of structures in their sphere of power, and I'm not familiar with them all. BTW, I've asked a de-3 editor, User:Xuxalliope (who helped us with the infobox) for a translation. ] (]) 03:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't agree, and I'm fully prepared to disagree for at least several weeks' worth of discussion :). Seriously, though, while I would prefer it to nothing, I never saw anything like that. That's a personal flag, a flag of a military officer, like a general's flag. I don't see it representing a territory. Besides, we know from Tomasevich that the Military Commander had little to no real power over the territory. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 04:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
(od) That's the problem - this wasn't a country/state, so arguably it shouldn't have a country/state style flag. This is the nearest formal flag to match the article title and the titular leadership of the territory. ] ] 04:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:In my experience, subdivisions and territories and such can and do use a flag of a country that they're administered by. It doesn't imply they're countries on their own. In addition to the other German occupation zones, here's an example of an Italian one in Yugoslavia . I mean, its common practice. It could be changed, of course, but that doesn't mean it ''should'' be changed. I submit the diffs as indicating that this is usually done and that users and readers generally do not judge it implies the status of a country. I also don't see it, and Peacemaker can vouch that I am the last person to try and represent the territory as something other than what it was. In fact, quite the opposite. I think it emphasizes the subordinate status of the territory and its direct administration by Germany. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 04:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:: That's a completely annexed and incorporated province, Director. And therefore is not a good example. ] (]) 04:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
::: My point was that its not a country, and yet it uses a flag of a country without implying any such status. In that respect its perhaps an even better example than the other half-dozen articles. I've never seen a single article to use a personal flag in an infobox. Btw, when I introduced the flag I was under the impression it wasn't unilateral . <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 04:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: I understand you having that impression, and my apologies if I have moved the goalposts, but having looked again at Kroener and discussing with Buckshot06 I feel the point is that the Germans had a lot of different structural arrangements across their sphere, and we should be focused on getting this one right, not necessarily drawing on examples from other articles that may or may not be right themselves. We know we are right about this one, and I'd like to stick to that. My view is that the Military Commander's flag is appropriate (he was the supreme authority, regardless of how convoluted the German chains of command and control might have been). ] (]) 04:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


: PRC MOD is republishing something from the China Daily, which is not quite the same as PRC MOD using it themselves. China Daily is also, at best, inconsistent in its application of "CNS". Take a browse through the first couple pages of results in:
:::::Buckshot06, I accept your proposals. Note that I already proposed creation of new infobox here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#Proposing_compromise Perhaps you know who can create new "Occupied territory infobox" that can cover this subject? I also would not object to usage of flag of Militarbefehlshaber. Also, Buckshot06, there is similar problem in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Government_of_National_Salvation_(occupied_Yugoslavia) DIREKTOR added new infobox there too and I do not agree with following things related to this infobox: 1. that infobox is named "Infobox former country" and this article speaks about puppet government, not about country - note that I also proposed creation of new infobox that would cover the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Government_of_National_Salvation_(occupied_Yugoslavia)#Proposing_compromise 2. infobox states that this was "Puppet government of Germany" (in English, this would mean that this government governed Germany, which is simply ridiculous). 3. flag and coat of arms used there were symbols of Serbia, not symbols of the government, so I think that usage of these symbols there is not a best option. 4. I do not see why infobox about government should have a map of the territory that it governed - map could be moved to other part of the article showing territory under government jurisdiction, 5. description below the map ("Administrative subdivisions of the Government of National Salvation") is wrong - these were administrative subdivisions of the territory that was administered by the government, not subdivisions "of the government". 6. Belgrade was not "capital of the government", but capital of Serbia - it was a location of headquarters or seat of the government. 7. currency was currency of Serbia, not of the government. ] 04:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:* https://newssearch.chinadaily.com.cn/en/search?query=frigate
::::::Panonian, let's focus on finishing this article's issues first, and then work on other articles. The issues were (a) flag, which we seem to be coming to a consensus on, (b) article title, where we seem to have a consensus on ], and (c) the infobox. If I understand your position Panonian correctly the problem is not the use of the actual infobox but the title the infobox template has. In all other respects, the 'former country' infobox fits the requirements we have here. It is my belief that we should not get hung up about what titles templates have, and we should definitely not worry about using this infobox just as long as it has all the parameters (that is =name, =formal name, =capital, =population etc) that we need to illustrate the entity's characteristics. All we're doing is not having to create another template - we're being more efficient.
:* https://newssearch.chinadaily.com.cn/en/search?query=destroyer
::::::Once we've come to a definite consensus on this article, we can examine ]. ] ] 06:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
: Most references to Chinese warships are not using CNS; foreign ships, on the other hand, typically have their prefixes. Interestingly, "CNS" (https://newssearch.chinadaily.com.cn/en/search?query=CNS) seems to be applied by CD to the aircraft carriers than anything else.
{{outdent}}
: PRC MOD also republishes articles from China Military Online (http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/OverseasOperations/EscortMissions/index.html). Here, too, there's a distinct lack of usage of CNS.
PANONIAN, there is just no way we will be duplicating infoboxes because you do not like their name. The exact wording in the name of the infobox template are irrelevant. This was explained to you. By three people. At least twice. There was no country called "Serbia" during WWII, and do not confuse the issue by using the term in an undefined manner, etc. etc. I mean I've said all this about twenty times... <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 06:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
: Overall, the form <ship type/function> ''<ship name>'' predominates in the above. - ] (], ]) 02:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Ok, I have to say this. This entire thread has been turned into just another way for PANONIAN to restart the same discussions for the ''twenty-fifth time,'' now that he cannot effectively do so on the article talkpage. There are real issues to discuss here, like the flag ''etc,'' but with PANONIAN here ] the discourse by hitting the 'reset' every time, this is pointless. Until the issue of this user's behavior is addressed, I really think there can be no discussion or resolution. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 06:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
::And the important question is why would China officialy use the ''English'' term Chinese Navy Ship for a prefix? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hold your horses Director. This thread was started by ]. It appears to be reaching consensus. If necessary, other administrators and I will no doubt be willing to enforce that consensus. It is also unfolding under the view of all the WP:MILHIST coordinators, who will no doubt be willing to take action if necessary themselves. People have to be willing to approach administrators if a reasonably reached consensus is breached. ] ] 06:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:::In chinese there is no prefix but in english I mostly see CNS or no prefix instead
: I've said I'm not engaging with sort of thing here, so I'll just say that I agree with the move to the official name for the article as per response from Buckshot06. I have asked two WP:Translators to look at the relevant section of the talkpage and provide their views on the accuracy of the translation. For the record, I would prefer to see the Militarbefehlshaber flag in the infobox because I consider it the most appropriate one for this article. I also understand from the above that Buckshot06 is suggesting the infobox former subdivision IS the most appropriate infobox here. It is the one we are using currently (although I note PANONIAN doesn't agree with it, and wants a custom one). Am I representing your responses correctly, Buckshot06? ] (]) 06:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Might be inconsistent overall(maybe translation problems?) but I think since the Chinese MOD used it(even though it was a republished article people have reviewed it and decided not to remove the prefix), and it is one of the more common prefixes used for the PLAN(other than PLANS, which is used on wikimedia commons however not much anywhere else) so i think if we get any more official sources we should move chinese navy articles to start using CNS. ] (]) 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::As for the inconsistency, I have a theory for this
::Articles with CNS were written originally with english(which is why they added the prefix), articles without CNS were translated from chinese; there is no prefix in Chinese which is why the translated version has no prefix ] (]) 03:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


Very long-standing practice is to only use prefixes when the navy in question officially uses them. The top source linked is a republished article from China Daily, not an official government publication, so there is no evidence that the PLAN uses prefixes (and it's highly unlikely that they do, given that prefixes are more or less a Western thing that don't exactly make sense in non-alphabet languages). As far as I can tell, "CNS" falls squarely into the category of ]. ] (]) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== Escort Group (naval) ==
I'd like to request that any willing editors interested in Royal navy operations in WWII take a look at ]. In respect to the RN in WWII I think this an important topic to which (at the moment) this article does not do justice. I'm afraid my knowledge means I do not have overview of general RN operations to fix this article (or the books to reference)(I'm pretty tightly focused on Captain class frigates), at the moment the article covers how the Escort Group concept was developed but does not have that much on how it was actually used operationally. --]] 14:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


:Even though it is republished, the fact still stands it is on the Chinese MOD website which means they had no problems with publishing an article with that prefix; However on the chinese MOD website seems that most articles do not use a prefix, as they seem to be direct translations from Chinese ] (]) 13:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Best expert though he focuses on up to and including WW I is ]. Approach him for guidance, but beyond that it will probably have to be a matter of ] now or in the future. Remember that while specific elements of the English-speaking navies are a little sparsely covered, we've got great, gaping gulfs on, for example, the Portuguese or Dutch navies in the C18 or C19. ] ] 02:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


::Just because they "have no problems" with the prefix doesn't mean they use it internally. ''That'' is the bar you need to meet. ] (]) 13:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hmm, as this is WWII and ] focus is "up to and including WW I" perhaps not the best person to contact? As to doing it myself as I indicated I do not have the reference material, I could supply some detail with references related to the participation of ]s in ]s but this would only represent a very small part of a much bigger picture hence why I was hoping someone with a more extensive library would take up the challenge. --]] 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I know, however in Chinese prefixes are never used; in the end CNS is the closest thing we have to an official prefix for the Chinese navy(the link I put, and the fact that many external sources, though likely made up, also use it), so until any more sources come out, articles using CNS should only be redirects
:::However this still is a huge leap in the search for more official prefixes to use. ] (]) 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== ] ==
Came across ] while doing something else? This is embarrassingly unencyclopedic and seems to have some POV issues. I'm not sure it is salvageable in its current form. Could someone with an interest have a look? - not really my area of expertise. Thanks in anticipation. ] (]) 17:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


Please note there is ] about including countries other than the United States. I'd appreciate input from other editors. Thanks. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:It seems to be mostly a copyvio from sadly. ] (]) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


== ] ==
::I've re-expanded the article with a translation from French Misplaced Pages, but would be grateful if someone could check it over. --] (]) 07:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


Does anyone know how to fix the table at the above location? It's currently showing zero pages in most non-article categories. Looks to be the result of a recent move of these categories eg from ] to ] - ] (]) 15:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== "Gaps" in the nations task forces ==

I was looking over the list of task forces for the various nations/regions and noticed that the following countries/regions seem to have no place in the current structure scheme of things:
# Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Leichenstein, and Switzerland
# Portugal and Andorra
# Belgium and Luxembourg
The first set could be combined into a "Central Europe Task Force" or something similar. Portugal and Andorra could be combined with Spain to form an "Iberian Peninsula Task Force". ] (]) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
:Belgium and Luxembourg could possibly be combined with Netherlands to form a ] task force, subject to consensus of course. ] (]) 19:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
::Andorra would be a hard one to place sense it is ruled partially by the French President and defense is equally the responsibility of the French and Spanish.--] (]) 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== Discussion about Taliban/Insurgent casualties in the ] infobox ==

There's currently a discussion (which I started) about whether it's appropriate to use a casualty figure derived from the ] article in the infobox of the ] in the absence of a specific reference for this, and where there is a reliable source saying that there are no reliable estimates for Taliban casualties. All comments at ] would be great. ] (]) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

I've just translated this article on a Nazi war crimes trial - please feel free to check it over. Some of the translation involved legal terms that I'm not totally familiar with. I also didn't expand on current plans for a retrial as that could be sensitive. --] (]) 13:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

== Requesting references/fact-check for new article ==

Found ] whilst doing New Page Patrol. It's an article about a Belgian World War I veteran who passed away in 2001. It's currently unreferenced but well-written, and I suspect that any references will be Belgian or at least from that part of Europe, and I don't know where to start looking. If anyone is interested in helping, I'd appreciate it. Will be crossposting this at WikiProject Belgium. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:For "Belgian" read French or Dutch. ] (]) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
::I actually can speak and read French, but I don't know where to look for French-language Belgian newspapers or scholarly articles. A WikiProject Belgium contributor helped though. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

== Soldiers by war category discussion ==

] at CfD may be of interest to the project. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 03:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

== German formations ==

After consulting the archive ] I have begun to move the Wehrmacht divisions from (Germany) to Wehrmacht; while moving the Bundeswehr units from (Germany) to Bundeswehr. Going through the discussion one thing struck me - that there is some misconception about the amount of Armys Germany actually had- in total there where 8 for the whole of Germany (listed below) and not less then 38! for smaller entities of the Reich.

* Army of the ] 1422-1806 - ]
* Army of the ] 1618-1804 ] (the english wiki article ] got it wrong)
* Army of the ] 1821-1866 - ] (also the name of the ] from 1920-1938 and since 1955 again.)
* Army of the ] 1871–1919 - ]
* Army of the ] 1921–1935 - ]
* Army of the ] 1935–1945 - ]
* Army of the ] since 1955 - ]
* Army of the ] 1956-1990 ]

and what must be understood the current one (]) does NOT see itself as a successor to any of the above and for units of the German military there is a need to establish more disambiguation then German Empire, Wehrmacht, Bundeswehr... thoughts? ] (]) 11:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:Noclador, is my summary of the Heer in the intro to ] adequate, in your view? I had a crack at untangling this since 1945. Also, are you saying that the current Heer does not see itself as the successor of the 1955-90 West German Army? - seems a bit of a stretch.. ] ] 22:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:: the current Army doesn't see itself as successor to the 1955-1990 one as it is still the same. Maybe I presented it in a confusing way - as the current ] and the 1955-1990 ] are the same and I thought it is clear that it is not a successor to any of the above. If we would go with the image current German Army has of itself, then we have to write its article, with only fleeting mentions of th other Armies above. I.e. the German wiki article about the current Army doesn't mention the Wehrmacht Heer; the German wiki treats the Wehrmacht Heer and the current Heer as two entirely different entities. For the German Army of today - the various Armies before them (or besides them in East Germany) are like the Armies of completely different nations; and should be kept separate like i.e. British Army is kept separate from the French Army and the Italian Army... I now read the intro to ] article and fixed some factual errors and reworded it. I also went through ] (fixed errors in the intro) and had a look at ]... which is a disaster! the following three paragraphs need to be removed entirely: World War I, Interwar period and World War II - that is way to much of another nations Luftwaffe! If you look at ], that is how it should be. Also Heer needs a rework to reduce the erroneous connection with former military formations the Heer is not connected with. ] (]) 17:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Regarding ], it is my view that the current state of the article is reasonably OK. The thing is the article is at ], and thus needs to cover the various German armies - making as you allude to clear about their separate status in regard to each other. The German army is very much connected to itself, as you see from histories of the German Army linked in the further reading or references (Stone, for example). We need to be careful of removing perfectly valid historical continuities simply because official lineages created in Bonn in the 1950s do not agree with them. Both need to be presented in a valid way, because ], and it would also create a ] issue. ] ] 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: well, indeed - there at German Army can be an article covering the various Armies in detail, but it should not cover one alone - therefore split out the Heer of the Bundeswehr; a compromise solution? ] (]) 01:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::That would produce a very complicated set of articles from the English-language naming point of view, and an argument could be made that 'why shouldn't it cover the actual army today alone.' Also, just because de:wiki does it that way does not necessarily mean that en:wiki has to do it that way. I'm not myself worried very much either way, but I would strongly suggest we wait for further opinions. ] ] 01:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== Is this guy notable? ==

I'm not sure if ] meets ]. Major General of (as far as I can tell) an Army Reserve division. Not sure if he's had any ]-satisfying coverage, his common name makes google searches difficult. I'll leave it to you guys to decide. ] (]) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:] states division commanders are notable automatically if they commanded the division in combat, I believe. —]<sup>]</sup> 13:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
::I think it says all officers who have held generals rank. I also note it says that just achiving this is not notable, its still requires RS to establish notabilty. It says that if they have achioved generals rank they should have recived sufficant coverage. So without sufficant coverage no he is not notable.] (]) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:::As it stands, the article doesn't indicate how or why he's notable. ] (]) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I have tagged the article with a notability template and notified the article creator of this discussion. ] (]) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Must be notable he has to have his medal ribbons repeated! makes you wonder if we should gain consensus to ditch medal displays like this. ] (]) 16:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::"We" have had that discussion many times in many places. There are strong supporters of ribbon displays. To date, consensus has not been reached. Although tempted, I'm not going to start yet another discussion. (And yes, the ribbons in the table were too big. I've made them smaller.) ] (]) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm sure General Smith has done some notable activities. Perhaps an inquiry to his unit will provide a biography of him. ] (]) 18:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::He was awarded AM ''For exceptional service as the Commander Joint Headquarters Transition Team Iraq, Assistant Commander of the 1st Division and Commander 9th Brigade.'' Similarly, people are not awarded CSC and US Legion of Merit for no reason. Have a look at his . Yes, I think he satisfies notability guidelines. However, at the moment, the article does not make that at all obvious! ] (]) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::What are the AM and CSC? You need to be aware that the US has sort of a sliding scale for medals awarded to General Officers compared to th ose given to lesser grades. I've seen Legion of Merits awarded to Command Sergeants-Major upon their retirement, but the same award for a general is an unexceptional end-of-tour award. So I wouldn't say that those automatically confer notability. And I don't even know what the medal inflation is like now. As a two-star though, he should be notable just as a general officer. Or did we deprecate that guideline?--] (]) 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: AM is 'Member of the Order of Australia' (equivalent to a British MBE), see ] for more info, only 1,024 awarded in the Military Division. CSC is the Conspicuous Service Cross, a fairly significant award of which only 731 have been made. It recognises outstanding commitment to duty or outstanding application of exceptional skills, judgment or dedication, in non-war-like situations, see ]. I would say he meets notability guidelines in combination with other matters, such as rank etc ] (]) 02:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}} to my way of thinking without the references showing independent coverage of the subject, he fails the notability. WP Soldier gives guidance as to whether its worth starting an article but any article needs that GNG base to stand on. ] (]) 05:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:I created the page because I thought as he is the Commander of the 2nd Division (all elements of the Army Reserve are members), as well as commanding a variety of other military units (9th Brigade, Royal Tasmania Regiment and the 4th/3rd Battalion, Royal New South Wales Regiment) and because he is 1 of a small group still serving with the ] and the fore mentioned ] and ] and the ]. The US Legion of Merit is only awarded to Australins for joint service with an american unit in some way who distinguished themselves. MAJGEN Smith is also the Deputy Chairman of the Board of St John Ambulance ]. If it is decided to delete his page then so be it, but I think he is sufficiently notable. ] (]) 11:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::It might be worth checking for references in the Hobart Mercury. With a CV like that, it seems reasonable to assume that he would have received some coverage in that newspaper. ] (]) 11:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::For heaven's sake! The guy is notable, and anybody who gets off their bum (translation: butt) and looks can confirm that in 30 seconds (or less). Notability is NOT the issue.
:::The issue is that, currently, the article doesn't sufficiently state his notability. Hence, I've removed the "Notability" template, and replaced it with the "Under Construction" template. ] (]) 11:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

== RAF Jurby ==

While browsing ] it appears some of information may be copied from this "Kniveton, G. Manx Aviation in War and Peace. Douglas, Isle of Man, The Manx Experience, 1985" (it does not have a ISBN) other editors have also noticed (there is information on the talk page). Does anyone own this book?

] (]) 18:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

== A-Class review for Boeing 757 ==

The A-class review for ], an aircraft used by military operators including the Mexican Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force, and United States Air Force, is now open at: ]. Thanks in advance for any input! Regards, ] (]) 22:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

== move/split request at Luftwaffe ==

At ] a discussion is underway on a proposal to split the current article ]. If you wish to participate in the discussion, please go there and read the proposals and arguments given so far. ] (]) 22:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

Thoughts? - Dank (]) 03:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:Recruiting subject-matter experts to help with content reviews sounds like an excellent idea!
:If/when we can get a solid pool of experts on call, perhaps we should consider asking them to comment on the A-Class review for an article as well as (or instead of) the FAC? There's no particular reason, in my opinion, why the review necessarily needs to take place during the FAC process; an expert review remains an expert review even if it happens internally, and building up a more rigorous ACR process will have the benefit of providing such reviews for articles that don't get taken to FAC (for whatever reason). ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 04:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::The support at FAC is so strong that something's likely to happen. I think I know where Raul is coming from in suggesting that one or a few people should be in charge: some of this is new, and there are potential downsides. Of course, success has a thousand fathers (per ] et al.), so if this turns out to be cool, we'll get mixed results. So I completely agree, Kirill, that we need to be looking at A-class too, because we'll do it right, and hopefully set an example for FAC and other wikiprojects. - Dank (]) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I haven't gone through every comment at WT:FAC but my feeling generally (and I'm speaking with my MilHist coordinator's hat on, not as a FAC delegate) has always been that new FAC practices need to 'trickle down' to ACR -- after all we pride ourselves on it being a fairly short distance to travel...! We've done this to a fair extent with source spotchecks, it makes even more sense to look at SMEs for ACR since content -- rather than niggling stylistic issues -- is one of the main points of our A-Class. Cheers, ] (]) 22:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I rather think that subject matter experts should be called upon earlier in the process, say for peer reviews. By the time an article gets to FAC it should be just about perfect. ] (]) 22:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, per . Cheers, ] (]) 00:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think that depends on whether we're looking for the experts to contribute to the content of an article, or only to validate it. In the former case, bringing them in early (during a peer review, for example) is a good approach, since we'd want them to get involved before all the copyediting and other polishing took place. In the latter case, on the other hand, bringing them in early may not gain us much, since most articles undergo numerous changes between a peer review and a successful FAC; the text the expert would have validated wouldn't necessarily be the same as the text submitted at FAC, forcing us to find some other means of re-validating it. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 03:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::So far, it seems people haven't decided whether they want to keep the experts (whatever that means) at arm's length ... but that's not very Wikipedian, and people will realize that soon enough. I don't think we're in the business of building walls here; anyone invited to the process is invited as a full-fledged member, with the right and even the obligation to tell us what does and doesn't work for them, how their activity here fits into their vision of the world and of Misplaced Pages. - Dank (]) 11:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

I noticed that this article had an extensive "First Hand Accounts" section, which seems out of place for this article. Should it be removed? ] (]) 03:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, definitely. ] (]) 08:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::Removed. ] (]) 13:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== Japanese "knee mortar" ==

Hi all! The current ] is redirected to ]. But ] also claims to be called "knee mortar". Isn't "knee mortar" just generic (and incorrect) name for both weapons? In that case the "knee mortar" should be disambiguation page instead of redirect. --] (]) 09:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:In this case, since there are only two possible targets for "knee mortar", a hatnote should be sufficient. ] (]) 11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

Was nosing around when I came across this article. No intro, no sources, just a couple of footnotes which don't indicate the full title of the source being used. Maybe this should be put up for deletion or redirect to Military history page? ] (]) 13:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:It's a spinoff of ]. Should be merged there. ] ] 20:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== japenese ironclads ==

I was wondering if japenese ironclads can be part of this project. They are well withen the scope of this project so could someone pleaes make a article about them. Nhog 5/4/2012 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:They are&mdash;we have articles on ], ], and ], which are, to my knowledge, the only Japanese ironclads apart from a couple of ships seized from China in 1895. ] (]) 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:It might be useful to have a redirect from ]/] and/or ] to the Japanese naval shiplist article (]), to address Nhog's concern. ] (]) 04:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

== Someone suggested the ] film page should be brought into the MilHist project ==

As it's about a WW2 propaganda film, and discusses the British distaste for overt propaganda, the myth of national unity and war socialism in the UK, and its comparison with ].

Do people agree, and if so, how would I do this? It's currently in the film project, it was rated as start class before I added the stuff about propaganda and the refernces, but I think film buffs have different concerns to MilHist types. Many thanks. ] (]) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

: Not sure if that falls under WP:MilitaryHistory. The scope on the main page mentions historical depictions in various media forms, including film. That article could be added to this project by adding a ] on its talk page. -] (]) 22:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

::I would say it's probably within our scope, given that it was actually produced during the war (and arguably as part of the war effort) and depicts events during the Battle of Britain; its relevance would thus be even more direct than something like ''Triumph of the Will'', which was a peacetime film (albeit a heavily militaristic one). ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 03:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:::I'd agree. Incidentally, in copyright terms, I think the PD version of the film at http://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.38651 would probably be suitable for uploading to Commons if someone knew the right format. ] (]) 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

== AfD for ] ==

After extended discussion, it was decided by consensus years ago that the article on this Korean War incident should be at the plain title ]. However, the article was later moved back to ] without discussion.
] seeks to restore the earlier consensus. ] (]) 08:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

== The Jewish Rifles ==

I need some advice on an article I would like to start. I am positive there was a regiment in the Volunteer Corps called the Jewish Rifles (perhaps unofficially). Before doing so though I'd like to sound out others because I can find no reference to the nomenclature anywhere on the Wiki and finding it on the web is just as difficult. I have found this article however: http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/susser/twrhamlets.htm which confirms there were Jewish Volunteer Units in the rifle corps and my reasoning is that Tower Hamlets had such a comprehensive Jewish volunteer structure already in place that they could well have had a Pals Battalion with an unofficial name. Precedent exists with the London Fusilier Jewish Battalions.

Can anyone provide more information or opinion? ] (]) 13:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:Never heard of the Jewish Rifles. In WWI, there was the ], which was part of the Royal Fusiliers. Various battalions of the Middlesex Regiment had large numbers of Jewish soldiers, because of their recruiting area (East End and North London). In WWII, I vaguely remember two battalions of the Middlesex (40/41 Bn?) being designated Jewish for service in Palestine but I may be getting this mixed up with the ]. Anyhow, the best thing is probably to contact the very helpful people at . Good luck, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
::11th Tower Hamlets Rifles doesn't seem to have been a very long lived unit. According to it had gone by 1864 so if The Times report is correct - only 4 years. Is it a notable unit? ] (]) 18:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:04, 19 January 2025

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks		AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review		ContestAwardsMembers
Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · full list
News and announcements
  • The January newsletter is now available.
  • Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.
Current discussions
  • No major discussions are open at the moment
Featured article candidates
GL Mk. I radar • George Washington • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service • Battle of Köse Dağ • Marching Through Georgia • Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War)
Featured article review
Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Pre-dreadnought battleship
Featured picture candidates
Thorsten Nordenfelt
A-Class review
Project Pluto • SMS Berlin • AN/APS-20 • USS Varuna (1861) • Battle of Meligalas • Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) • Henry de Hinuber • Scott Carpenter
Peer reviews
Urien • War of the Antiochene Succession • 4th Army (France) • List of foreign-born samurai in Japan • Hiroshima Maidens • German Jewish military personnel of World War II • Outline of George Washington • Central Powers • Ben Roberts-Smith • Bertrand Clauzel • Japanese occupation of West Sumatra
Good article nominees
Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Alt Llobregat insurrection • SMS Scorpion (1860) • 1991 Andover tornado • Henry O'Neill (soldier) • Statue of John Barry • Battle of Chunj • USS Gyatt • Michael Mantenuto • SMS Bremse (1884) • Fritz Strassmann • Lord Clyde-class ironclad • Dédée Bazile • Middlesex Regiment alien labour units • Scaliger War • George Palaiologos • Gustavus Guydickens • First Anglo–Ashanti War • Siege of Khujand • First Jewish–Roman War
Good article reassessments
Mikhail Gorbachev • Henry VIII • Wings (1927 film) • Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho • John Henry Turpin

Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (150,017) • only work on referencing and citation (43,213) • work on coverage and accuracy (125,353) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,948) • work on structure (32,197) • only work on structure (346) • work on grammar (8,209) • only work on grammar (47) • work on supporting materials (32,855) • only work on supporting materials (446) • assessment (5) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (11) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (4) • task forces added (3) • attention to task force coverage (651)

Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1519
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 41
Featured pictures 548
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 683
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,596
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012.
Media mentionThis project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Shortcut

    Requests for project input

    Archiving icon
    Archives
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
    Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
    Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
    Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
    Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51
    Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54
    Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57
    Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60
    Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63
    Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66
    Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69
    Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72
    Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75
    Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78
    Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81
    Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84
    Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87
    Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90
    Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93
    Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96
    Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99
    Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102
    Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105
    Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108
    Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111
    Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114
    Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117
    Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120
    Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123
    Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126
    Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129
    Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132
    Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135
    Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138
    Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141
    Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144
    Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147
    Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150
    Archive 151Archive 152Archive 153
    Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156
    Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159
    Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162
    Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165
    Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168
    Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171
    Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174

    This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Discussion on the renaming of the article Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge

    Please see here for a discussion about renaming Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge to United States support for the Khmer Rouge. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    RFC on Russian invasion of Ukraine

    THere's currently a discussion about whether or not to include North Korea as a co-belligerent. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000#Requested move 19 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000#Requested move 19 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Edwin of Northumbria

    Edwin of Northumbria 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) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Angevin kings of England

    Angevin kings of England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:RSM-56 Bulava#Requested move 3 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RSM-56 Bulava#Requested move 3 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frostly (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    RM to lowercase North Yemen Civil War

    An ongoing RM to lowercase is at Talk:North Yemen Civil War#Requested move 28 November 2024. It has been relisted and may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    United Kingdom Special Forces has an RfC

    United Kingdom Special Forces has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:2024 Manbij offensive#Requested move 9 December 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Manbij offensive#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Capture of Damascus#Requested move 9 December 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capture of Damascus#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox

    Please see subject RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024

    Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Battle of Thermopylae

    Battle of Thermopylae 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) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#Dubious tag

    The phrase disputed territory in the territory parameter of the infobox has been tagged as dubious. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

    1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) 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. Hog Farm Talk 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Mark Kellogg (reporter)

    Mark Kellogg (reporter) 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) 02:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Battle of the Java Sea#Recent edits changing scope of article

    An editor has effectively changed to scope of the article by incorporating subsequent engagements (with their own stand-alone articles) as being part of this battle. Further input would be welcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Henry VIII

    Henry VIII 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) 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Battle of Badr

    Battle of Badr 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) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Italian Ethiopia#Requested move 27 December 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Italian Ethiopia#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)

    Wings (1927 film) 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) 16:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for 102nd Intelligence Wing

    102nd Intelligence Wing 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) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Arthur Phillip

    Arthur Phillip 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) 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Yom Kippur War#Result

    What the result should be in the infobox as a reflection of the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Request for input Talk:List of Norfolk airfields

    Talk:List of Norfolk airfields has an ongoing discussion regarding the scope of this and potentially other equivalent lists, regarding the inclusion of civilian airfields to a mainly military list. List of former Royal Air Force stations already has a table that can be sorted by county. Also if the list could be replaced by a templates similar to "Template:RAF stations in Lincolnshire" Gavbadger (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposed deletion of Marlin-class submarine

    Notice

    The article Marlin-class submarine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

    Could not find reliable sources to establish notability.

    While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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. Esw01407 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    If there are reliable sources about this submarine design, some data could be upmerged to the the designer article, DCNS. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)

    1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom) 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) 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212#Requested move 9 January 2025

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212#Requested move 9 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --RobertJohnson35 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#Requested move 1 January 2025

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#Requested move 1 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Bertrand_Clauzel

    Sorry I am new to wiki so apologises if this is the wrong place to ask, I requested peer review following some changes I made to the linked article. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Houthi movement#Requested move 12 January 2025

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Houthi movement#Requested move 12 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 18:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion on the infobox result and territorial changes of the Granada War

    There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Granada War about the result and territorial changes on the infobox of the article. Feel free to participate. --RobertJohnson35 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    INS Shankul (S47) has infoboxes for 2 different vessels

    INS Shankul (S47) has infoboxes for 2 different vessels. I assume this is a cut and paste error that needs fixing Vicarage (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    The two entries are for the same vessel. The second history section in the infobox refers to a refit and relaunch. Reference 1 show the refit date but no other details. The discussion in that reference mentions another refit between 2000 and 2006 but the text is rather vague. The information on that later work doesn't appear in this stub article. This article has obvious deficiencies. Perhaps someone can do some research and clarify the construction and refit history of the vessel as well as adding information. The reference has a little more discussion about it, for what it may be worth. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Appears there was a name change (from Shankush) which would be the reason for a second infobox. Refits on their don't require an a new infobox (afaik), they are just noted in the history in prose. - wolf 07:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Angolan Civil War

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

    Agreed. "From that country" =/= "That country was a combatant". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd:: Please explain why the listing of different nationalities of mercenaries is necessary in the combatants section of the infobox. I've yet to see this in any other conflict-related article, so I'm genuinely puzzled at its inclusion at Angolan Civil War. --Katangais (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Look at the Iran–Iraq War article for example. You can see under volunteers. We could either:
    Iran–Iraq War lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for Angolan Civil War. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --Katangais (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    We could still list the indiviual nationalities under "units involved" section. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nationalities are not units. That’s the type of information that would be useful in the body of the article, but too granular for the infobox. --Katangais (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Mercenaries do not represent their country of origin and should not be presented in a way that suggests they do. They are not state players or a faction in a civil war so they do not belong under "belligerents" in the infobox. They are not a "unit" unless they are organised into a specific unit. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not the place for nuance or detail. An extensive list of units would be inappropriate. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments have no substance unless the other stuff represents best practice - ie two wrongs don't make a right. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Does anyone know where to find a list of the size of the major European navies in the 1680s?

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

    DavidDijkgraaf, I found a comparison of Dutch, British and French warship strength by decade from 1650-1700 at Dutch Warships in the Age of Sail 1600-1714 (p. 33), if that helps. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    A more comprehensive table is at Talking about Naval History: A Collection of Essays (p. 54). Alansplodge (talk) Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    And another that includes Spain and Russia, at The Oxford Handbook of the Ancien Régime (p. 66). Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Personally I like Rodger's appendix II in The Command of the Ocean: Ships of the line and cruisers for the six main European maritime powers every five years from 1650 to 1815. I can't find an on line version, but would be happy to photo and email it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you guys. Luckily I found Rodger's book on the internet archive DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Help needed on People's armed police related pages

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

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


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

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

    B-class assessment

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

    B class is the minimum acceptable standard for Misplaced Pages articles. The B-Class criteria requires that "it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." Larry Allen Abshier was assessed back in 2008, when criteria were less strict that they are today. Today it would be rated C class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, what about a large amount of material possibly copy/pasted from the London Gazette such as in the Thomas Alderson article? -- Otr500 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is out of copyright, hence PD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Still needs to be attributed, though. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • In the Thomas Alderson article, the text before the quoted paragraph in the "Second World War" section lists The Gazette as the source. There are no other Gazette references used there (uninvolved user comment). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Date of Battle of Argaon

    Battle of Argaon has 2 different dates for the battle quoted. Vicarage (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    The London Gazette (discussing campaign medals in 1851) has 29th November 1803 .
    A fairly detailed account in Cust, Sir Edward (1862) Annals of the Wars of the Nineteenth Century, Volume I (pp. 160-161) says it was late on 29th November.
    A more recent source, Roy, Kaushik (2011) War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849 (p. 120) also has 29 November. I will update if nothing else comes to light. Alansplodge (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Elizabeth Longford's Wellington: The Years of the Sword also dates it to 29 November. I have corrected the article. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025

    Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

    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) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Draft article for review: FNSS ZAHA MAV

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

    Siege of Dunkirk (1944–1945)

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

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

    Disambiguation of VC winners

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

    Need Help Writing & Checking Already Written Summaries

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

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

    Chinese navy ship prefix

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

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

    More reliable sources(some third party) uses CNS:

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

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

    PRC MOD is republishing something from the China Daily, which is not quite the same as PRC MOD using it themselves. China Daily is also, at best, inconsistent in its application of "CNS". Take a browse through the first couple pages of results in:
    Most references to Chinese warships are not using CNS; foreign ships, on the other hand, typically have their prefixes. Interestingly, "CNS" (https://newssearch.chinadaily.com.cn/en/search?query=CNS) seems to be applied by CD to the aircraft carriers than anything else.
    PRC MOD also republishes articles from China Military Online (http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/OverseasOperations/EscortMissions/index.html). Here, too, there's a distinct lack of usage of CNS.
    Overall, the form <ship type/function> <ship name> predominates in the above. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    And the important question is why would China officialy use the English term Chinese Navy Ship for a prefix? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    In chinese there is no prefix but in english I mostly see CNS or no prefix instead
    Might be inconsistent overall(maybe translation problems?) but I think since the Chinese MOD used it(even though it was a republished article people have reviewed it and decided not to remove the prefix), and it is one of the more common prefixes used for the PLAN(other than PLANS, which is used on wikimedia commons however not much anywhere else) so i think if we get any more official sources we should move chinese navy articles to start using CNS. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    As for the inconsistency, I have a theory for this
    Articles with CNS were written originally with english(which is why they added the prefix), articles without CNS were translated from chinese; there is no prefix in Chinese which is why the translated version has no prefix Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Even though it is republished, the fact still stands it is on the Chinese MOD website which means they had no problems with publishing an article with that prefix; However on the chinese MOD website seems that most articles do not use a prefix, as they seem to be direct translations from Chinese Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just because they "have no problems" with the prefix doesn't mean they use it internally. That is the bar you need to meet. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know, however in Chinese prefixes are never used; in the end CNS is the closest thing we have to an official prefix for the Chinese navy(the link I put, and the fact that many external sources, though likely made up, also use it), so until any more sources come out, articles using CNS should only be redirects
    However this still is a huge leap in the search for more official prefixes to use. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Concur with Parsecboy - it's an invented prefix and we should never use it. Similar to multi national agencies using ITS, FS, ESPNS, FGS etc Lyndaship (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Military-industrial complex

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

    Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Statistics

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

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions Add topic