Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The December 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 Battle of Morlaix • GL Mk. I radar • George Washington • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service • Battle of Köse Dağ • Marching Through Georgia Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. • Project Pluto • SMS Berlin • AN/APS-20 • USS Varuna (1861) • Battle of Meligalas • Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) Peer reviews Sher Shah Suri • 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 Good article nominees Crusading movement • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Charles the Bold • Tumu Crisis • Edward Caledon Bruce • Alt Llobregat insurrection • SMS Scorpion (1860) • 1991 Andover tornado • Henry O'Neill (soldier) • Statue of John Barry • Richard Haking • Battle of Chunj • USS Gyatt • Zhao Chongguo • Michael Mantenuto • Hard Rock (exercise) • SMS Bremse (1884) • Fritz Strassmann • Lord Clyde-class ironclad • Brian Lane (RAF officer) • Dédée Bazile • 26 December 2024 Israeli attack on Yemen • Battle of Preston (1648) • War of the Galician Succession (1205–1245) Good article reassessments Mikhail Gorbachev • Henry VIII • Battle of Badr • Wings (1927 film) • Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho • 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (149,924) • only work on referencing and citation (43,211) • work on coverage and accuracy (125,248) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,937) • work on structure (32,190) • only work on structure (346) • work on grammar (8,208) • only work on grammar (47) • work on supporting materials (32,865) • only work on supporting materials (488) • assessment (1) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (11) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (2) • task forces added (5) • attention to task force coverage (651)

References in the Wehrmachtbericht

What is the current/recent consensus in mentioning "References in the Wehrmachtbericht" as an award or honor? My recent removals from battleship articles [1] [2], one of which included the full German text and English translation, were reverted. Defining this as some sort of honor for a ship seems questionable and may need to be treated differently from individuals, since the Wehrmachtbericht also reported routine events such as returning to port or being sunk in battle. –dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day Dlthewave. My understanding from a good-faith reading of the current Wehrmachtbericht article is that a German historian, Felix Römer, has stated that such mentions were treated as an award. So at least one historian considers them to be such, and it is therefore reasonable to describe them as such. However, the most recent discussion I can find at the NPOV noticeboard indicates that quoting the entry in full is undue, largely because it, as I understand it, was predominantly a propaganda broadcast. I believe that including the fact that the person, unit or ship was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht (and how many times, as well as noting that it was a propaganda broadcast when it is introduced), is completely reasonable given what Römer apparently says. It may be that we need to develop a brief guideline dealing with this, as it comes up a lot. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the same as PM, except that describing it inline as a propaganda bulletin sounds like editorialising, unless the source describes it as such -- linking it will allow the interested reader to find out the nature of the publication if they don't know already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems to an American to be the direct equivalent of mentioned in dispatches for Commonwealth countries or of citation dans les ordres (citations in the order of the day) for France and at least Belgium. The article on mentions in dispatches focuses on individual awards, but a number of USAF units were cited in French or Belgian orders of the day during WW I and WW II (2 citations results in the award of the Fourragère, undoubtedly an award), so treating references in the Wehrmachtbericht as an award to a ship would seem to be similar. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: Thanks, that was my understanding of the current practice. Perhaps someone with access to full Wehrmachtbericht transcripts or the Römer source can confirm whether the entire broadcast was dedicated to honoring, or if there was a separate portion for more mundane announcements such as a ship returnng to port. –dlthewave ☎ 03:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• MisterBee1966, can you confirm one way or the other please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• sorry I am travelling right now with no access to source. Mutawski and Römer state that units, ships, soldiers were singled out as a military honor and award. To add to that, I think I had sent scans of Römer and the writings of the German Federal Archives (Murawski) to Auntiruth some time agiert. She should be able to confirm my statement here.MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• No rush, just worth knowing. My understanding is that they were basically a summary of the day's military events from the German perspective, with ships, individuals and units that had done notable things highlighted at the relevant point of the broadcast. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging Auntieruth55 re the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• This has also been discussed on the talk page of the Wehrmachtbericht article, which seemed to conclude that it is considered propaganda and not an award or equivalent to MiD. Pinging K.e.coffman as he was the one to bring the article to GA and might have something to add to the discussion. My own opinion is that even if one historian considers it an award, that isn't sufficient to treat it as such for Wikipedia purposes, particularly if other historians have concluded that it's propaganda. Catrìona (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Felix Römer and Sönke Neitzel

@Catrìona: thank you for the ping. There are a few related issues here. In the case of the Ernst Lindemann article, the Wehrmachtbericht is used as a source about itself. All of the mentions are cited to the Wehrmachtberichte; this raises issues of due weight.

This edit summary ("see Felix Römer and Söhnke Neitzel, a reference was an award") appears to be at least partially incorrect. I assume MisterBee1966 meant Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing, and Dying when he referred to Neitzel (with co-author Harald Welzer), as MB had added similar material to the Wehrmachtbericht article: diff. Page 78 of the German edition appears to roughly correspond to pages 39–40 in the English edition, in the section "Frame of Reference: War". There, the authors cite "Wehrmacht reports" (note 71, p. 360) to discuss the tone of the reports and how it reflected the "German military canon's orientation around classical martial virtues".

Neitzel & Welzer do not refer to the report as an award or a commendation on pp. 39–40. I do not see in the English edition's surrounding pages anything of this nature, as inserted by MB: The named reference in Wehrmachtbericht lead to the Honor Roll of the Army, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, where soldiers who had performed acts of exceptional military valor, were listed. I would be curious to see what specifically Römer says about the Wehrmachtbericht, as, in my experience, the interpretation of Soldaten in this regard is WP:SYNTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

i see that it has been recently edited...with (some) paragraph(s) removed. not sure if we should delete before we decide.auntieruth (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather than making assumptions, perhaps we should AGF until MB can provide a quote from the reference in question. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Peacemaker67: for waiting. The relevant German quote is taken from the book by Neitzel, Sönke; Welzer, Harald (2011). Soldaten: Protokolle vom Kämpfen, Töten und Sterben [Soldiers: On Fighting, Killing and Dying] (in German). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: S. Fischer Verlag. ISBN 978-3-10-089434-2. On page 78, the authors state the following "Neben dem Eisernen Kreuz und seinen verschiedenen Stufen wurden von Hitler und der Führung der Teilstreitkräfte bald weitere Tapferkeitsauszeichnungen geschaffen - so das Deutsche Kreuz in Gold, das im September 1941 gestiftet wurde, um eine Auszeichnung zur Verfügung zu haben, die zwischen dem Ritterkreuz und dem EK I angesiedelt war. Zudem gab es die Möglichkeit, Soldaten, die außergewöhnliche Taten vollbracht hatten, namentlich im Wehrmachtbericht zu nennen. Daraus erwuchs dann der Gedanke, ein besonderes Ehrenblatt des Heeres, eine Ehrentafel der Kriegsmarine und ein Ehrenblatt der Luftwaffe zu schaffen, wo Soldaten mit hervorstechenden Tapferkeitstaten genannt wurden." Which translates to something like "In addition to the Iron Cross and its various stages, Hitler and the leadership of the armed forces soon created further bravery awards - such as the German Cross in Gold, which was donated in September 1941 to have an award situated between the Knight's Cross and the Iron Cross 1st Class. In addition, there was the prospect to reference soldiers by name, who had done extraordinary deeds, in the Wehrmacht report. From this arose the idea of creating a special honor roll of the army, an honor board of the navy, and an honor sheet of the Luftwaffe, where soldiers with salient bravery were named." Unless this violates copyright regulations, I can send a scan of this page to anyone interested. @Auntieruth55: I believe you speak German, does my translation adequately reflect the German verbiage? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966:, yes I think this is reasonable translation. I don't see it as a routine report (ship returns to port, etc.), but rather as an extraordinary report; it may have had routine elements (ships returning to port), but clearly it seems to me that it at least portions of it were used to honor extraordinary acts or accomplishments. I'd paraphrase the translation thus (for inclusion in the article): "In addition to the Iron Cross and its various stages, Hitler and the leadership of the armed forces created additional awards for bravery - such as the German Cross in Gold, which was established in September 1941 to have an award situated between the Knight's Cross and the Iron Cross 1st Class. In addition, the Wehrmacht report also allowed the possibility to reference, by name, soldiers who had accomplished extraordinary deeds. From this arose the idea of creating a special honor roll of the army, an honor board of the navy, and an honor sheet of the Luftwaffe, where soldiers with relevant bravery were named." auntieruth (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This quote mentions the naming of individual soldiers but it does not support the idea that routine news reports, such as the mention of a ship returning to port or being destroyed in battle, were meant to confer some sort of honor upon the subject. It seems that it is being construed to treat the entire contents of the Wehrmachtbericht as a sort of honor roll. –dlthewave ☎ 15:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee1966 that is helpful, and I think clears things up for people. This appears to only refer to people, however, not to mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht being an honour for a ship, for example, to justify a Wehrmachtbericht mention being included in a ship article. I'll note that the Wehrmachtbericht article currently only refers to a mention being an honour for people, not ships, units, air wings etc. Is there a reliable source for the latter being the case? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67, you are correct, to address your last question we have to look into another source. The book by Murawski, Erich (1962). Schriften des Bundesarchivs—Der deutsche Wehrmachtbericht 1939 – 1945, vom 1.7.1944 bis zum 9.5.1945 [Writings of the German Federal Archives—The German Wehrmacht Report 1939 – 1945, from 1 July 1944 to 9 May 1945] (in German) (2nd ed.). Boppoard am Rhein, Germany: Harald Boldt Verlag. OCLC 906100905 discusses this in section "Der Inhalt des Wehrmachtbericht" [The Content of the Wehrmachtbericht] (pages 67 to 102), in particular pages 68 and 69 are of relevance here. On page 68, a numbered list gives an overview of the content. With respect to the Kriegsmarine, item #2 "Seekrieg (auf und unter dem Wasser und aus der Luft) auf allen Meeren" [War at Sea (surfaced and submerged and from the air) on every ocean] sums it up. A quote from page 87 "...ehrenvolle Nennung von Einzelkämpfern und Einheiten..." [...honorary named references of single combatants and units..."], on page 88–89 "Die ehrenvolle Erwähnung im Wehrmachtbericht wurde allgemein mit Recht als eine besondere Auszeichnung empfunden" [The honorary named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht Report was universally and rightly regarded as a special distinction]. Again, unless this violates copyright regulations, I can send a scan of this page to anyone interested. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Given he himself was a leading propagandist for Nazi Germany, bias is to be expected in how Murawski describes the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be underscored by criticism levelled at his book on the Wehrmachtbericht (from the de article) that he approached his subject in an "uncritical" way. Is that a correct translation? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is a fair summary Peacemaker67. The criticism was expressed by Daniel Uziel. Are you saying that "uncritical" equates to "unreliable"? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Not unless there were aspects of WP:RS that weren't met, and I don't know anything about Harald Boldt Verlag. What I would say is that he needs to be treated as a WP:BIASED source, so it probably is appropriate to use WP:INTEXT attribution for his opinion about the Wehrmachtbericht. Along the lines of "According to former Wehrmacht propaganda officer and later German Federal Archives archivist (or some similar description) Erich Murawski...". Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"The honorable mention in the Wehrmachtbericht (...) as a special award" seems to be more appropriate than "The honorary named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht (...) as a special distinction" here. Alexpl (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In a military context, "award" usually means you were physically given something (usually something to wear), which I don't believe applies here. I agree that "mention" is a good way to describe it though. I suggest "a mention of a person, ship or unit in the Wehrmachtbericht was considered a special distinction". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting that there is an English edition of Neitzel/Welzer: Soldaten - On Fighting, Killing and Dying: The Secret Second World War Tapes, published by Simon & Schuster in 2012. The translation is by Jefferson Chase. That particular paragraph that MisterBee1966 has quoted is only to be found in the German edition. It is omitted in the Englisch edition. Besides, as Neitzel/Welzer also make clear in their discussion, awards "brought social prestige and created intentional social pressure. [...] Nazi propaganda constantly featured the bearers of awards for extraordinary bravery, and Goebbels made a handful of them into full-fledged media stars. [...] The symbolism of and policies with which awards were bestowed were designed to create a sense of social acknowledgment, and this anchored military values deep within soldiers’ frames of reference." So simply to speak of a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht as being "an honour" tells less than half of the story. --Assayer (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Assayer, I agree to your statement. The discussion originated in the question on whether a "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" was an award/distinction held in high esteem or not. I believe the various authors/historians confirm that a "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" indeed was an award, with all the consequences you mentioned, which also should be addressed in the article. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that the repeated discussion about whether this was an award or not jumps too short, because it touches upon the issue of propaganda. Particularly in the case of Lindemann Holger Afflerbach's "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen" (VfZ49/2001 [3]) would provide some much needed context. (I mentioned that, e.g., during the recent arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Evidence presented by Assayer). Other than that it should be clear, that the Wehrmachtbericht was not simply an "information bulletin", but war propaganda. Generally speaking I would argue, if those kinds of awards are not covered by RS, by which I do not mean militaria like KC recipients' dictionaries (Scherzer, Fellgiebel, Thomas/Wegmann, Dörr and so forth), there is no particular need to include them in a Wikipedia article.----Assayer (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, we have Römer, Neitzel, Welzer and Murawski referring to the "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" as an award and/or distinction, while you argue, for all the arguments mentioned, it does not fall into that category. Question, in order to avoid WP:SYNTH, do we require a reliable source to support this point of view? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s a misrepresentation of my argument. I consider the question ‘’award or not award’’ to be futile. If this “culture of military medals” is not put into context, “the German military canon’s orientation around classical martial virtues” (Neitzel/Welzer) is merely reproduced. More than 2,000 German sailors lost their lives under Lindemann’s command in a fight without any chance of inflicting damage on the enemy. In that perspective, Lindemann’s posthumous mention is not really notable. The literature on the Bismarck is sizable. How many reliable sources refer to Lindemann's mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht, let alone all the details concerning his Knight's Cross?--Assayer (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Some factual corrections are required: Lindemann was not in command and the German (official) historians have briefly assessed Admiral Lütjen's decision to fight to the death and their remarks are summarised in his article. The conclusion was and is that selling oneself dearly had military value. I seem to remember HMS Rodney escaped one of Bismarck's salvos by a very small margin. Given Lindemann's influence on the entire operation was reduced by the overpowering command style of Lutjens, I struggle to see why Lindemann was awarded the Knight's Cross at all. Dapi89 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ships

Getting back to my original question about the ships: Based on this discussion, the cruiser Deutschland's mention clearly amounts to a routine report and should not be mentioned as an honor in the article. Battleship Bismarck's three mentions (an "account of the Battle of the Denmark Strait", "a brief account of the ship's destruction" and "an exaggerated claim that Bismarck had sunk a British destroyer and shot down five aircraft") are a bit more open to interpretation. Do we have a non-OR way of distinguishing which mentions might be considered honors and which are routine reports, preferably using secondary sources? –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just applying a common sense criteria about it containing some sort of element of praise in the entry seems the way to go. Saying that the ship had been conducting a trade war in the Atlantic and has now come home is pretty routine and non-praiseworthy to me. If it said what tonnage she had sunk, that would be a different matter. The entry for Lutzow says that the ship bravely supported a garrison, so that would be appropriate in my view. It is a matter of weight. Personally I'm not sure about whether the actual transcripts are undue or whether just saying that there was a mention, the date, and what for, would be a better approach. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wehrmachtbericht contains a registry for all named references. This registry is divided into multiple sections. The first, for single combatants and lists name, rank and date. The second, for units beginning with the Army (Heer) listing the unit (division, regiment, battalion, etc.) and date, the Navy (Kriegsmarine) listing (ship, u-boat, flotilla, etc.) and date, the Air Force (Luftwaffe) listing (wings, groups, air corps, etc.) and date, and Waffen-SS listing (division, regiment, batallion, etc.) and date. I was under the impression that it is community consensus to not include the original transcript of the Wehrmachtbericht, and to limit the information on Wikipedia to date and fact that a person/unit had been given this award/distinction. In consequence, I would expect to find an entry on the cruiser Deutschland/Lützow article that the ship was named in the Wehrmachtbericht on 25 January 1940 and 9 February 1945, avoiding any dispute over how and why. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there has to be a praiseworthy reason for the mention for it to be included. I don't see that for Deutschland because that is basically the same as a BBC News report of a ship returning to port, but I do for Lützow, as it actually praises something about what the ship did. Surely, to be treated as meritorious thing, there must be something meritorious about it, not just returning from a mission, without anything said about success. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Coming late to this. I think it should be all or nothing (and I favour not at all). To only include some we get into what were significant mentions and which were routine, in the example given Deutschland's raiding cruise was successful and presumably the successes were not mentioned due to secrecy reasons, conversely I don't see Lutzow's shore bombardment of any special significance at all Lyndaship (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. There is nothing in the transcript that indicates that Deutschland's cruise was successful. Assuming that its success was not mentioned for secrecy reasons is OR, whereas Lutzow's shore bombardment is clearly being praised in the transcript. Chalk and cheese. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why I said all or none of the mentions in Wehrmachtbericht should be considered for inclusion. Then there's no need to make a judgment if that mention is delicious natural organic cheddar or cruddy factory processed cheese Lyndaship (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless MisterBee1966 can help us find the registry that specifically lists "honorary" references, any attempt to sort them ourselves would be OR. I support the "nothing" approach unless an honorary mention is covered by a secondary source. If we decide to list all of the references, it should not be in an honors/awards section. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I can scan the registry (soldiers, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Waffen-SS) and send to anyone interested. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If an incident or (honorary) mention was notable, it would be covered in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, wouldn't it? There should be no need to turn to the unreliable Wehrmachtbericht in the first place, even if you merely skim the register.--Assayer (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not what we are talking about here, and you are once again misusing the term "notability", which is about whether we have an article on a subject, not what detail should be included in an article. We are talking about the mentions being a distinction. Given this has been an issue for some time, I think we need some proposals to decide what to do regarding these mentions. Something along the lines of inclusion (with parameters) or non-inclusion. I'll put something together. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes but info that are trivial or indiscriminate do not belong per WP:What Wikipedia is not, e.g. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These might be of some help. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WT:Ships#Non-notable crew touching on similar issues. fyi - wolf 01:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be cautious of relying on the language qua language. Given the way USN sub patrol reports were endorsed, "bravely defending a garrison" could be standing offshore watching them be shelled into oblivion, or overrun. (Patrol reports were full of "exceptional"s & "extraordinary"s that are cringe-worthy as historiography; "outstanding" effectively has the value of "yes".) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura}

Indeed, even if I did not use the term "notable" in line with its strict Wikipedian definition, which is not the same as a "misuse", I might as well refer to WP:NOTEVERYTHING to make my point.--Assayer (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposals regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht

In the hope of establishing a consensus about what if anything should be done regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, here are a couple of proposals regarding their handling. These are just my crack at the two positions that seem common in the above discussion, feel free to add to them, modify the wording, or propose additional ones. I have concentrated on the issue of WP:UNDUE as it seems to me that WP:NPOV is the most relevant policy, but if you feel that WP:VERIFY or WP:OR are relevant, please raise this and explain how you see them impacting on this issue. As this is basically a yes/no question, I've drafted it for simple approval voting. To make it easier to assess consensus, please keep the discussion in the discussion subsections for each proposal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest making this an RfC? As it stands now, the outcome will be the non-binding opinion of a Wikiproject and not full community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 21:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've advertised this to WikiProjects Ships, Aviation, History and Germany. Feel free to advertise anywhere else that might be appropriate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A third option seems to arise from the discussion above: that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht only be noted where a RS focused on the person/unit specifically says that this was done as honour. This would solve the problem of routine reports being noted (I imagine that some units and senior officers were frequently mentioned), as well as avoiding the risk of undue weight being placed on this propaganda broadcast. I've WP:BOLDly added this as the new option 2 (as it seems to be a half-way point between the others), which I hope is OK. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That's great Nick, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

#1 Inclusion in relevant articles with caveats

That mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht may be included in relevant articles on the basis that such a mention was a distinction for people within the Wehrmacht, per the Felix Römer source above, and a distinction for units, ships etc per the Erich Murawski source (which is biased and should be treated as such). Any mentions should be in summary form, including only the date of the broadcast and a brief summary of what was said about the subject of the mention, and should also mention that the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast. Full transcripts and translations should not be included, as there is an existing consensus that this would be giving them undue weight given the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast.

Support (#1)

# auntieruth (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Dapi89 (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (#1)

• Suggestion: We are limited to what we can say by the sources, but if the vote is in favour of full-inclusion of the German text, and if possible, I'd prefer a standard description advising the reader of what they are reading. The reports contain propaganda certainly, and inaccurate information, whether deliberately or in genuine error, but also the point of the reports were to improve German morale and increase fanaticism in the Wehrmacht, and I think that should be driven home. Dapi89 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

#2 Inclusion in relevant articles when highlighted by a reliable source

That mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source which is focused on the relevant person or unit specifically states that this mention in the Wehrmachtbericht was an honour.

As in option 1, any mentions should be in summary form, including only the date of the broadcast and a brief summary of what was said about the subject of the mention, and should also mention that the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast. Full transcripts and translations should not be included, as there is an existing consensus that this would be giving them undue weight given the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast.

Support (#2)

1. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
2. dlthewave talk 05:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC) (changed to #3)
3. I am giving my tentative support to this. Minimal usage of Nazi propaganda, barring no usage, is the best. –Vami♜_IV♠ 05:49, 21 October 2018
4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Lyndaship (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
6. this option appeared after i had tegistered support for first one. this is a much better choice. auntieruth (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
7. Support this - under the caveat that this should be strong source (e.g. see WP:HISTRS), and that if this a widely covered individual/ship/unit - that per WP:DUE a multitude of such sources should exist - e.g. if this were say, Rommel, one would need to show a significant body of serious work referring to this - as opposed to a marginal notability article in which a single HISTRS source would suffice for DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
8. Generally, if something is covered by a reliable source, it should be included. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
9. - wolf 23:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (#2)

In my experience, the Wehrmachtbericht is rarely raised in the general literature on World War II and the Germany military's role in the war. Only specialised, and often fairly obscure, works ever raise the prospect of mentions in it being noteworthy for named units or individuals (vastly more weight is placed on medals and tributes from respected figures). As such, I think that mentions should only be noted when a reliable source which is focused on the individual or unit (and not a general listing of Wehrmachtbericht mentions, Nazi German era military honours or similar) raises the mention and states that it was intended as some kind of honour. I think that this goes to the points raised in the discussion above as well as earlier discussions about differing views put forward by historians, and the prominence and reliability of sources. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. It seems pretty obscure, and I haven't seen mention of it outside WP, so I don't think this proposal will support inclusion on a lot of articles. Where a reliable source mentions it, for example in a biographical sketch of an officer or soldier, or in a section of a book about German ships or a particular air group, I see no reason why a brief summary could not be included, so long as it is clear that the Wehrmachtbericht was the daily Wehrmacht propaganda broadcast. I am opposed to a blanket ban, as that smacks of censorship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

What would be the ramifications of this proposal? Comparing the German Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, I see that in many instances the current approach of listing occurrences and date is very comparable, see de:Werner Mölders versus en:Werner Mölders, de:Adolf Galland versus en:Adolf Galland, compare also the German and English articles of Erich Hartmann, Günther Rall. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966: since no one commented, I'll respond. My understanding that these mentions would come out under this proposal, as being cited to the Wehrmachtberichte themselves. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Initially favouring no mention as it is clearly propaganda and I feel the RS claiming it was an honour is insufficient to prove that it was I am won over to the above proposal on the grounds that we shouldn't censor and it makes readers aware that the Wehrmachtbericht existed Lyndaship (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is: How do we define RS (see the point also raised by K.e.coffman below)? Some will argue, and have done so in the past, that specialised and obscure literature, even memoirs and the Wehrmachtbericht itself, are RS when it comes to the "fact" that someone has been mentioned. What Nick-D seems to have in mind, and maybe Peacemaker as well, is probably closer to WP:HSC. Anyway, that should be clarified. Furthermore, historical scholarship may mention that someone was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, but does not provide a summary of what was said. How will you come up with such a summary? That amounts to OR by Wikipedians who will turn to the Wehrmachtbericht themselves. Does this proposal also affect the listing of the Wehrmachtbericht mentions under Awards or is it confined to the possible inclusion in the main text? By including a "brief summary" the Wehrmachtbericht is also highlighted in comparison to other awards like the Knight's Cross. By the same logic one could argue that we need brief summaries of why the KC was awarded and so forth. Two more things are worth noting: First, neither Felix Römer nor Neitzel/Welzer are writing biographies of individual soldiers. It seems quite odd to use them as references to legitimize the inclusion of the Wehrmachtbericht in individual biographies. Second, in this whole context it seems odd to speak of "censorship", not at least because the Wehrmachtbericht itself was heavily censored.--Assayer (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

My intent with specifying that reliable sources focused on the individual/unit are needed was to prevent circular referencing to directory-style listings and the Wehrmachtbericht itself. If such a RS includes reference to a mention and states that it was an honour, I don't see why there's a need to quibble over it? Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That was also my understanding of the proposal, and given Nick is its proponent, I fail to see why this discussion would not be taken into account as part of the consensus, assuming this proposal was the consensus position. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've never seen Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe, which has been my primary source in writing articles on German warships, mention the Wehrmachtbericht. Their histories of ships are generally fairly detailed, and if they didn't see fit to include the reports, I would be hard pressed to argue that they should be mentioned. Of course this question extends (significantly) beyond just warships, but that's my 2 cents. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the intention. But what are RS in this context? A productive author like Ralf Schumann, to name only but one example, publishing with VDM Heinz Nickel, certainly never misses such a mention. Günter Wegmann not only authored several comprehensive dictionaries of KC recipients, but also edited a complete edition of the Wehrmachtbericht. Their publications are used in several articles. And who will provide the brief summary of what was said about the subject of the mention, if it is not provided by a secondary source? Given how controversial discussions about the reliability of sources have been in the past, this proposal potentially supports inclusion on a lot of articles.--Assayer (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, what I am suggesting is that an article on a fighter pilot might say "On 21 May 1941, Schmidt was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, the daily Wehrmacht propaganda broadcast, to mark his 50th aerial victory." A brief summary in sentence fragment form would be all that is needed, ie "to mark his 50th aerial victory". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: do you have an RS in mind from which such material could be sourced? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm not a specialist in this area, so I don't have such a source in mind. But I don't think it is impossible that such a source exists, so believe we should provide for that eventuality. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be providing for eventualities, though. The outcome of this discussion (as with any) should based on the available sources which have been brought forth. If the body of published material changes, or if editors discover forgotten sources, then it would be appropriate to revisit. –dlthewave ☎ 13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your premise. We cannot possibly know all the reliable sources that either exist now or may exist. The intention here is to provide general guidance on what would be acceptable if the stated conditions were met. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Parsecboy: Generally, if something is covered by a reliable source, it should be included. Actually, it would also need to meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. Simply being covered by a reliable source is not sufficient grounds for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. WEIGHT concerns itself with viewpoints on controversial topics (i.e., like whether climate change is happening or not, and how that should be presented in an article). It has nothing to do with whether a specific factoid like the Wehrmachtbericht should be included. The only place where WEIGHT has any relevance here is in discussing how the Wehrmachtbericht should be presented (i.e., as a press communique, a propaganda broadcast, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That adds too much weight to a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht as an award and may lead to repetetive prose (I am thinking, e.g., of Werner Moelders). And, yes, I do consider awards or, more precisely, the way awards are presented in military biographies to be controversial. If it was not controversial among Wikipedia editors, we would not have this discussion. WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not confine itself to controversial topics, however, neither does WP:DUE. Instead it is the prominence of the Wehrmachtbericht in published, reliable sources on the topic in question which counts as decisive.--Assayer (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm more confused. If an action out of which the actor received a medal or some kind of commendation is mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, can the WB be used (or not) in the discussion of/description of that action? auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Auntieruth55. What we are saying here is that if a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht is referred to by a reliable source that is focussed on the subject of the article, for example a book about a Gruppe or a biography of an individual pilot, then a brief summary of the mention in the Wehrmachtbericht can be included in the relevant article. If the only reference to the mention is in the Wehrmachtbericht itself (or in a book which essentially is an edited collection of Wehrmachtbericht reports), then it would not be included in the article. Nick-D will correct me if I have misrepresented his proposal. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what my intention was. The Wehrmachtbericht is obviously not a reliable source, and my proposal here is that for any mentions in it to be considered worth including in an article, a reliable source which is focused on the subject of that article (for instance, a book or a chapter on the topic) needs to note the mention and state it was intended as an honour. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sample sources?

• It would be helpful to see a few samples of reliable sources that cover Wehrmachtbericht as an honour for individual named soldiers. For background, please see the comments above: [4] & [5].

If we move from the abstract (a reliable source, a biography of an individual pilot) to the concrete (specific sources), we’ll be able to evaluate them before the discussion concludes. This will help avoid debates and confusion in the future.-- K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

#3 Non-inclusion

That mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht should not be included in relevant articles, as it is giving them undue weight given the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast.

Support (#3)

1. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
2. --Assayer (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
3. --dlthewave (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
4. --Catrìona (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (#3)

• Avoids POV issues, original research, and indiscriminate amount of information based on Wehrmacht's press releases and unreliable war-time propaganda. I have concerns about Option 2 since it opens the door to arguing about which sources are "reliable". The quality in military history market varies greatly, from books issued by university presses to popular history to hobbyist/militaria publications, all the way to apologist or extremist tracts, such as those issued by the likes of J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing or Nation Europa. Given the past attempts to reintroduce Wehrmachtberichte into Wikipedia, or objections to their removal (see Wehrmachtbericht: Recent developments on my user page), I would favour a "clean break". --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the other proposals have not been thought out well (see my argument above) and will lead to further prolonged discussions, OR and POV issues. --Assayer (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Even if a few sources do describe a Wehrmachtberichte mention as an honor, this seems to be the WP:FRINGE view. WP:UNDUE requires that we cover viewpoints according to their overall prevalence among reliable sources and this viewpoint currently does not meet that bar. This is not a "ban"; it merely reflects the current body of scholarship, and we can certainly revisit the question if that changes. –dlthewave ☎ 17:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Reflects what is clearly the mainstream view in most high-quality sources, and sidesteps time-consuming discussion about exactly which sources are reliable, etc. Catrìona (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Indian military history task force

I would like to propose that Indian military history be 'graduated' from the Incubator and created as its own task force, a split from the South Asian military history task force. I suggest that the task force include pre-independence military history of India, such as ancient warfare in India and the British Indian Army, as well as the modern Indian Armed Forces. Kges1901 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

These days, task forces are really just a way of us sorting articles rather than a way of focusing effort, so the question for me is whether the work involved in adding a task force (and the subsequent retagging of well over half of the 5,600 articles in the South-Asian task force) actually helps the project in any substantial way, or whether the effort on the modern Indian Armed Forces is better off as a special project. I'll just note that the 50+ membership of the incubator project are not all currently active, they seem highly focussed on the contemporary (post-independence) Indian Armed Forces only, and we haven't seen much throughput of articles through assessment other than KCV's work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Support with Modification as there are more than enough Indian English-language wikipedians to work on this. The only caveat is that modern India is a post-1947 conception, and retaining South Asian military history for pre-independence period content. 45.62.243.176 (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough point. Let us address Peacemaker67's point so that work on various aspects helps us create a better rationale. However, the reverse is also true, grouping South Asia doesn't motivate an editor from India to work on the superset. AshLin (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@KCVelaga:, @Adamgerber80:, @MBlaze Lightning: and @Kautilya3: for input as they are members of the incubator group. I made this proposal because the incubator is supposed to be a temporary host and the group has been there for over two years. I do not see any issues with limiting the scope to the post-Independence military history of India, but even though TFs are primarily for categorization, I see utility in this as a more specific categorization than South Asia, which also includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, etc. Kges1901 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think most of the task-force has been focused on contemporary (post-independence) Indian Armed Forces only and for starters it might make to limit the scope to just post-Independence military history. I am going to ping other editors, @AshLin, Gazoth, DBigXray, Sarvatra, Aumnamahashiva, and SshibumXZ:, who edit in the general area but may or may not be in the task force, for their input as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, yep, whilst you are correct that I don't specifically edit Indian Armed Forces-related articles, I would be more than happy to join an Indian military-related task force, as a matter of fact, I was planing to create articles on two former Indian Army officers myself, including one on a deputy chief of the army. I also agree with Kges1901, in that, this task force would also serve itself in further categorising South Asia-related military history articles. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with PM that 50+ membership is not a factor worth considering, many of them are inactive. But there are some who are not regular contributors to military history topics, but yes, they do at one time or the other, like Sshibum. Regarding the scope, I suggest not to limit to history or post-independence or modern armed forces, but anything that related to Indian military comes under the scope of this group. Removing the word "history" from the title will solve it. Also having a task-force will help to have more focused efforts on article assessments. KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with @KCVelaga:. Let it be the Indian Military Task Force. AshLin (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging @Strike Eagle and UY Scuti: KCVelaga (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: pinging the rest of the coord team for opinions about whether an Indian military history task force or a special project is the best way forward given the circumstances. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for consistency with other task forces, it would be the Indian military history task force. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That is the reason why I initially named it Indian military history. I don't any issues whatever the name is. KCVelaga (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian Military Task Force sounds good. While only a small percentage of the articles I edit or create deal with the Indian Armed Forces, would be delighted to join this task force.Aumnamahashiva (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day TomStar81, this seems to have legs. With your recent experience with the new geographical TFs, would you be willing to help out with setting this up? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: and @Peacemaker67: Since a week has passed I have set it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force. The only thing left now is for my semi-protected edit request on the MILHIST template to be approved. Kges1901 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the long reply, the last few days off I had double duty at my other job so I've not had much time to edit here, much less catch up with the goings on. I'm sorry I missed this, but I'm happy to see that its moved forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed MILMOS addition re US ordinals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

G'day all, the discussion at MOS petered out, and I don't think there was consensus to amend the higher-level MOS guidance on ordinals anyway. What I propose is that the following be inserted into WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME:

The use of the ordinals 2d and 3d instead of 2nd and 3rd are valid options for US units because they are used in standard US English, but their use is not mandated. The ordinal used in the title of any given article should be that which is most commonly used in reliable sources on the individual unit, and articles should be internally consistent in the use of ordinals.

Thoughts, tweaks etc? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support – Seems like a fairly accurate summary of what people were saying in the discussion, although it won't make everyone happy. I'm not sure we need "because they are used in standard US English". Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support - at least this is something in the MOS on this subject, thankyou Peacemaker67. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY – If the normal ordinal syntax is acceptable and used by some reliable sources, we should use that format to ensure maximum comprehension. Universal styles are preferred to specialist styles if it can be demonstrated that reliable sources in the topic area use the universal style. The evaluation provided at MOS:NUM points in this direction, and so I must oppose this addition. RGloucester — ☎ 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I believe 2d/3d are sometimes proper names. On the other hand, has it been shown that 2d/3d are in common use? We (US English) have never seen them outside the military. Sammy D III (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ordinals are a matter of style. Whether they are written as '2d' or '2nd', they are meant to be read the same way. For that reason, we have the ability to style them to fit our manual of style and indeed, the expectations of our generalist audience, rather than to the internal style of the American military. Of course, the military usage can be noted in the relevant articles. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The proper names really mess things up, otherwise 2nd/3nd would be assumed. In theory you could have the US 2d/3d meet the UK 2nd/3nd. How about article titles? Sammy D III (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment just to comment that the use of 2d for example really confuses Brits of a certain age who automatically read it as two pence and think it is probably a mistake, it would be better to use 2nd but we are probably a minority readers! MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A reading of "tuppence" would require a Brit who could remember the old pre-decimal currency. So "Brits of a certain age" are people like Prince Philip. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Decimalisation was under 50 years ago; one could be rather younger than Prince Philip. Additionally vestiges of pre-decimal currency lingered on (eg one and two shilling coins remained in circulation as 5p and 10p coins) and you can be younger than '71 vintage (as I am) and yet read "2d" as "two old pence". Oppose - not just because of this, but it seems just needlessly obscure usage. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY. Should be 2nd and 3rd for global lay audience. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose largely per comment by RGloucester. This is a matter of style in which it is appropriate for WP to determine the style used. If there is any lack of clarity globally a format should be deprecated in favour of that which is universally understood. I believe this applies with 2d. The extent that they are used/favoured in "standard" contemporary US English is not established. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support We can establish a local consensus for style matters related to MilHist. The proposed addition to our style guide does not change anything; it merely sums up the existing situation, and the consensus both here and at MOS:NUM. It was established that they are used in the US outside the military, but this does not concern us. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucestser. - wolf 03:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester. If I've lived in the United States my entire life, am somewhat literate and didn't know this was an alternative, neither will the average American. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucestser. - mention it in the prose but titles should be consistent Lyndaship (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I can think of two editors well positioned to comment on whether this is contemporary standard US English - DickLyon and SMacCandlish. Because of the issue of canvassing I have not approached them. Peacemaker67, I suggest that they be invited to provide comment on this specific element of the proposition. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I encourage all those commenting here to have your say in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS:ORDINAL? That is where we were trying to achieve a consensus for a change to the MOS to address this issue, and it would be preferable to make a change there than have a local consensus on MILMOS. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the switching between here and MOS, just when I thought things had petered out over there, they've livened right up again. Just pinging those that have commented here or in the recently archived thread to engage with the current proposals over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS:ORDINAL so we get a solid consensus on the way to handle these things. Pinging @Buckshot06, Sammy D III, MilborneOne, Pinkbeast, and Thewolfchild:, @Compassionate727, Lyndaship, RGloucester, Madrenergic, and RobDuch: and @Lineagegeek, Kges1901, and Sturmvogel 66: Hopefully I've captured everyone who had expressed an interest in this. I'd encourage anyone else who has a view to chime in there as well. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at the MOS seems to be going round and round about completely commonly understood things. My original intention was to create a local Milhist standard for U.S. units, which has been voted down; I don't think there's any particular need for anything more. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me as if there will be a MOS change to deprecate 2d and 3d, so you might consider having your say if you favour retaining the option of 2d and 3d. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment bot processed WP Military history 4 times

Greetings, For 21 October 2018 the WP 1.0 bot processed this WP four times. Details from the log are at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Why is bot "stuck" repeating WP Military history?. Wondering if there is anything in WP Military history that can be causing this? I understand this is a complex issue & hoping an expert is able to help. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Kges1901 I wonder if the new Indian TF is causing this? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The bot seems to be updating the total MILHIST count, specifically. Not sure that it is related to the Indian TF. Kges1901 (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kirill Lokshin any ideas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Bot processing Oct. 22 to Oct. 23

Greetings (Kges1901—Peacemaker67—Kirill Lokshin) - Last night starting at 22:15 WP 1.0 bot processed WikiProject Military history a total of EIGHT times finally halting the bot at 04:14 on Oct. 23. JoeHebda (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Same errors - Bot processing Oct. 23 to Oct. 24

Greetings, Chances are there is nothing "wrong" with WP 1.0 bot. Since it is driven by Category tree and Wikiproject templates - Looking for an Expert to fix. How to find errors? Also, is it only certain articles that are tagged incorrectly?

Many Wikiprojects are missing Assessment logs since October 8, 2018. JoeHebda (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes to setting up the Indian TF are certainly coincidental with the error? I might suggest backtracking (one at a time) those changes that specifically relate to assessments to see if these (and which one) is responsible (if at all). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's entirely unrelated, as JoeHebda reported seeing this behavior at least as early as October 15, well before anything was done for the new task force. Prior to that, the MILHIST assessment template hadn't been edited since February, and the MILHIST assessment category hadn't been edited since last June.

Given that this behavior seems to affect the larger projects, I wonder if there isn't some performance wall we're hitting here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

WP Biography first

From "way back when" I seem to remember a discussion about placing WikiProject Biography first in the talkpage list of WPs. To correct some kind of flagging issue. So when I'm doing assessments I like to move WP Bio to top of list. Doubt this will solve bot repeating WP Biography (military) & WP Military history on the "WP 1.0 bot" daily processing. JoeHebda (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Eyes on some doubtful editing on the end of WWII.

• Kuru666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone with some decent sources and knowledge have a look at the editing and page creations by User:Kuru666. They seem to have a very liberal idea about what is fantasy and fact. They have created 3 articles about the conflict between France and Italy at the end of the war. They are inserting information that is not included in the sources such as casualty figures and dates and heroic last stands by the Italian fascist army. They have also been going through older French/Italian conflicts with a decidedly anti French brush. I do not have easy access to reliable sources to be able to challenge some of their editing hence my message here. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Working. This is an obvious case of tendentious editing. Without any knowledge of how these things are normally handled, my inclination is to spot-check a few of his edits, rollback all of them if they're mostly or entirely bad, and give him a firm warning about our verifiability and neutrality policies. If he made any good edits during that time, he can do the hard work of re-adding them himself, and if he goes back to disruption, we can say we tried and take him to a noticeboard.

I'm not sure you really need sourcing help, since Google has the text of nearly every book ever published, and allows us to search for text, enabling citation checks. But I'm willing to put in the necessary legwork for those checks, even though real life says I don't have the time. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I have examined all of the user's edits and reverted the ones I didn't think were appropriate (which were most of them). His creations still need to be handled, as I mostly left them alone due to not being able to simply revert them, but the really tedious stuff is all taken care of. (And all of his creations are inappropriate, I just haven't done anything about it yet.) You mentioned checking sources, which I did not find to be necessary. If you do want my help doing that, just let me know what I should look at. On the other hand, if you want to rewrite those articles and need new content, I'm not the ideal person. Please do let me know if there's anything else I can help with. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. What I would also really be interested in is someone who has access to some reliable sources that cover this period and let me know if the creations cover notable events. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a more complicated question. Crude results are looking like:

• Second Battle of the Alps: When I searched "battle of alps 1945" on Google, I had a number of reliable-looking hits in the general web search. Searching individual battles returned books and journal articles covering this topic. I initially accused the user of fabricating the current title, but I did find one French-language source that uses that name. At a glance, this suggests that Operation Encore might also be a suitable title. I haven't found a single name used more than once to describe this campaign/offensive, though, so while an article is certainly doable, giving it a home will be interesting.
• Battle of Porta Littoria: I had no hits searching "Porta Littoria" in either Google's main or scholarly engines. Books returned one that might contain a reference. I'll get back to you about my college library when I've verified with a librarian that I've searched correctly. The article's first reference appears to be fabricated (the source contains no apparent mention of the said howitzers). Can't preview the second. My guess is that both citations are forged and the whole article's a hoax. On the bright side, I found this interesting thing.
• Defense of the Redoute Ruinée (1945): Google general web search of "redoute ruinée 1945" returned only this this thing of perhaps questionable reliability and definite trivial nature. Google Scholar gave me this and this. Both are scholarly journals, both discuss the battle. I'm not sure whether the coverage is substantial. Google Books is giving me a number of hits. Conclusion is that it definitely happened, and it was important enough to be covered by a few (admittedly almost entirely Italian) scholarly sources. Whether anything currently in the article is true is another question, but we can probably make something usable out of it, if we want to.

Hope that helps. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Two of these articles have been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Porta Littoria and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Redoute Ruinée. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Second Battle of the Alps, the Lyon military history museum's website's account of the campaign [6] states that it was actually a French victory, with small forces making some useful gains before the Axis forces collapsed. The US Army's United States Army in World War 2, Special Studies, Chronology, 1941-1945 summarises what look to be mixed results, but overall progress, for a limited French offensive into the Alps in 1945. I consulted the British official history Allied military administration of Italy, 1943-1945 yesterday, and while it's almost entirely silent on the fighting, it states that French forces advanced deep into northern Italy (almost reaching Turin) in May 1945. None of these sources supports the account of successive French defeats made in the Second Battle of the Alps article. As there's surprisingly little on the French Army of 1944-45 (especially 1945) in English, this area is very vulnerable to hoaxing, and I think that the Second Battle of the Alps article is entirely unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick, the book I recommend is The Riviera at War: World War II on the Côte d'Azur]. The successive French setbacks is described in English therein. We have two articles on the campaign: Second Battle of the Alps and Battle of Authion. They should be merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Authion appears to be about a single battle during this offensive: "A critical choke point was the 2,080 metre (6,820 feet) high Authion massif, held by determined but weakened German and Italian forces. Field Marshal Harold Alexander authorised the assault on Authion on 10 April 1945." Nevertheless, I assure you that there is currently nothing of any use whatsoever in the article Second Battle of the Alps. The overwhelming majority of the article is outright forged, and the things that are reliably sourced are of negligible importance. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, Kuru666 has reverted my reverts. They're communicating in edit summaries instead of talk pages. I'm drowning in homework, would someone spot-check them for accuracy? If he's still making unsourced changes, please make a complaint at an appropriate noticeboard. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Kuru666 has been indeffed, so this problem should go away, although there might be a bit of a cleanup required. Let me know if we can help? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: What details should be included in Vietnam War infobox casualties section?

What details should be included in Vietnam War infobox casualties section? There are several edits I noticed which has deleted info on wounded or equipment losses within the infobox. There is also a secondary question on disclaiming which sources give which figures. There are a series of edits altering "US Bodycount Claims" or "US Sources" to "US Bodycount" that links to another page explaining issues around the figure. E.g. on this article here Battle of Minh Thanh Road. My assumption was indicating which countries give which sources and where the source as derived from as the standard, e.g. as outlined in the infobox here Operation Barbarossa.Piccadillysquare (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be very much opposed to including equipment losses under "casualties". As for the sourcing (US body count vs North Vietnamese sources), I could swear we just discussed this recently but can't find it now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This all ties back into a certain POV. If the US body count was high, but weapons captured were low this was meant to imply that the US forces had killed civilians. The wikilink to Vietnam War body count controversy makes it clear that this is the US claim with all the issues that implies and which are discussed in detail on that page. I'm happy for Users to add the numbers from North Vietnamese WP:RS where those are available. I oppose inclusion of wounded on one side when comparable figures are not available for the other side as this gives a completely misleading view of the results of any given engagement. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I am currently working on a review of the MilHist Acadamy module, "Using statistics". It touches on such matters. In short:

1. Captured weapons are not casualties and should not be reported as such in the infobox.
2. The POV identified by Mztourist is nuance. An infobox is not a place for such nuance, in that, understanding the significance requires explanation in some detail.
3. The POV may have some validity but the counterpoint is that, in an asymmetric war, the resource poor belligerent is very likely to collect weapons from the wounded as it withdraws. It then comes down to the reliability of sources and dealing with potential bias through appropriate weight. This is a matter for the body of the text.
4. Sources aligned with the belligerents are likely to be biased and the more contemporaneous, the greater the potential for bias.
5. All reasonable sources (even if biased) should be reported and attributed in the article. This will lead to a range of both US and NVA casualties. Analysis by sources used in the article is for the main text. In the infobox, it is probably best to report ranges from the available sources rather than a specific figure.
6. The lead and infobox donot usually require references with the rider that statements made therein are supported by references in the main text. However, there are cases where the nature of the material might require a reference (per guidelines). Where the range is particularly broad, it would be appropriate to reference the upper and lower limits given in the infobox.
7. The hover feature makes footnotes very accessible. I think that readers expect certain fields in an infobox (such as casualties) are filled. Sometimes, for reasons of accuracy or NPOV, it might be necessary to qualify the figures given in an infobox. A footnote may be appropriate. See Battle of Buna–Gona for how I have dealt with a problematic case.

I hope this is of assistance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, casualties should be human, not material.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, often the material losses are what matter most - the Battle of Midway is a clear example of this. Individual weapons that were captured is a bit excessive, but vehicles should generally be included (though we don't need a breakdown of specific helicopter types as was the case in the Minh Thanh Road article linked above - just say "X helicopters destroyed" or whatever).

As for recent discussions on this topic, see here and here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ship losses in a sea battle should obviously be included. The US losing a few helicopters or tanks in an engagement in Vietnam is immaterial and not worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Mztourist (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Such losses are routinely included in infoboxes - see for example Battle of Prokhorovka, Battle of Villers-Bocage, Battle of Leipzig, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Its a matter of context, Prokhorovka and Villers-Bocage were both tank battles, so tank losses on each side are relevant. In relation to Leipzig, losing 325 guns would have been a material loss that would have been difficult for the French to replace and so material to the entire French military. For the US to lose a few easily replaceable tanks or helicopters as at Minh Thanh Rd was immaterial both to the battle and the war. Mztourist (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Then why are we including casualties at all in small actions like this? The 25 men killed on the US side were even more easily replaced and their loss had no effect on the war either. It seems you're moving the goalposts. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

because manpower losses in any engagement are material. No goalposts being moved here.Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So the tank losses at Villiers-Bocage, which had absolutely zero effect on anything, should not be included in the box? Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Slight revision of my comment above: The field in the infobox is "casualties" but is displayed as "Casualties and losses". As such, it is appropriate and common to report losses of significant material in this field. I might have looked more closely at this.

I suggest that the infobox doc should be amended to reflect this. Comments please.

Significant material would include: ships, aircraft, artillery, tanks and other AFVs. In WW1 articles, it might be appropriate to include Mdm MGs, because of the nature of the conflict. I donot believe it appropriate to report down to other small arms. There is a field report (I forget the name) consistent with this. The losses should be grouped broadly by type and avoid excessive intricate detail. The examples above are consistent with this. I would agree with Parsecboy - just say "X helicopters destroyed" or whatever. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

In the Vietnam War the US losing a few tanks, APCs or helicopters was immaterial to them, for the VC, as you note above, "the resource poor belligerent" losing small arms was material. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We should either fix all those articles that currently list equipment under "casualties" or change the template documentation to allow this practice. I find it very surprising that we list equipment under "casualties", as this does not match the common meaning of this term. Do we need an rfc for this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The actual heading for the casualties parameter is "casualties and losses". The heading supports the inclusion of material. It is a case of tidying up the doc's guidance. I don't think that we need an RfC if the results of this discussion are clear:

1. That the parameter includes material losses per the heading used.
2. The appropriate way to describe and categorise material lost.

Once we have a mandate to act, we might move the discussion to the doc TP to nut out the actual wording (with notification here that this is going on). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a brief question on edits removing wounded in the casualties section and phrasing the source indicator. Some edits keep removing information on casualties, particularly the number of wounded and keeps rephrasing the source description "US Body Count Claim" and "US Sources" to "US Body Count". E.g. these edits are examples [7], [8], [9]. Ideally what information should be included? I don't find these edits particularly helpful in pointing the facts clearly.

Piccadillysquare as I have stated previously on this topic the US body count is the US claim, retaining the word "claim" after the body count wikilink is like saying "US claim claim" Mztourist (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Piccadillysquare has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Amendments to infobox doc

I think that the original question as to sources for human casualties is somewhat muted by events. Further, while information in an infobox (or the lead) is not normally referenced (relying on citations from the main body of the article) it may be appropriate to qualify the source of a figure (perhaps by using a footnote) and provide citations. This would occur when different sources provide different figures and particularly if the figures are considered controversial. An alternative is to direct the reader to an appropriate section of the text where the figures are discussed ("See XXX section for details") or leave the parameter blank. This is appropriate where a brief explanation is inadequate/insufficient.

This is consistent with the advice given in the "Usage" section of the infobox doc, which is in turn consistant with guidelines and policies including: lead section of the MOS, verifiability and point-of-view.

Kendall-K1 has edited the doc to reflect the status quo, making it explicit that the casualty parameter includes equipment losses. This reflects both wide usage in articles and that the section of the infobox is headed "Casualties and losses".

I have subsequently tweaked this and boldy provided guidance in respect to the reporting of equipment losses which I believe to be consistent with the developing consensus. I seek to ratify this as a consensus. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit 1

To make explicit that the casualty parameter includes equipment losses. If not supported, the infobox heading will need to be amended so that it is consistent with only reporting human casualties by removal of "and losses". Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. Reflects status quo but clarifies the usage in the doc to reflect this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support clarification; reinforces general practice. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit 2

Subject to the first, to provide guidance that: Equipment losses reported in the infobox using the casualty parameter are "confined to major or significant types of equipment broadly categorized such as: tanks, guns (artillery pieces), aircraft, destroyers etc." Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. Losses of significant equipment is one measure of the success of a battle. A broad categorization avoids unnecessary intricate detail that would be inappropriate in an infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above. However I´d substitute "destroyers" with "ships", or "vessels". ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Would it be possible to clarify that "major or significant types of equipment" can sometimes be contextually defined? I'm mindful of trucks and automobiles, which in some conflicts are not thought of as critical losses but in others (World War I or the Tanzania-Uganda War) definitely are. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Indy beetle, in Vietnam the US losing a few planes, helicopters, tanks, guns or APCs was immaterial to them. Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ^Not exactly the stand I'm taking. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure

A request for closure has been made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards for a discussion at Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards. A disagreement between two protagonists (not me) has led to the article being protected. I believe that there has been sufficient discussion involving other parties to identify a consensus which would be respected by the protagonists and result in a return to normal editing. Alternatively, a close might indicate further action to resolve the matter if a consensus is not clear. Would an uninvolved Admin consider closing this discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is a request for closure by an Admin or experienced editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Module talk:Infobox military conflict#Request for comment for the RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict#Request for comment. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A question about dates

Second Phase Offensive (Korean War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is really quite a Jekyll-Hyde - the infobox mostly has DD-MM, while large parts of the prose seem to go by MM-DD. (I initially thought that only the first paragraph had that problem.) Is it fine if I just change everything to DD-MM? WP:MILDATE would seem to back the DD-MM approach, but I didn't want to ruffle too many feathers. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day Hbdragon88, I would normally suggest posting on the article talk page, but there are only a couple of watchers, so here is probably the best place. Given the article is already a mix of MM-DD and DD-MM (even taking into account your recent edit), I wouldn't have thought MOS:DATERET really applies, so it's probably best to go with WP:MILDATE (also the UN standard, given UN forces were involved). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review needed

An entirely self-interested request for a source review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/38th Infantry Division Dravska, which is otherwise good to go. If you can help out and take a look, that would be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been done. Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox–campaignbox widths question

Recently, infoboxes seemed wider than the campaignboxes underneath and someone suggested reducing the width of the box by setting images at 250px instead of the old 300px. It did the trick but apparently not everyone is seeing oversized infoboxes at 300 and they're wondering what the fuss is about. Can anyone shed light on this pls? We discussed it here a few weeks ago. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC) @Jay D. Easy: Keith-264 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Keith-264 (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: unfortunately, the precise conversion from px to em units depends on one's browser. it makes sense for the width of an infobox or sidebar to be specified in em units, since the width of the enclosed text should dictate the width of the infobox or sidebar. when you have a mix of text and images, it's much harder. this is why it's best to have a default image width, which fits inside the infobox (without stretching it) for all the major browsers, and to avoid overriding the default. it would be amazing if we could specify the widths of images in em units, but that's not supported by the backend mediawiki software (although it is supported by newer browsers). Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If I continue to change the px to 250, will this shrink the infobox as it's seen in other browsers (I'm on Firefox) relative to campaignboxes? Keith-264 (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting of history in Battle of St. Quentin (1557)

There seems to be a lot of pro-italian shenanigans going on. The above article has had its infobox tampered with to try and suggest that the Duchy of Savoy was one of the belligerents whereas from what I can gather the forces were Spamish and English under the command of the Duke of Savoy but there were no Savoyard troops involved. Can someone help and do a rewrite if necessary. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits to Content and Notability guides

Both pages have been recently modified to remove “Template:Essay”: [10]; [11]. I believe that these templates should be restored as these pages are each an advice page, not a guideline, which has a specific meaning in WP’s context. Courtesy ping @Hawkeye7:. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A more appropriate template would be Template:Wikipedia how-to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If a template must to be added, then "how to" would be the one. These pages are not essays, they are WikiProject content guides. This is an essay. - wolf 02:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't believe the Template:Wikipedia how-to to be a suitable option here. Original template included: "This page is an essay on article content. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page..." "WikiProject advice page" linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages, which states:

WikiProject advice can best help editors by providing: subject-specific considerations in applying site-wide standards; links to subject-specific templates; a list of information that editors should consider including in a given type of article... (...) Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.

Compare with: Wikipedia:Project namespace#Wikipedia how-to and information pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the original text was very misleading. What happened was that the creation of guidelines ground to a halt. As a result, many of community's most important guidelines formally lack that status. The term "essay" then became meaningless, as it applied to all sorts of pages with wildly varying statuses. In this case, projects were encouraged to create local guidelines that reflected the consensus in their area of expertise. Our guides went through that WP:PROPOSAL process years ago. As Wolf says, they are not user essays, because they do have formal standing. The template was originally added to facilitate the shortcut links, which are now available with the how-to template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that bit of history, Hawkeye. I had wondered what their status was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the past discussions where the two pages went through PROPOSAL and achieved formal standing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The difference between the two is explained in WP:HOWTOPAGES:

Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I just had a quick look through the archives, and Kirill Lokshin will no doubt correct me if my summation is incorrect. The style guide was split off from the main Milhist page on 19 September 2007, here. It was then advertised at the Village Pump (policy) and Village Pump (proposals) pages as an addition to the MOS. The relevant Milhist discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 67#Project style guide and MoS. Some non-Milhist editors commented on it as a result. There being no objections to its addition to the MOS, it was accepted and marked as part of the MOS. The notability and content parts of the style guide were split off from the style guide on 31 July 2010 to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide which can be seen from this. At the time of their creation, they were marked as an "essay on notability" and "content guideline" respectively, per this and this. Obviously they have developed over time, with tweaks here and there to reflect consensus. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Deprecation of 2d and 3d ordinal suffixes

G'day all, just a note to let you know that MOS:ORDINAL has now been amended to deprecate the ordinal suffixes 2d and 3d, after unanimous support for the move. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to make distinctions in popular culture section

I think that it would give that section greater credibility and usefulness to this section to further clarify it. First, if the item is a one of kind and actually participated in the item IMO such a section should not place a further high bar for inclusion. For example, if the 1st armored division significantly participated in the filming of a movie. Much lower on the spectrum is when there are many instance of the item and it actually participated. E.G. an M-16 rifle (one of the zillions made) was used /participated in the production of a movie. The other metric is actual participation in vs. mere depictions in pop culture items. E.G a video game includes the 1st armored division or an M-16 rifle. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of pop culture sections in military articles. If there must be one, I like it to be as brief, concise as relevant as possible. If a particular book or film prominently features a subject of a military article, such as a ship or a military unit, a person from history, such as a military officer, or an historical event, such as a battle, and does so in a factually accurate and detailed manner that lends to the reader's understanding of that subject, then fine. But blurbs like; " USS Wasp could be briefly seen in the background, before being gobbled down by a Kraken, in the video game Mega-Zombie-Blood-Splatter VII", serve no useful purpose. This is just my opinion, I'm sure others will differ. - wolf 17:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

After more than 10 years of editing, the popular culture sections remain among my favorites. They are usually what I check first in an article. Dimadick (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think most (but not all) of them which are added devalue the project Lyndaship (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In my experience most in popular culture sections are just dumping grounds for uncited drive-by additions by IP addresses who noticed something obscure in the paperback they were reading. Many take on the appearance of original research or use the popular culture item in question as a primary source (for example, if X Division is mentioned in the historical fiction book Y, the editor will cite book Y as the source in an addition on the article for X Division). I believe mention of the cultural relation in secondary sources should be required for anything to be included in such a section, regardless of the prominence of the primary source (even if it is a famous book or movie). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The advice on this topic in the relevant guideline, MOS:POPCULT, is sensible. It recommends that popular culture material be integrated into the body of the article whenever possible. If a separate section is used, it should be written as analytic prose rather than a list. The recommendation that all appearances in popular culture be supported by a secondary or tertiary source is particularly important as a means of avoiding trivial appearances and encouraging useful content. Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest, if (frex) 1st Airborne troopers appeared in "Bridge at Remagen", it merits mention on the film's page (where it's significant), but not on the unit's page (where it's not). OTOH, mention of 1st Airborne being subject of "A Bridge too Far" merits a mention on the unit page; if members of the unit also appeared, both do. In short, is it central to the project? P-51s in "Tuskeegee Airmen", yes; F4Us in "Midway", no. (FYI, there are brief views of F4Us.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with most of the above comments on pop culture sections. There are obvious exceptions, for example, like with the Russian battleship Potemkin, which was the subject of what is considered one of the best films ever made. I'd expect the article on the ship to reference the movie. But lists of "X ship appeared in video game Y" and the like should be killed with fire. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything required beyond what our content guide already says? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think MOS:POPCULT and WP:MILPOP cover the territory pretty well, deprecating trivial mentions and OR in particular. I agree with Parsecboy about individual ships with movies made about them, I've done something similar with Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb. The same could be said of biographies where the subject is featured in a movie, such as Draža Mihailović in Chetniks! The Fighting Guerrillas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with Indy Beetle on this one. At one point I had consensus to herd all that into a single section on the class page for the Iowas; I still lament the discussion that lead to pop culture being reinstated on the individual pages - all the more so since I now have to track six pages to keep BS like cher's music video and the 92 movie under siege to a single, concise, well sourced mention, and I have to keep explaining to people why MGS4, Neon Genesis Evagelion, battleship (movie), etc should not be included in these Featured Article(s) over top of fan boys and girls who constantly add the information just because we had a pop culture section and their specific instance wasn't already mentioned. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Should massacre events with debated sources be included in a campaignbox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should reported massacres or events in which two sides either tell different stories or one side contradicts the other be included in the Vietnam War massacres campaign box[12]? A recent edit has removed two of them here: removal of Thanh Phong [13] and Thuy Bo incident here [14]. The reason provided as that these were debatable as to what happened, although both are discussed by reputable sources (NYT, PBS). 183.107.0.107 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#03 November 2018 Mztourist (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The campaignbox is right near the header of the Vietnam War, and I noticed pretty recent, very bold edits to it. I get that there was a series of sock-edits which is fair to revert, but at the same time I don't see why the initial edits should still stand. 183.107.0.107 (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You are the sock! Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to add on the reasoning behind their removals of the above two, there is also a dispute section for the infamous Massacre at Huế#Dispute yet on the balance of probabilities it was a massacre, and with all fairness this should be retained. I am also willing to believe Đắk Sơn massacre would also be denied by the perpetrators, but the sources currently supporting it are even more dubious with much less thorough investigations than the above. Out of logical consideration though I would wager both should bee retained. 183.107.0.107 (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is also a malformed RfC. These matters are best discussed individually on the talk pages of the articles in question. The answer regarding what should be in the campaignbox will depend on the answers on the individual articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this is regarding whether it is fair or acceptable that a massacre be removed from the campaignbox where a user doesn't agree with or disputes the facts. Since the list contains alot of other ones which haven't had full, impartial investigations, its not unreasonable to include them in the list. The edits in question seems to be encroaching on WP:OR given ones like Thanh Phong was removed for the reason that it was "debatable it occurred", although the case generated significant publicity back when it was released and not generally disputed. As this deals with massacres committed specifically for a war, and ones with which there is apparent disagreement, it seems reasonable to resolve whether it should be removed or not. 115.94.251.118 (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Determine individually. Since every event will have differing accounts, this has no utility to filter cases ... they are all debatable. Also, the principle could run counter to COMMONNAME policy or RS. I might include debate in consideration... but not make it a key one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Is the use of the word Purported when describing alleged/reported massacres npov?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is describing alleged massacres with the word purported NPOV? I bring this up in regards to Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre with a recent revert here [15]. Likewise it has been added here Bình Hòa massacre, here Hà My massacre, Binh Tai Massacre and here Thuy Bo incident with a revert here [16]. 183.107.0.107 (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#03 November 2018 Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There can't be a single answer to this question: it depends on what the sources call the incident. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a malformed RfC, which should be done on the individual pages in question, not centrally here. This one should be speedily closed. As Nick-D points out, every situation is going to be different, based on what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This does generalize however, in whether the word "Purported" should be acceptably NPOV to describe massacres where there hasn't been a complete investigation or settlement of facts. Typically I'd assume other terms can exist which convey the same meaning in a more neutral tone, e.g. "reportedly". 115.94.251.118 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ronald Skirth

Help wanted to improve the article 'Ronald Skirth'. I have a COI *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

English cemetery photographs

In anticipation of the imminent death of Flickr, I've just conducted a bulk transfer of a big chunk of my archive of photos of cemeteries in south east England to Commons; a mixture of CWGC and allied burial sites, interesting funerary monuments and chapel architecture, representative civilian and non-CWGC-design gravestones and wide atmosphere shots of cemeteries. As I have neither the time nor the inclination to catalogue 7000+ images in detail, especially against the 8 Jan deadline for the shutdown of Flickr as a free image hosting service, I've of necessity just uploaded them into broad categories based on which cemetery the burials in question are in, which in turn has resulted in the flooding of those categories on Commons with files with uninformative descriptions and uninformative names. If anyone feels the urge, they could virtually all do with having more specific descriptions, and in many cases more specific categories, added. (Paging Carcharoth, HJ Mitchell, Kafka Liz.)

The Commons categories in question are:

• Commons:Category:Abney Park Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Acton Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Ashford Burial Ground
• Commons:Category:Beckenham Crematorium and Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Botley Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Brompton Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Brookwood Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Charlton Cemetery, London
• Commons:Category:Chesham Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Cheshunt Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Croydon Cemetery, London
• Commons:Category:Greenwich Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Hampstead Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Harrow Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Harrow Weald Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Kingston Cemetery, Kingston upon Thames
• Commons:Category:Mill Hill Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Monuments and memorials in the City of London Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Nunhead cemetery
• Commons:Category:Osney Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Queen's Road Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Paddington Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Romford Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Slough Cemetery
• Commons:Category:South Ealing Cemetery
• Commons:Category:St Albans Cemetery
• Commons:Category:St Sepulchre's Cemetery, Oxford
• Commons:Category:Staines Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Teddington Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Vicarage Road Cemetery, Watford
• Commons:Category:Wealdstone Cemetery
• Commons:Category:West Norwood Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Willesden New Cemetery
• Commons:Category:Windsor cemetery and cemetery chapel
• Commons:Category:Woodvale Cemetery, Brighton
• Commons:Category:Woolwich Cemetery

This change hasn't been widely publicised—I imagine SmugMug, who have just absorbed Flickr, are hoping that most users won't realise the change is coming until the deadline strikes and will then feel the need to pay out the $50 fee to prevent their work being deleted—but anyone else who's using Flickr as an easier-to-upload-but-still-Creative-Commons-licenced alternative to Commons, get your own stuff out now before they start charging you a ransom to release it as well! If you activate Flickr2Commons, the transfer process is virtually automatic and all you need to do is specify the Commons categories you want them to land in. ‑ Iridescent 22:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Help needed: source review

Good day to all. A source review is needed for ACR Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Berwick (1333), which already has three supports and an image review. If anyone has the time for this it would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cinderella157, that is good of you. However, is possible that you have inadvertently labeled your source review as an image review? And if so, are you doing this deliberately so that I feel that I am not the only one to be a slow learner? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Another Duh moment. :) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

M39 cannon

I could use a reference review on an article that I am working on improving. Actually a pair of them. The subject matter is at best arcane admittedly. To summarize, I was editing last night when Bilcat reverted me in the middle of it. Rather than get into something ugly I asked for clarification and got silence. So I am a bit flummoxed here. The 1st reference is from an online source The Springfield Armory Museum. I thought it a great source as the Springfield Armory was involved with the M 39 project throughout its life until the Armory was disbanded. The second source is The_Machine_Gun_V5/The_Machine_Gun_V5_djvu.txt which is an online archive of the book online. Lastly, the note on the revert stated that it was poorly written and unreliably sourced. Since I was in the middle of writing it at the time this makes working on the article a bit of an uphill climb. Given that I work with the group here I don't want to get into anything Ugly, there is quite enough of that already. Here are the refs and, , and its online archive and the fellow reverting is User:BilCat Tirronan (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've restored your text as I think BilCat was a little hasty in his revert of you. Chinn's a great resource so no problems there. And I think that the Springfield Armory museum is as well. That said, I'd strongly advise putting up an "in use" or "under construction" template in the section(s) that you're editing until you're done with them. That should stop people from reverting you until you're actually done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References

My thanksTirronan (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review needed

A shameless plug for a source review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• This has been done. Kges1901 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Outside voices needed in dispute

Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision#WP:NOTMEMORIAL edit could use more opinions. There's a question around what sources are required to publish a list of casualties in a naval accident. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of the dispute. The discussion is about whether such a list should be included in an encyclopedia article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tables

Why most tables in lists of military equipment are dark coloured like it was in 2005? Can I simply remove them? I already fixed most double bold in the tables. Tables in current form looks like forgotten. Here is the example. Eurohunter (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

G'day Eurohunter. If you mean the shading of the tables, you can boldly go ahead and change that if you like. Just have a read of MOS:CONTRAST first, and keep what it says in mind. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Link

I dont see the 'currently undergoing' link in the WPMILHIST template. Векочел (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Векочел what are you referring to, the A-Class nomination link? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Векочел (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, what you do is explained at WP:MHR. You add the following field to the talk page Milhist banner |A-Class=current after the class= or list= field and save the talk page. Then you will see the red "currently undergoing" link to create the nomination page. If you have any further queries, let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

User:J-Man11 again

Netherlands Army Structure 1989 has just been created, I've G12 speedied it. Gavbadger (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Good call, it was also not a reliable source in any case. It has been deleted already. I have reached out again, but further blocks seem likely if they continue behaving this way and not communicating/using unreliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)