| Revision as of 21:53, 29 October 2019 editHawkeye7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors124,306 edits →refbegin refend question: Hell no.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,343 editsm Archiving 8 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 174) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| :''Please add requests for MILHIST participation to ]. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.'' | |||
| {{/Header}} | {{/Header}} | ||
| {{Skip to bottom}} | {{Skip to bottom}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{WPMILHIST Archive}}{{ |
|archiveheader = {{WPMILHIST Archive}}{{Automatic archive navigator}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 174 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 4 | |minthreadstoarchive = 4 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Requests for project input == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input}} | |||
| == Proposal to merge military history portals == | |||
| == INS Shankul (S47) has infoboxes for 2 different vessels == | |||
| There are currently three military history portals in portal space: | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| You may know that there is also currently a substantial winnowing of portals going on, particularly targeting portals with low viewership. None of these portals is likely to make the cut in that process. At the same time, ] has always been a redirect to ], although the subjects are not necessarily identical. I propose merging the three portals noted above into a single ], under the operation of this WikiProject. ] ] 01:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :G'day, thanks for your post. I have tried to help keep the military history of Australia portal up to date and fix some other issues that have arisen with other portals to at least ensure it has some usefulness. It appears, though, that this is most likely a lost cause. If people feel that it is too narrow to remain viable, and wish to merge it, I won't stand in the way. However, I am not in a position to help maintain a larger military history portal. I also think it is important to acknowledge that any merge would need to be done in a balanced manner. The three topics above are just small aspects of the overall topic of military history; a merge would need to take that into consideration. As such, I would hazard that a broader military history portal would require a lot of work to ensure it is balanced. This would likely require quite a few committed editors. With the current narrative relating to portals, I am not sure that will be possible to find enough volunteers to achieve this. (Apologies for the negative waves, to paraphrase ]). Regards, ] (]) 05:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::From my perspective, I have never been really au fait with portals, and agree that they seem a lost cause in general. Even though AR has done a sterling job keeping the Military history of Australia one up to date, I think the problem is that few people look at it, with only 17 views per day. ] (]) 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Portals with wider coverage draw more attention. I think a single merged and expanded portal in this area (perhaps retaining specific sections for the military histories of specified regions) would do better. ] ] 19:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Given Portal:War (a pretty wide coverage) doesn't get more than 400 hits per day, and we would be hard-pressed to find enough motivated volunteers to maintain a standalone Portal:Military history, I'm sad to say that this idea (like the rest of the portals) seems to me to be doomed. Also apologising for the "negative waves". ] (]) 07:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' this proposed merge. Would be an improvement over the fragmented portals. Suggest you ] and just do it (though as a pagemover I am happy to help if you need). ] (]) 05:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' this is a great idea, we should have just one portal.] (]) 20:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] has infoboxes for 2 different vessels. I assume this is a cut and paste error that needs fixing ] (]) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I've been maintaining ]. It gets 116 page views per diem. The whole portal is fully automated, but it showcases high-quality featured articles and pictures. ] ] 22:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :The two entries are for the same vessel. The second history section in the infobox refers to a refit and relaunch. Reference 1 show the refit date but no other details. The discussion in that reference mentions another refit between 2000 and 2006 but the text is rather vague. The information on that later work doesn't appear in this stub article. This article has obvious deficiencies. Perhaps someone can do some research and clarify the construction and refit history of the vessel as well as adding information. The reference has a little more discussion about it, for what it may be worth. ] (]) 03:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Appears there was a name change (from ''Shankush'') which would be the reason for a second infobox. Refits on their don't require an a new infobox (afaik), they are just noted in the history in prose. - ] 07:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Does this article seem weird to anyone? Lines like " distinguished himself by the firmness with which he dealt with cases of unrest in the army in the midst of the Dreyfus Affair." Feel... excessively positive to someone who's clearly, historically proven to be in the wrong. I'm not an expert on this; just... between that and the dismissal of any controversy over his repression of the Paris Commune, it feels a really positive-leaning portrayal of a man who's at best controversial. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.1% of all ]</sub></span> 03:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a copy paste of the PD source ]. ] (]) 13:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not really my subject either, but it seems that despite his earlier reputation, Galliffet was not a bad guy in the affair, being the only witness to speak in the defence of whistle-blower ] at a military inquiry in February 1898. He was instrumental in the compromises required for Dreyfus's pardon and he smoothed things over with the army in the aftermath. His dramatic resignation was connected with the affair but I'm not sure how - someone with better sources required! ] (]) 19:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::His firmness in putting down unrest ''during'' the affair seems a weird thing to be praising, then. And, of course, the glossing over of his destruction of the Paris Commune is kind of problematic as well. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.1% of all ]</sub></span> 17:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I read that as unrest in the army against the left-wing Dreyfusards, but I'm really out of my depth here. ] (]) 21:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't know much about it but it would be plausible for Galliffet to support Dreyfus but oppose pro-Dreyfus (or any other) unrest in the army. The article could use some attention by an expert I think (and proper referencing) - ] (]) 21:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Belated, but given the position of the ] government that Galliffet was part of I'd read that line as meaning he squashed any whispers of mutiny among the anti-Dreyfus majority of the officer corps. --] (]) 05:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Reminder about a funny pastime == | |||
| == Armor-Piercing Shell == | |||
| When was the last time you checked ]? or parent ]? (Yes, that name might need changing :P). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 23:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| OK, well besides lack of references, this article has errors where it talks about the capped armor-piercing shell. That APC was introduced in WW2, when I know it was used in the Battle of Jutland. That the capped cushion the shock when it dispersed it radially (in soft capped types), and on. I am not a subject matter expert on the matter but if errors were made on this then I have little faith that there is not a lot of other errors as well. Is there anyone around that does have a background on this? ] (]) 04:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Our resident naval coves, {{u|Sturmvogel 66}} and {{u|Parsecboy}} might be able to help there. ] (]) 06:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, both the Brits and the Germans had APC shells during WWI. I've replaced the erroneous text there with something of a start – hopefully it's an improvement – but I don't have sources that discuss the development of the projectiles in any detail, unfortunately. ] (]) 12:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::The article really fails to distinguish between naval developments which didn't advance beyond APCBC and anti-tank work which continued onwards through APFSDS. Fixing that would require a major rewrite.--] (]) 18:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm taking a wild guess that the reason those naval developments of APCBC stopped because no armored ships exist anymore. You are right, we need to be aware that any search for ap shell shows that article. We are not looking good at all with that thing representing us.] (]) 02:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I think that it was actually a matter of direct vs indirect fire. Naval technology aimed at increasing the range of engagement, which meant indirect fire at anything over 10K or so. Tanks are still limited to direct fire with engagement ranges under 4K (excluding gun-launched missiles, etc.)--] (]) 03:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Naw, I was joking. Both the US 127mm and the Russian 130mm both come in at 13 miles mark for range. 10k for all intents is point-blank range for either of them. I watched too many GUNEX's on the USS Coontz to not know that. Armor as such became useless when the armor you designed into a warship became a mathematical exercise in missile design to sink it. About the only use for APC shell is for bunker-busting these days. They don't stock those in US warships either, or at least not when I was serving 40 years ago.] (]) 05:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok I found this but I need a ruling on if this is OR? http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/AP_Metallurgical_Examination.pdf | |||
| :::::::It's a report of a US Government laboratory with two authors, reviewed and approved at two additional levels, and approved for public release. I don't see how it could be considered OR, but it might be a primary source. ] (]·]) 00:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I can identify three of these but don't see where on the files it actually asks for an ID? Also, quite a few of these vehicles appear to be buildings - someone perhaps should recategorise? ] (]) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] question == | |||
| :: Change from the Unidentified military vehicles category to a more specific category, or just remove the unidentified category if it does not apply. ] (]) 20:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm trying to fill in | |||
| ::Some folks are very liberal with such categories, and can add it to a panoramic view of buildings etc. with some small part of the picture featuring said unidentified vehicle. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<nowiki>* {{cite journal |ref= | |||
| |last=Mattesini |first=Francesco |year=2019 |title=Il periodo piu tragico per la Marina Italiana sulle rotte tra l' Italia e la Libia: dalla distruzione del convoglio "Duisburg" alla prima battaglia navae della Sirte, Novembre – Dicembre 1941 |trans-title=The Most Tragic Period for the Italian Navy on the Routes between Italy and Libya: From the Destruction of the Convoy 'Duisburg' to the First Battle of Sirte, November – December 1941 |url=https://www.academia.edu/35144205 |journal=Academia |language=it |volume=}}</nowiki> | |||
| == Angolan Civil War == | |||
| :but I can't find it on Worldcat. I'm also a bit doubtful that it is a RS. Any suggestions? Thanks ] (]) 08:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't find more details either. Academia.edu does host some reliable sources but this looks like it might fall into the category of self-published essay. ] (]) 08:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Hi all. Recently the infobox to ] has been amended to include a long list of the various nationalities that served as foreign mercenaries or volunteers during that conflict. This results in the respective nations essentially being listed under the "combatants" heading of the infobox. I think this is highly unusual, and most of the other conflict-related articles I've read or revised do not have this feature, even those in which foreign fighters took part, whether as mercenaries or otherwise. As is it seems to make the infobox rather bloated, and I'm in favor of Thoughts? ] ] 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It looks RS enough to me. ] (]) 08:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. "From that country" =/= "That country was a combatant". - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|SpinnerLaserzthe2nd}}: Please explain why the listing of different nationalities of mercenaries is necessary in the combatants section of the infobox. I've yet to see this in any other conflict-related article, so I'm genuinely puzzled at its inclusion at ]. --] ] 05:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look at the ] article for example. You can see under volunteers. We could either: | |||
| ***A. Place the mercenaries under the “units involved” section since the infobox had a Units section | |||
| ***B. Keep it as it was ] (]) 05:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for ]. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --] ] 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We could still list the indiviual nationalities under "units involved" section. ] (]) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nationalities are not units. That’s the type of information that would be useful in the body of the article, but too granular for the infobox. --] ] 17:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ::::The author has a page on Italian Misplaced Pages (]) which states he works for the historical office of the Italian Navy and lists a number of publications. I don't speak Italian and its not my era so I can't offer much of an opinion on reliability - ] (]) 08:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ::::] for the author - he does seem to be a published academic who seems to have been involved in the Italian Offical History (how involved I'm not sure).] (]) 08:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran ] 04:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As the named author of a number of volumes of the Italian official history of WW2, as can be seen from the Italian Misplaced Pages, Mattesini seems to reliable.] (]) 08:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's some very useful context. ] (]) 10:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Thanks, usable then but sparingly and with caution. Regards ] (]) 10:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| == Gettysburg photos to upload == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| I have about 111 photos from the Gettysburg battlefield to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Most of them are of memorials, like in ], but a lot of them are better than the photos there. There are some photos of the battlefield and some of cannons, etc. | |||
| This project has tagged the ] talk page. So I am notifying you of ].-19:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) ] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 19:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm ready to upload them but I don't have the time or knowledge to add descriptions or put them in categories. Can someone help with that? I will upload them as a batch, but I need to have a title, category, and initial description for the set - what should I use? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Some useful pdfs on the RN in the Big Two == | |||
| :As a Civil War buff (and member of the Friends of Gettysburg), I'm willing to help. The "highest" starting category would be on Commons, and photos could be placed in subcategories from there, such as the large . Title and initial description should be something like "Photos of the Gettysburg battlefield", preferably with a date or date range or other identifier for your set. I've never done a batch upload, so maybe somebody else could give you tips there. ] (]·]) 02:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/locations-and-operations/bases-and-stations/naval-historic-branch | |||
| :: Thanks. They were taken on two days in April. With a batch upload, you designate a file name, say XYZ, and then they are uploaded with names XYZ (2), etc. They will have the same initial description (including an NRHP number if there is one - is there one?) And a category. Since the bulk of them are memorials, I think it would be easiest to dump them into the memorials category, then I can go through and move the ones that aren't memorials up to the general category. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 23:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Does anyone know where to find a list of the size of the major European navies in the 1680s? == | |||
| :::I can also help with moving the photos to other categories or adding categories such as gun types. ] (]·]) 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I am currently making a wikipedia page for William of Orange's invasion of England and such a list would be valuable. ] (]) 17:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Thanks, a lot of work is needed. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| I've uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. They have names Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US.jpg, Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (2).jpg, etc. | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| To do it the easy way, I put all of them in the Gettysburg Battlefield category and the memorials are also in the Battle of Gettysburg memorials category. A bot will come through and remove the general category for the ones that have the more specific category. Over half of them had to be rotated. Many of the landscapes are underexposed (because of the bright sky). I can fix that. | |||
| <blockquote>'''Could not find reliable sources to establish notability.'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| I would appreciate it if someone could put some details in the description and move ones to subcategories, if they exist. Also, ones that are worthy could go in articles like ], etc. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| * I see that someone has started working on the Commons photos. Thanks, it is a bigger chore than I could do. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 00:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because I carefully added the relevant articles to it. It appears to have been probably been emptied without due process , and I can easily readd the articles that should be in it. It appears that {{u|Ssolbergj}} is systematically removing this category (which meets ], all articles within it '''are''' military formations) and inserting a category which does '''not''' meet ] (all articles are '''not''' Allied Command Operations, which is one singular article). ] ] 08:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Help needed on People's armed police related pages == | |||
| == Medal of Honor ? == | |||
| There is an article in the german Misplaced Pages about one ], who was an officer on ]s ship during his artic expedition in the late 1920s. Although the sources who report on Adams seems to be scarce, the Wikipedian who did the research on Adams lists some astonishing facts - apparently based partially on in the "Meridan Record" from 1932. The Meridan-article states, that Adams won the MoH for wartime service twice - which I wasnt able to confirm. If thats just made up, the source may not be credible. Can someone help to confirm or deny this guys MoH ? ] (]) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| The article ](currently it is known as the 2nd mobile contingent of the ] so I added a redirect) is completely out of date(simply by switching to the chinese wikipedia article there is much more info lol) and is lacking in tonnes of information that other articles have sources on; heck even the ] section on it has more information than the article itself. | |||
| :A search of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society's shows no naval officers named Adams ever received a Medal of Honor. The only Adams recipient with a "close" birth date is Marine Sergeant , born 1871, awarded the MoH for the Boxer Rebellion. ] (]·]) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Prior to me editing it and adding that it is currently the 2nd mobile contingent, the page was lacking anything about what happened to if after 1950, with it literally saying "As Of 1970-1980, it is currently a PAP unit" when tonnes of info can be found to update it | |||
| ::That, and the list of ] is a very short one. Seems pretty dubious to me. ] (]) 19:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you, that seems like a reasonable assessment. ] (]) 06:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Another issue is that the ] article claims it is part of the beijing contingent when almost all sources(including but not limited to chinese wikipedia) i can find online claim it is part of the 2nd mobile contingent. ] (]) 01:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == A-class reassessment of ], but something screwed up == | |||
| ==B-class assessment== | |||
| Hey. I clicked the "currently undergoing" link that appeared when I changed its staus to A-class=current... but somehow it created "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/importance". Sorry for the mess...] article should be deleted anyway, ]... ♦ ] ] 21:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : I have been encountering articles that I feel have been prematurely promoted to ]. Many are ] articles. Examples: ] and ]. It could be that there is just not much to go on but that seems dubious. ] is somewhat of an improvement but I suspect there is more that could be written. Hero of the Soviet Union articles are a noble thing but if that is the only thing a person has done then the notability might be questionable. At least the article should contain more content and a better lead before being promoted to B-class. Others are military deserters like ] with an unsourced section. Articles like ], with the one sentence lead, and enough content to possibly fill the criteria for Start-class. Another is ]. I did not dig into any specifics, because I have been under the weather, I just thought I should mention this. -- ] (]) 19:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::B class is the minimum acceptable standard for Misplaced Pages articles. The ] requires that "it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." ] was assessed back in 2008, when criteria were less strict that they are today. Today it would be rated C class. ] ] 20:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::I Don't know how it happened; I believe I clicked the correct link... What should I do? Is it enough to just move that page to ]? ♦ ] ] 01:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::This happens if there has previously been a A-Class review of an article, which in this case should have been at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cold War. Usually you can just move the old one to archive1 to make way for a new one. In this case, the old review page is already at archive1, but there is a redirect from the title it should be at. You just need to delete the redirect and fix the link in the article history if necessary. But it is currently Start (which seems about right based on a quick look)? Why an A-Class re-assessment? ] (]) 01:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes that's another strange thing... I've been working on it for at least a week (in my userspace), and the assessment has shown up as "A" for that entire time.... I don't remember if I actually looked at he underlying wikitext, but I remember the display on the top of the article (as per a gadget)_ and the display on the talk page itself bot said "A" class. But when I tried to open a reassessment, suddenly it was Start. And now it's C. Maybe it was Start or C on the talk page wikitext, but the fact that there was an assessment page and ("action1link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cold War", "action1result=approved") made it display as "A"...? I dunno. I am confused by the whole thing. ♦ ] ] 03:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{undent}} Ah, one editor unilaterally changed the rating. Can do, or needs to go through Reassessment? i thought it was the latter... ♦ ] ] 07:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I've now had a chance to look at this more closely. This article has a very convoluted history, first it passed a (very sketchy, early days... 2008) Milhist A-Class, then PR, then two failed runs at FAC in 2008, then GAN in 2009 (passed) and another PR. I hate to go on about process, but it seems to have really degraded, and really this should have been re-assessed by Milhist when it became clear it didn't meet our A-Class criteria. That may have been years ago. Only one process, GAR or A-Class re-assessment, should be ongoing at one time. Normally it makes sense to do the A-Class one first, because if it passes that, there is no threat to the GA status, but if it fails, a GAR may be necessary. None of this seems to have occurred, and {{u|DuncanHill}} has just downgraded it to C for all projects without any process and hasn't followed the process for delisting a GA, so it is still listed at ]. I acknowledge the ongoing discussion about its quality, however. I'm all for IAR, but if it was supposed to be an individual GAR it should have been delisted properly, and if it was a community GAR, the attempted GAR doesn't seem to have been properly formatted/listed either, so it wouldn't be a surprise if there was no interest. I certainly don't recall seeing it listed by Milhistbot on our announcements template, which I watch closely. As far as a way ahead is concerned, given its condition, the GA assessments have been re-instated (with A-Class for Milhist) and it really should be GAR'd properly. I note that Lingzhi2 has done this at ], but I assume they will be doing an individual GAR and it will be delisted shortly IAW the instructions at ]. Frankly, when it is delisted I think C-Class is being a bit kind given the state of the article at present. Milhist will do a proforma A-Class re-assessment after the GAR is completed. ] (]) 07:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excellent! We'll do that then. Thank you. ♦ ] ] 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Our MilHistBot does not currently list GARs at ]; Should I add them? ] ] 21:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that would be useful. Can you do both individual and community? ] (]) 22:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree that Milhistbot should list GARs. I may be thinking of ]. ] (]) 22:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{done}} The MilHistBot is now listing GARs, both individual and community. ] ] 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks Hawkeye! ] (]) 00:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've also updated ], as I have this on my talk page. ] ] 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This article has a LONG section at the bottom about how Graf is part of the surname as of the end of WWI, which would be great... IF he hadn't died decades before that... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.2% of all ]</sub></span> 03:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : It is not really that long for a section but it is supposed to be a footnote type thing. Here's the templates text from <nowiki>{{German title|Graf}}</nowiki>: | |||
| :* {{German title|Graf}} | |||
| :* ] (]) 15:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::* But does that mean that we should be giving him a name format that was never used in his life, to fit changes to German law nearly half a century after his death? It's a weird historical revisionism. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.2% of all ]</sub></span> 06:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems a bit bizarre to me, as far as I can see it is unique to this article.] (]) 15:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for information on WP1.0 web tool == | |||
| Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the ]! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the ] that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables. | |||
| We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at where you can leave your response. ] (]) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:JJMC89@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/ListOfProjects&oldid=923068486 --> | |||
| == How many articles for minor battle? == | |||
| ] was brief but probably should have an article. What about the mopping up operation of the nearby city? ], ], and ]? All three describe the same event: kids taking potshots at Germans entering the city the day after Mikołów, and their capture and execution. Highly partisan and low quality sources. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Not sure the massacre really is part of the same battle, the defense of the training tower is a minor skirmish.] (]) 12:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this and assessing it for notability? It doesn't seem to meet ], ] or ], but maybe there's another guideline it satisfies. Currently, the own source(s) cited is Facebook which is a ] at best and not really helpful for establishing the band's Misplaced Pages notability. -- ] (]) 04:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Certainly doesn't meet GNG at present, but isn't connected to military history, so I've removed our banner. I am not familiar with ]. ] (]) 06:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for taking a look {{u|Peacemaker67}}. I just added the MILHIST banner because I thought it might fall under this project's scope as a ], but have no problem with it being removed. -- ] (]) 08:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Vicksburg == | |||
| I had good success getting help with my Gettysburg photos, so I've uploaded my Vicksburg photos. There are only 53 this time. They are all in Wikimedia Commons, category Vicksburg National Military Park, with the title Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi, US (nn).jpg, (e.g. ]) where nn is 2 to 54. #1 doesn't have the sequence number and #39 is up for deletion. | |||
| We didn't get to the Confederate ones, I think the road was washed out. (I hope no one wants to remove them.) There are a lot of Ohio ones because my brother-in-law is a buff in Ohio. | |||
| So I would appreciate help in photo descriptions and some categorization. These are not as well documented as the Gettysburg memorials. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : I moved four photos of the Illinois Monument to its category. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == RS or not, for FAN == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| I was looking to get some advice if the below source would be acceptable for a FAN, if only used for OOB information. Regards, ] (]) 01:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * {{cite book|ref=harv|last1=Watson|first1=Graham|first2=Richard A.|last2=Rinaldi|title=The British Army in Germany: An Organizational History 1947–2004|publisher=Tiger Lily Publications for Orbat.com|location=Takoma Park, MD|year=2005|isbn=978-0-972-02969-8}} | |||
| :As far as I can work out, orbat.com was a wargamers orbat site (now defunct), and Tiger Lily Productions looks to be the linked self-publishing outfit (also defunct) that only published eight books? I'm not sure it would be reliable. ] (]) 02:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was my thought earlier today after relooking over this source. It is sadly the only published document with detailed OOBs for the 70s and 80s that I can so far find.] (]) 02:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == refbegin refend question == | |||
| {{ping|Parsecboy}} Is there policy about small printing references? Parsec's taking them out and I think it needs consensus. regards. ] (]) 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't understand the question. Is there a diff? ] (]) 17:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's no policy covering them. But in my opinion, they make the text smaller and more difficult to read, so I question their value if that's all they're being used to do (which is the case with the articles in question, for example, ]; it's another issue if the other parameters are being used, such as adding columns or indentations). ] (]) 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gog, he's talking about . ] (]) 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks Parsec. I assume that you have been reverted and that this is the discussion to try and reach ]? With the default position being how things were before you changed them? ] (]) 17:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, Keith . ] (]) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Keith, here's my question for you: what value do you think the templates provide as you're using them? ] (]) 17:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} It isn't for me to justify the status quo; if you want to alter a long standing practice, I suggest that the onus is on you.] (]) 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't have to. The opening line of ] in ] says: "Reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly" They're guidelines, but still...--] (]) 21:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : The Refbeing and end template put the text in the same font size that the common {{t1|Reflist}} template produces. That's one reason they are used but not necessarily a compelling one. ] (]) 21:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I used to use them to reduce the size of the Reference section, but now I take them out (when I remember) as they make them less accessible for those with poor eyesight. ] (]) 21:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that people use them because they replicate the familiar format found in printed academic material. But we're not bound by the limitations of paper, so I see no actual value in using them here.--] (]) 21:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} {{tl|Refbegin}} also allows you to put the references into columns, which saves space and improves the layout because it matches the one the {{t1|Reflist}} template produces. ] says that ''Editors may use any citation method they choose.'' I note that MOS:ACCESS itself uses reflist. {{tl|Reflist}} and {{tl|Refbegin}} use a common CSS entry in ] sets the font size to 90%. If you want to change it, ''Any major changes to this page should first be proposed on its talk page or the Village pump.'' ] ] 21:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:34, 9 January 2025
- Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Requests for project input
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Talk:Yom Kippur War#Result
What the result should be in the infobox as a reflection of the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of the Java Sea#Recent edits changing scope of article
An editor has effectively changed to scope of the article by incorporating subsequent engagements (with their own stand-alone articles) as being part of this battle. Further input would be welcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion on the renaming of the article Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge
Please see here for a discussion about renaming Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge to United States support for the Khmer Rouge. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
RFC on Russian invasion of Ukraine
THere's currently a discussion about whether or not to include North Korea as a co-belligerent. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000#Requested move 19 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000#Requested move 19 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Edwin of Northumbria
Edwin of Northumbria has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Angevin kings of England
Angevin kings of England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:RSM-56 Bulava#Requested move 3 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RSM-56 Bulava#Requested move 3 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frostly (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
RM to lowercase North Yemen Civil War
An ongoing RM to lowercase is at Talk:North Yemen Civil War#Requested move 28 November 2024. It has been relisted and may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
United Kingdom Special Forces has an RfC
United Kingdom Special Forces has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Manbij offensive#Requested move 9 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Manbij offensive#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Capture of Damascus#Requested move 9 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capture of Damascus#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox
Please see subject RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024
Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Battle of Thermopylae
Battle of Thermopylae has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#Dubious tag
The phrase disputed territory in the territory parameter of the infobox has been tagged as dubious. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)
1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Mark Kellogg (reporter)
Mark Kellogg (reporter) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Henry VIII
Henry VIII has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Battle of Badr
Battle of Badr has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Italian Ethiopia#Requested move 27 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Italian Ethiopia#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)
Wings (1927 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 102nd Intelligence Wing
102nd Intelligence Wing has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Arthur Phillip
Arthur Phillip has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for input Talk:List of Norfolk airfields
Talk:List of Norfolk airfields has an ongoing discussion regarding the scope of this and potentially other equivalent lists, regarding the inclusion of civilian airfields to a mainly military list. List of former Royal Air Force stations already has a table that can be sorted by county. Also if the list could be replaced by a templates similar to "Template:RAF stations in Lincolnshire" Gavbadger (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)
1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
INS Shankul (S47) has infoboxes for 2 different vessels
INS Shankul (S47) has infoboxes for 2 different vessels. I assume this is a cut and paste error that needs fixing Vicarage (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The two entries are for the same vessel. The second history section in the infobox refers to a refit and relaunch. Reference 1 show the refit date but no other details. The discussion in that reference mentions another refit between 2000 and 2006 but the text is rather vague. The information on that later work doesn't appear in this stub article. This article has obvious deficiencies. Perhaps someone can do some research and clarify the construction and refit history of the vessel as well as adding information. The reference has a little more discussion about it, for what it may be worth. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Appears there was a name change (from Shankush) which would be the reason for a second infobox. Refits on their don't require an a new infobox (afaik), they are just noted in the history in prose. - wolf 07:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Reminder about a funny pastime
When was the last time you checked commons:Category:Unidentified military vehicles? or parent commons:Category:Unidentified_military? (Yes, that name might need changing :P). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can identify three of these but don't see where on the files it actually asks for an ID? Also, quite a few of these vehicles appear to be buildings - someone perhaps should recategorise? Monstrelet (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Change from the Unidentified military vehicles category to a more specific category, or just remove the unidentified category if it does not apply. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some folks are very liberal with such categories, and can add it to a panoramic view of buildings etc. with some small part of the picture featuring said unidentified vehicle. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Angolan Civil War
Hi all. Recently the infobox to Angolan Civil War has been amended to include a long list of the various nationalities that served as foreign mercenaries or volunteers during that conflict. This results in the respective nations essentially being listed under the "combatants" heading of the infobox. I think this is highly unusual, and most of the other conflict-related articles I've read or revised do not have this feature, even those in which foreign fighters took part, whether as mercenaries or otherwise. As is it seems to make the infobox rather bloated, and I'm in favor of restricting the use of the "combatants" section solely to national governments which participated directly in hostilities. Thoughts? Katangais (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. "From that country" =/= "That country was a combatant". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd:: Please explain why the listing of different nationalities of mercenaries is necessary in the combatants section of the infobox. I've yet to see this in any other conflict-related article, so I'm genuinely puzzled at its inclusion at Angolan Civil War. --Katangais (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look at the Iran–Iraq War article for example. You can see under volunteers. We could either:
- A. Place the mercenaries under the “units involved” section since the infobox had a Units section
- B. Keep it as it was SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Iran–Iraq War lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for Angolan Civil War. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --Katangais (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- We could still list the indiviual nationalities under "units involved" section. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nationalities are not units. That’s the type of information that would be useful in the body of the article, but too granular for the infobox. --Katangais (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- We could still list the indiviual nationalities under "units involved" section. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Iran–Iraq War lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for Angolan Civil War. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --Katangais (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Operation Dawn of Freedom#Requested move 25 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Dawn of Freedom#Requested move 25 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present)#Requested move 27 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present)#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho
Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
FYI
This project has tagged the Boomerang talk page. So I am notifying you of Talk:Boomerang#No_boomerang_thower_bios.-19:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Some useful pdfs on the RN in the Big Two
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/locations-and-operations/bases-and-stations/naval-historic-branch Keith-264 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone know where to find a list of the size of the major European navies in the 1680s?
I am currently making a wikipedia page for William of Orange's invasion of England and such a list would be valuable. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Marlin-class submarine
The article Marlin-class submarine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Could not find reliable sources to establish notability.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esw01407 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Help needed on People's armed police related pages
The article 126th Armed Police Mobile Division (People's Republic of China)(currently it is known as the 2nd mobile contingent of the PAP so I added a redirect) is completely out of date(simply by switching to the chinese wikipedia article there is much more info lol) and is lacking in tonnes of information that other articles have sources on; heck even the People's Armed Police section on it has more information than the article itself.
Prior to me editing it and adding that it is currently the 2nd mobile contingent, the page was lacking anything about what happened to if after 1950, with it literally saying "As Of 1970-1980, it is currently a PAP unit" when tonnes of info can be found to update it
Another issue is that the Snow Leopard commando Unit article claims it is part of the beijing contingent when almost all sources(including but not limited to chinese wikipedia) i can find online claim it is part of the 2nd mobile contingent. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
B-class assessment
- I have been encountering articles that I feel have been prematurely promoted to B-class. Many are Hero of the Soviet Union articles. Examples: Kadi Abakarov and Akhsarbek Abaev. It could be that there is just not much to go on but that seems dubious. Pavle Abramidze is somewhat of an improvement but I suspect there is more that could be written. Hero of the Soviet Union articles are a noble thing but if that is the only thing a person has done then the notability might be questionable. At least the article should contain more content and a better lead before being promoted to B-class. Others are military deserters like Larry Allen Abshier with an unsourced section. Articles like Roy Chung, with the one sentence lead, and enough content to possibly fill the criteria for Start-class. Another is Agus_Suhartono. I did not dig into any specifics, because I have been under the weather, I just thought I should mention this. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- B class is the minimum acceptable standard for Misplaced Pages articles. The B-Class criteria requires that "it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." Larry Allen Abshier was assessed back in 2008, when criteria were less strict that they are today. Today it would be rated C class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)