Voting has closed, Happy New Year! Awards will be handed out shortly. Thanks to everyone who participated! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

---

Military historian of the year 2021

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2021 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2021. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2021. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

Nominations have closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

---

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

• OK, I'll kick this off. Hog Farm continues to make significant contributions to our coverage of the ACW. In 2021 he has received three A-Class medals, so at least nine A-Class articles, and many more GAs, and is everywhere. A stellar year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hog Farm for being civil, pleasant in conversation, supportive, and highly competent. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Vami_IV, you might want to vote below? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Gog the Mild, for a tremendous output of GA, A, and FA articles across a range of subjects. Finds time to be a Milhist co-ordinator and a FA delegate as well. Zawed (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• EnigmaMcmxc - Many A and FL articles about British divisions. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Zawed - prolific content work, primarily with New Zealand military figures. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dumelow - An excellent assortment of DYK content. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Peacemaker67 - Among many contributions to the project, the ones to WP:BORA (WWII in Yugoslavia) alone warrant recognition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nick-D: In 2021, Nick has successfully taken at least six Milhist articles through ACR this year on a variety of topics including military procurement projects, naval operations and a land battle in Normandy. Additionally, he took five articles to FAC. In addition, Nick has been a consistent reviewer at peer review, GAN, ACR, FLC, FAR, and FAC, has contributed as a Milhist co-ord emeritus, editor of the monthly Milhist newsletter, and in an administrator capacity. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hawkeye7: In 2021, Hawkeye has continued to contribute quality articles, successfully taking nine through Milhist ACR on topics including logistics during World War II, nuclear weapons, military operations, space shuttles and policy debates/disputes. In addition, he has also taken at least seven Milhist articles successfully through FAC this year. Hawkeye has continued to contribute as a reviewer at GAN, ACR, FLC and FAC, as a project co-ord and operator of Milhistbot. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rickfive, the man, the myth, the legend! Rickfive is done amazing work (especially this year). He started off with the Royal Corps of Signals, and finished with the Royal Artillery. He's not only considerably helped myself, but has made numerous improvements to former pages, and always has something innovative to add up his sleeve. I hereby nominate the amazing Sir Rickfive. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Good nomination, however, can I suggest moving this nom up to Military Historian of the Year section rather than here? Rickfive isn't technically a Milhist newcomer, IMO, as they have been editing Milhist topics since 2007. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2021.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm

1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely, per my nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Zawed (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

1. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hard to go past. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Zawed (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EnigmaMcmxc

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow

1. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
3. StickyWicket (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67

1. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

1. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kierzek (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Euryalus (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rickfive

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Voting has closed, Happy New Year! Awards will be handed out shortly. Thanks to everyone who participated! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

---

Military history newcomer of the year 2021

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2021 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2021. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2021. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

Nominations have closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

---

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~
• Ljleppan, doing fine work in relation to Finnish military history. Zawed (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh, you beat me to nomming Ljleppan. I support Ljleppan for the same reasons I gave him the WikiChevrons a while back: Ljleppan does excellent work, is open to criticism and advice, is civil, clear-eyed, and is very dependable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe, significant work in British Navy history. Hog Farm _Talk 07:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thorough and insightful reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist: joined November 2020, contributed to a large expansion of Yeoman (United States Navy) and a couple of other related articles; contributions stop at March, unfortunately, but hopefully this nomination might encourage them to continue editing. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KiwiSpike1: active since 3 January 2021, working on several articles related to the Royal New Zealand Navy; contributions unfortunately stop at March, but hopefully this nomination might encourage them to continue editing. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2021.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ljleppan

1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Catlemur (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. FredModulars (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Zawed (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Catlemur (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kierzek (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Zawed (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KiwiSpike1

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi, does anybody have a copy of Anderson handy that you could check at p25 and the date that B Coy 39th Bn arrived at Kokoda. Sources consistently say 15 July but for some reason, I have said (quoting Anderson) 14 July at Invasion of Buna–Gona. This is clearly wrong. I just want to check if it is my error or Andersons. Hawkeye7?

• Anderson, Nicholas (2014). To Kokoda. Australian Army Campaigns Series – 14. Sydney, New South Wales: Big Sky Publishing.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: G'day, I have a copy. I think the relevant paragraph is: "B Company, led by Captain Sam Templeton, was the first sent across the Kokoda Trail to implement the battalion's orders. The men left a staging post at Uberi on 8 July with Kienzle guiding them, and arrived in Kokoda on 14 July". Does that help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AustralianRupert, best wishes. I am pretty certain that Anderson has made a mistake. Brune and McCarthy both give 15 July. I could go back to the NGF war diary. Any thoughts? Have you seen the recent edits at Invasion of Buna–Gona and Battle of Buna–Gona? I have some concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, it doesn't hurt to check the War Diary, but ultimately I would suggest dealing with the discrepancy between Anderson, Brune and McCarthy with a note as all would be considered RS. I personally probably would try to avoid citing Teague until it can be determined whether or not it is considered an RS. What are his credentials, what is the editorial policy of the website for instance? Anyway, probably best to outline your concerns on the talk pages of the individual articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert, the war diaries of both the 39th Bn and 30th Bde give 14 July, so my apologies to Anderson. Yes, I guess I should take my own advice (per Hog Farm above) but the diaries are definitive. I will have to work on it since it affects a couple of articles and it will be one of those complicated notes. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'm curios as to what Williams says, if anybody has him handy.

• Williams, Peter (2012). The Kokoda Campaign 1942: Myth and Reality. Melbourne, Victoria: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-10701-594-4.

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, unfortunately, I only have a photocopy of one chapter of that book and it isn't the relevant chapter, I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only have an electronic copy; the book is inaccessible at the moment. I can't find anything in Williams about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard copy - please ping me if you need anything checked. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all and many thanks. I was able to get my hands on the hard copy. Williams avoids the matter in that his narrative does not touch on how the 39th came to be at Kokoda or when (as far as I can see). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AustralianRupert, could you have a look at Anderson again (probably p25). B Coy departed Ilolo to Uberi on 7 July and Uberi on 8 July. Uberi/Ower's Corner is considered the start of the track. McCarthy and the war diaries are consistent with that. The Teague source says they started on 7 July but it is really a case of where they were considered to have started from. I was just wondering what detail Anderson gave re their departure (from where and when). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: G'day, prior to the paragraph on p. 25 about B Coy departing the staging post at Uberi (on 8 July, according to Anderson), Anderson provides that the full battalion was in a "reserve area within the Port Moresby defences" around 24 June. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everbody is in agreement on when they left either Ilolo or Uberi except for Teague, who desn't say. Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all. Since the WP:RSN RfC regarding theaerodrome.com was recently closed with a consensus of "generally unreliable", something should probably be done about the 1639 articles referencing it (including at least one FA-class article with an indirect reference). At the same time, it's not quite obvious to me what the proper next step is. To wit, any suggestions from the more experienced Wikipedians? -Ljleppan (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One way of less intrusively diagnosing this problem is to tag all instances of it used as a citation with a "better source needed" tag (see Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup). In instances where it is used marginally or the claim seems out of step with everything else, wholesale removal of the citation and the info it purports to support is probably fine. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this sounds close to what I had in mind before I got concerned about this being seen as WP:TAGBOMBing. I've made a snapshot of the search results (see here in case anyone wants to contribute) and will try to slowly work through the list. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Indy's nuanced approach in this case. With clearly unreliable sources such as axis history etc, I recommend deleting the source and any citations to it, but leaving the information unless it is a quote or could be considered in any way controversial or likely to be challenged. This accords with WP:V, and can help later editors to find more information on the subject in reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding an "rs/unreliable source" tag when I can't find an easy replacement (which is maybe a little stronger than the "better source needed" tag - and deleting external links where they havn't been cited and don't add significantly to the references that are already thereNigel Ish (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At what point did we decide to create all those "List of aerial victories of X ace" articles? Some are so small they could probably fit into the parent ace articles. They're also poorly sourced with improper notes vaguely saying where the information came from, which makes cleanup difficult. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here to comment on the "List of aerial victories of..." issue myself. Any short ones should definitely be considered for moving to the pilot article (losing the time of day of the incident along the way IMHO). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It arose out of the insistence of some editors that they were unbalancing the bios (the old excessive detail argument among others), and are not supposed to be collapsed. We should probably have a rule-of-thumb for numbers. Say 20 or 25? If over that figure, then a separate list is recommended? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems fine enough to me. I think it's much less crufty to include air ace tallies in a main article Is there any MOS guidance on including collapsed tables in articles? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, is there any consensus on whether things like this list of members are appropriate? My intuition says this should be instead "Notable members" or something equivalent, with every name then a wikilink. -Ljleppan (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the relevant MOS section for collapsed tables is WP:DONTHIDE, which IIRC summarizes to "don't collapse by default; if you think you should collapse, consider either turning into prose or deleting per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" -Ljleppan (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of members seem a bit clunky like that, even if they are all wikilinked, do they not? If the men are notable enough members of the squadron then surely they should be mentioned in the prose anyway. If a list of notable members is still deemed necessary, would a template called something likes "Aces of XXX" not work better? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that was more along the lines of "at the very minimum". Folding the information into the prose would indeed be better. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125 has almost fully cited Kirill Lokshin’s Italian War of 1521–1526 at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1. If anyone is able to address the three remaining citation tags, and glance over the article, it should be a FAR save. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, the remaining tags have now been sorted.Amitchell125 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Then perhaps some MilHist regulars will glance over the FAR in terms of Keep or Delist ... thanks, Amitchell125! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Save Award for Italian War of 1521–1526

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion re the scope of this category at Category talk:Civilian airports with RAF origins. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about last veteran of World War I. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hog Farm has nominated Epaminondas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly appreciate all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive3. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several (well over 3000) articles in this project are in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references create via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

Since there are so many, I've focused the following list on FA/FL/GA/A/AL/List-class articles, and left B and below out of it. These could use some of your attention

To do

Done

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there may be overlap with the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors - so check there if an article has been fixed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb - Just as a note for the future, for MILHIST, "list" class is equivalent to start-class, which is why that query flagged up so many lists with significant problems. Hog Farm _Talk 18:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly picked them because there weren't a great many of them, and list-types will often have the same source reused often (and be relatively easy to track if each entry in the list has a corresponding article [For example in List of wars involving Albania, the Kosovo War entry has Elsi 2010 borked up.... but there's an Elsie 2010 entry in the Kosovo War article, which is probably the one meant here]). There's also relatively high visibility, if only for navigation purposes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side conversation about unrelated issues

A|lso note there may be false positives thrown up. E,g: I was surprised to see John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter listed as it was my FAC nom and my citations are usually perfect. But in this case, it's throwing up Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (30 with; 1 without). That's because the one, lone, single, individual, discrete, sole, solitary, exclusive cite that doesn't use a location is a Gmap reference using {{Cite map}} (which is also calling for an ISBN! Wtf?). The other two problematic refs are from ODNB which are now demanding page ranges for chapters, which they don't do with {{Cite web}} but do request from {{Cite ODNB}}. Since my source is the ODNB website and not the blooming 21-volume dead-tree copy, I don't even see how this conforms to WP:V any longer: the digital version is regularly irregularly updated, while the print copy is obviously not.

The one thing I can actually change is to archive the WaPo ref, and shall do so. But it doesn't make much of a dent on the rest of that bold black scrawl  :) SN54129 — Review here please :) 17:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you are seeing 'Inconsistent use of Publisher Location' but it is not from {{sfn}} and Module:Footnotes. {{Google maps}} does not support |isbn= (though the underlying {{cite map}} would were there a mechanism in {{google maps}} to pass-on an isbn). {{cite map}} does not care if you include or omit |isbn=. Where are you getting the idea that there is such a requirement? {{Cite ODNB}} (which cites the online version) does not [demand] page ranges for chapters; where are you getting that notion?

This whole discussion is about {{sfn}} errors. At John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter, there is one (false positive) {{sfn}} no-target error. The remedy for that is to add {{sfn whitelist|CITEREFGoogle2018}} somewhere in the article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I get the bloody notion from TtM; I assume we're using different scripts, but, frankly, that's not my problem, as this is the script that most FAC reviewers use. The real issue here is that your defending your post above on the grounds that 'it's not a sfn error', but, you see, I doubt many here care about your how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff and more about how Featured articles are consistently abused by random bodies with multitudinous scripts and bots, most of which would seem to be violating at least one policy and have landed you personally at WP:ANI in the past. I advise colleagues to remove articles from this list unless Trappist mends the bloody things himself rather than continually trying to blame others for not a) instinctively knowing what he's talking about and b) begging him for an opportunity to do more clearing up... /RANT SN54129 — Review here please :) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! That's a lot of errors. I can't think why they weren't picked up by the FAC source review. Should I redo my source review of your current FAC do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's weird that it passed in that state, and that none of the reviewers mentioned it  :) SN54129 — Review here please :) 19:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your script would be User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js? I'm not going to pick apart all of the John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter 'error' messages but I did look at the Google maps isbn thing. {{Google maps}} uses {{cite map}} and |map=. |map= is treated by the template in the same way that |chapter= is treated by {{cite book}}; in other words, using |map= tells {{cite map}} that the citation is to a 'map' in a 'book'. For {{google maps}}, that is incorrect because Google maps is not a book. I'll make a note of that at the {{google maps}} talk page. User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js at line 200 sees the citation's metadata rft.genre=book k/v pair and so assumes that the citation is a book citation. At line 240, the script looks at rft.date. At line 242 et seq. compares the date in rft.date (2018 in the Google books citation) against the fixed value 1970 and so emits the missing isbn message.

Alas, Editor User:Lingzhi2 has, as of 7 October 2021, apparently left en.wiki so the script is no longer maintained; any fixes to reviewsourcecheck.js will have to be done by someone else.

Umm, I was defending nothing. You came to a discussion that is clearly labelled "List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors" and complained about a number of error messages that are wholly unrelated to the discussion topic. I wanted to know where you were seeing those errors and how you were associating them with Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}}. I wanted to know if there is somewhere that someone has written something that associates those error messages with Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}}. Were there such a place, I could then remedy that incorrect association. I also wanted to make sure that you understood that your complaints are not the fault of Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}} and that you need to look elsewhere for a solution to those complaints.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note posted at Template talk:Google maps § misuse of |map= parameter

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here, or is not using |map= the way you labeled "misuse" exactly the same one of the examples in the {{cite map}} documentation? See last example of Template:Cite map#Maps contained within larger works -Ljleppan (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the example. Thanks for pointing it out.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: I don't know what kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality you're bringing here, but I suggest you drop it. It's both irrelevant, and counterproductive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No battleground, Headbomb, merely pointing out the paucity of Trappist's own arguments, and the fact that he would rather argue, obfuscate, distract and patronize than actually confront the issue (which I note you have actually done, thanks). Looks like the system works. Season's greetings to you all! :D SN54129 — Review here please :) 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discernible difference in tone and language between Ttm's comments and your own, self-admitted "rants", SN. (jmho) I'm sure you guys can work this out without any further hostility. - wolf 03:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Borsoka - For Raynald of Châtillon - should the Runciman source be 1988 or 1989? That's what's causing the issue on that one. Hog Farm _Talk 18:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1989. Fixed. Thank you for your query. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed - Would you be able to add the Shores & Williams 1994 that's no-targeting at Jack Rae? Hog Farm _Talk 18:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Zawed (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to fix the problem at Richmond Park were reverted by Headhitter. Pointing them here so that they are aware of this larger discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 19:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protector (RWS), Protector Remote Weapon Station or just Protector which is remote weapon station? Eurohunter (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Using only "Protector" for an article title is not good since that is such a common word. Either of the other two seem fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protector remote weapon station or Protector (some disambiguator), not "Protector (RWS)" which looks like some obscure disambiguator. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Protector RWS several hours ago, as I was unaware of this discussion. I chose "Protector RWS" as it's shorter, but I'm fine with Protector remote weapon station if that's preferred. BilCat (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fnlayson: I thought it's obvious that is should be disambuaged if the name is just "Protector". There are rules about disambugating names so if "Protector RWS" isn't a name but only "Protector" is the name so it should be called Protector (remote weapon station) or ratcher Protector (remote controlled weapon station) because remote controlled weapon station is the main name and remote weapon station is redirected. Other examples are Protector (Atari Jaguar game), Protector (2009 film), Protector (novel) etc. Eurohunter (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Kongsberg and Thales product websites refer to it as the "Protector RWS", not "Protector", so that's what I went by. BilCat (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Eurohunter:, I went by what was stated at the top without making any assumptions. It is more natural to use words and avoid para disambiguous parts. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same Polonez (MRL) should be moved to Polonez (multiple rocket launcher) because multiple rocket launcher is the main name and article isn't under shortcut MRL and because it need to be disambugated then MRL (rocket artillery system). No need to use shortcuts. Eurohunter (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is big mess with names.

M1 mortar or M1 Mortar? This is probably named just "M1" so M1 (mortal) or no - it's probably called exactly M1 Mortar? How even such a simple thing can be so complicated? Eurohunter (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M19 mortar probably same as above but here is also "US M19 60 mm Mortar" in the infobox so I have no idea what is the name/names of this mortal. Eurohunter (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GIAT LG1 or LG1 (howitzer)? I bet it is "GIAT LG1" so why is "GIAT" cuted in the lead and not in infobox and article name? Eurohunter (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M18 smoke grenade → M18 (smoke grenade) or it is actually (officially) named "M18 Colored Smoke Grenade" but "M18" is just a common name? No one knows. Eurohunter (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohunter (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME comes into it. And going with what the sources say. Plus consistency - 99% of mortar articles are "X mortar" form. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett: So there should be included official name too in the lead "oficially". Consistency - 99% of Wikipedia articles are "X (mortar)" form and "X mortar" is missleading because you expect this is a part of name especially if there is such a mess with name in lead and infobox (sometimes there are 3 different names without any xplanation). Eurohunter (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a thing has a bunch of different names it's knosn by they go in the infobox. If it's not well explained in the article text, then that's an editorial issue GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRITERIA is a balancing act and WP:QUALIFIER doesn't "require" parenthetic disambiguation. We don't actually prefer an official name or its capitalisation but WP:COMMONNAME. We don't use army-double-back-speak for article titles. I would tend to agree with Protector remote weapon station since it is a natural term, recognisable, concise and sufficiently precise and I see no issue of consistency that would suggest it should be otherwise. Furthermore, we only capitalise "if necessary". "Protector" is the name. All the rest is a description that serves for disambiguation. To all the rest, I am not seeing any particular issue with the names of choice. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can say in service it is known by the acronym RWS and as soon as I saw the section header I knew what this thread is about. I like the current title, Protector RWS, as it is what I know it as, but would be happy with Protector remote weapon station. Cavalryman (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Cavalryman, per WP:TITLEFORMAT at WP:AT (a policy), we are told quite specifically to avoid acronyms (and consequently initialisms, which are the same but different). While you might instantly recognise the acronym, our readers are not necessarily going to but they will nonetheless see that the Protector is a remote weapons system in Protector remote weapon station. I know what I wrote (it was a slip of the fingers) but this just goes to prove the point. Ultimately, it is not what "we" think is the best title, but the title that best serves our readers. I get where you are coming from but there are other considerations. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go with Protector remote weapon station of that’s preferred, no need to capitalise remote weapon station. Cavalryman (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

So I'm working on creating pages for some of the "minor" units of the British Army (minor in the sense that they aren't combat infantry/armoured units). This is roughly the basis for what I'm going for if a few could review it, that would be great. Here: 1st Regiment, Royal Military Police. Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the recent RfC regarding theaerodrome.com, I took note of the use of british-army-units1945on.co.uk as a source. Are the people behind it sufficiently established for this to fall into the SME exception of WP:SPS? I found this old RSN discussion which doesn't fill me with confidence. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally been using 1945on for years now, and as far as I'm aware, and what I've looked into, it is very reliable. The reasoning for this is because the author used a mix of primary and secondary sources, and as the author even notes ("The information is being continually updated with information received and research results and is by no means complete."). In addition, the author uses a mix of primary and secondary sources, and in-fact uses the secondary references I use myself, including the History of the Royal Engineers, History of the RedCaps (/Royal Military Police), or Units and Organisation of the Royal Corps of Signals. I will additionally tag @Buckshot06, @SmartyPants22, @Dormskirk, and possibly @Rickfive as they also use the site in addition to myself often. But overall, as far as I'm concerned, yes it is reliable. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J-Man11 / Coldstreamer20, do note that "major" units = battalion (or above); and "minor" units is usually attached to company strength or below, please. The distinction you talked about above is combat (Infantry, RAC, RA); combat support corps (historically like RE) and combat service support corps (for example, the Adjutant General's Corps). Heyman explains this categorisation. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coldstreamer20, on what basis (ie the criteria outlined at WP:RS) do you consider this website reliable? The 2018 discussion at RSN linked above has three editors stating it is unreliable, none who state it is reliable. Given you have form for using unreliable online sources in the past, if I was you I would be avoiding using sources of dubious reliability. Surely there are reliable sources on these units? There certainly are reliably published books and journal articles that provide detail on the RMP regiments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Coldstreamer20? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of last World War I veterans by country#Blank rows about the scope and presentation of this article. All contributions would be welcomed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm working on a re-write of the First Carlist War article as it is terribly biased towards the Basque region and lacks in analysis of one of the most important wars in Spanish history. I'd appreciate it if y'all could take a look at the section I recently wrote on the Royal Expedition here and tell me if there are any major issues with my way of writing. I am aware I only use one source for that section but I'm working my way through some long volumes on the economic and political context of the war for now so it will be some time until I can add another source. The rest of the draft is seriously under-written for now and it will take me probably until next Christmas to finish it but hopefully it will be at FA level by then. Nonetheless, it is a terribly influential conflict in modern Spanish politics (origin of the idea of Two Spains) and so if I can get the article to FA level and then translate to Spanish I hope future Spanish generations aren't as easily brain-washed by demagogues into a simplistic view of the war. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santacruz, I'm glad to see someone working on Spanish history but I would say that, although the source looks reliable, I would hesitate to rely on a single source for large areas of content. It can introduce POV issues since different historians often put their own spin on things. (Also, with so much detail on this expedition, maybe some of it gets put in the Royal Expedition article and summarized in the First Carlist War article?) This book looks like it might help you; you can probably get chapters of it from WP:RX. There's also an entire book The Basque Phase of Spain's First Carlist War (accessible via WP:TWL) so First Carlist War in the Basque Country would be a notable subtopic. Lastly, historical connections between the Carlist War and the Spanish Civil War seem to be getting more attention recently so that should also be covered. Let me know if I can help with anything else! (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, buidhe! Funny you mention it, Basque Phase is the book I'm working through right now ^u^. I'll make sure to check out the other link you've sent as well.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just opened the link, turns out its the same book I read this summer when starting work on it. For some reason I forgot to continue once I'd gotten past the background stage of the book due to uni deadlines distracting me. You'll notice the author is the same as the source I used for the Royal expedition. On the Basque subtopic, there are essentially two relatively separate theatres within this war, the Basque-Navarrese one and the Maestrazgo-Spanish Levant one. I expect both to be possible to split off once the main article reaches a good size but that'll be a latter step. On the matter of sources, hopefully the UvA will allow me to check out some other books they have on the subject, as I am currently working on this article and other articles on battles (like the Battle of Alsasua) based off four sources: Basque Phase, Mark Lawrence's History of the War, Mark Lawrence's work on Cabrera, and Galeria Militar Contemporanea. All of these works, except the latter, frequently reference physical books I neither have access to nor can assess for quality. Nonetheless! We do what we can with what we have :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MHA#CRIT, the C-class rating follows from failing either the b1 (referencing) or b2 (coverage) criteria of the B-class criteria. The current C-class example rather handily covers the referencing failure, but I think it would be useful for newcomers to also have an example of a coverage failure. Any thoughts on adding a second example or what a good example would be? -Ljleppan (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The example (Yellow Turban Rebellion ) seems to be aiming to demonstrate the b1 failure rather than a b2 failure, but I have recently downgraded Milhistbot ratings of B to C due to b2 failure (as I'm sure other have, as it is far harder for the bot to assess coverage than seeing if there is a citation for every para). Recent examples across diverse topics include: 1st Infantry Regiment (Lithuania), Andrew Rawlins and Inns of Court War Memorial. In each case I explained my reasoning in the edit summary on the talk page. I would have thought either Rawlins or the memorial one could be used as an example. Interested in the views of other experienced assessors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be useful to have comparisons of different versions for different kinds of b2 fails that later succeeded? E.g. battle articles might lack coverage of the context of the battle, the aftermath, tactics or strategy common in that war that is relevant, etc. I'm not as familiar with unit, weapon or officer blp articles but I'm sure there's examples of all those as well.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd April 2022 is the 40th anniversary of the start of the Falklands War. It it is to appear on the MP as part of OTD, those unreferenced statements will need to be addressed. Other Falklands-related articles could be nominated to appear as part of OTD, but referencing will need to be up to scratch. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles have been nominated for Proposed deletion (not by me).

USS LSM-422

USS LSM-478

USS LSM-479

This may be of interest to the project.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Half-related but what's the deal with navsource.org I see referenced in all of these? It's used on ~7,200 articles, including 32 FA-class articles and has its own template {{Navsource}}, but the website itself seems like just one more hobbyist site? -Ljleppan (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the about page for Navsource. Appears to be a team of named individuals.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haven't checked out navsource for this one, but at least for the ACW ships I've worked with, it frequently seems to just be a summarization or reprint of the DANFS entry with a collection of pictures thrown in. Hog Farm _Talk 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely not for these ships as DANFS doesn't appear to have have any articles on LSMs.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another prodded article - USS LSM-355Nigel Ish (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AfD

USS LSM-110, USS LSM-316, USS LSM-355, USS LSM-422, and USS LSM-479 are all currently listed at Articles for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jadran (training ship)/archive1 needs reviewers. You don't need to be a sailing ship expert or even a maritime type to review. Look in if you have some spare time (NB my nom). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this article would be welcome, since there is a persistent IP editor who doesn't understand that we don't write articles by dropping unattributed quotes in the middle of prose for no good reason. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that we do not want articles to become mere collections of quotes, particularly when the quote is already summarized in the previous sentence, as it was in this case. However, the quote is correctly attributed as it does come from the cited source. Indeed, I have a link from the earlier edition, https://archive.org/details/crimeanwarhistor0000fige/page/144/mode/1up.

I would recommend warning IP editors. This will help other editors to quickly sum up what is going on with a particular editor, especially in the case of activity spanning multiple articles or separated in the history by other edits. I have done so after my reversions. Peaceray (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You surprised me a little. Let's assume that such a stylistic edit is better. Although the historian Figes is most likely a good stylist and writing articles in the SMS style, as I think, is not very good. But, nevertheless, let it be so. But if the text says that Russia and the Ottoman Empire were already at war, then it is necessary to specify exactly when this state of war began. When, in fact, was the Crimean War declared? This article about the Crimean War does not say anything about it at all. Shouldn't I be saying that? 93.81.219.212 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My point about unattributed is that we aren't attributing the quote in the prose itself, we're just dropping a quote from a book in in without saying who said it. See also this, this and this from earlier IPs used by the same editor. FDW777 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has an infobox from hell? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a number of articles for naval warships created 10+ years ago contain a year disambiguator in the title, even when not needed. (See Talk:USS Indianola#Requested move 22 July 2021, Talk:USS Maria J. Carlton/GA1, Talk:USS William Bacon (1863)#Requested move 6 January 2022 for examples). More still abound - see USS Maria Denning (1858), USS George Mangham (1854), USS General A. E. Anderson (AP-111), USS Norfolk Packet (1848), etc. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Hull or pennant number or disambiguation suggest that these dabs should not be present if not necessary, but yet there are loads of these long-standing. Can the majority of these be moved non-controversially (I personally wouldn't wander outside of moving the ACW vessels), or are individual RMs required for all of these (even clear-cut cases), or is there a compelling reason for leaving them as is? I was recently asked to move Maria J. Carlton from USS Maria J. Carlton (1861) at a GA review, so I'm wondering. Hog Farm _Talk 19:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely remove dabs when they aren't necessary, whether they're years of launch or hull/pennant numbers. There's no reason to discuss this every time when WP:NCSHIPS is long settled. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in as the Maria J. Carlton reviewer to say that I agree they're unnecessary and don't believe they're controversial moves either. As there were no other ships of XXX name, there's no need to disambiguate it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right - on a basic level, it complies with WP:PRECISE, which is policy. There's no local consensus that would override it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, go ahead and move any you find as long as you do a check for other ships of the same name first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'm working on revamping a lot of the TA units for the British Army (or Army Reserve) which have been left out. I just finished the 30th (Lowland) Independent Armoured Brigade, but I'm requesting assistance regarding the brigade's history. Any help is welcome! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, why are you using orbat.info, Coldstreamer20? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]