Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Adding war categories to weapon articles

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.

{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749049266}}

I've been asking this for quite some time already, but I think i should ask again:

Can Chinese ship emblems be uploaded? Currently, to avoid any issues I just add an external media template.

But seeing how military insignia fall under the PRC copyright law's article 5(" laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof;"), may I ask again if navy ship emblems can be uploaded or at least given non free fair use? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{@MILHIST}} can I hear your opinions pls? obviously a external media template is fine, but it would be much better to have the ship badge itself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't believe that miscellaneous navy images would fall under Article 5; that language is pretty narrowly tailored, unlike US copyright law that exempts "[any] work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" from copyright protection. Many countries have language similar to the PRC's, and as far as I understand, it has always been interpreted much more narrowly. They generally only apply to literal laws, government proclamations, etc., not anything that the government creates. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean in navy insignia. Military insignia is under it if I remember correctly, so why not navy ship insignia Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't believe either of those would be covered by Article 5. Where did you read that it applies to those? Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nearly every single military/government insignia file cites article 5. Idk if it is the template but that's what happened Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just because people are using a template doesn't mean they're using it correctly ;) There are probably millions of incorrectly licensed images on Commons because people either do not understand or do not care about copyright law. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand, but it's used on practically every insignia on wikipedia. If i remember correctly, I think I was also told the same thing by another user on wikimedia commons help desk. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Article 5 states ", other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof; "

:::::::I think this can be interpreted as(or has been interpreted as) including insignia and emblems of military units, gov agencies and so on. What matters is whether navy ships insignia should also receive the same treatment of mil unit insignia. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't see any way that a unit logo could be interpreted to be an "administrative document". We're talking about the equivalent of laws, executive orders, judicial decisions, etc. If the Chinese government intended to make any work produced by itself to be free of copyright, they would have said so. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Agree with Parsecboy. The wording seems to specifically refer to written documents. CMD (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::https://web.archive.org/web/20250225115857/http://gjw.gxzf.gov.cn/xwdt/gzdt/t12660000.shtml - Guangxi Regional Department of veteran affairs on the Guangxi's emblem - it cites the PLAN account on Weixin for the photos

:::::::::https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074401/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/con/2023-04/24/3613_824304.html - Anhui Provincial national defense education office on ship emblems - it says the source is the Chinese military on weixin but never explicitly mentions the photos. The text at the bottom says "all use of photos without permission is not allowed", however this is not elaborated further.

:::::::::Same article as above is also found on beijing daily https://news.bjd.com.cn/2023/04/23/10408220.shtml, which also cites the chinese military on weixin. Beijing daily copyright statement(https://www.bjd.com.cn//common/about.html?name=%E7%89%88%E6%9D%83%E5%A3%B0%E6%98%8E) states(my simplified translated version):

:::::::::# All media on the beijing daily website is subject to PRC copyright law

:::::::::# If content on beijing daily is used for commercial or advertising purposes, there must be written permission first and there must also be attribution.

:::::::::# without permission, no media or individual can copy or recreate stuff from the beijing daily website

:::::::::I sort of have problems finding the PLAN on weixin, if not any account on weixin as I don't have the app, which basically leads us to a dead end.

:::::::::Ultimately, the main goal is to find the PLAN's written copyright.

:::::::::Additionally, may I ask if it turns out that the article 5 thing has been misinterpreted(most insignia images do come from sources where article 5 does apply, e.g. the PAP flag, and I doubt that this article 5 has been misused considering the scale that it has been used), then would the entirety of Chinese government agency and military unit insignias need to be removed?

:::::::::Personally, I sort of doubt article 5 has been misused, considering the scale of which it was used, and that even though it seems to refer primarily to written documents, i think insignia technically counts in both section 1 and 2. It likely does not apply to government photos(e.g. MOD website photos) but i think insignia are not really covered properly here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Chipmunkdavis@Parsecboy

:::::::::https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg

:::::::::PRC flag also cites article 5. Again, may be someone using it wrongly, and I do agree that the wording sounds like it was meant for written articles, but I'm starting to really doubt the extent of misuse here.

:::::::::Additionally, on wording, PRC copyright law article 3 states it also applies to photographic works in section 3. So even though it is worded for written documents, the copyright law also applies to photos. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The national and PAP flags likely do not meet the Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality, so should be fine. The use of a licence of Commons does not imply it is right, licences are misapplied on Commons all the time. Copyright does apply to photos, but that doesn't affect Article 5. Article 3 defines 作品, whereas Article 5 is about specific 具, which is clearly a subset. CMD (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thehistorianisaac - I see you've been editing here for a couple of years; I've been here for 19, and have been active in the copyright space for more than a decade. Believe me when I tell you that misuse of copyright tags is rampant. A particular favorite of mine is the assumption that because we don't know the identity of some European image now, the photo was published anonymously 80 years ago, so {{tl|PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies. No, that's not what the law requires; they have to have been published anonymously originally, which is generally very difficult to prove (i.e., how do you know what the original publication is?)

:::::::::::In your situation, just because some part of the Chinese government produced an image does not mean that it's automatically PD. Again, if they had intended to make a blanket rule like you interpret Article 5 to mean, they would have simply said as much. I realize that's not the answer you want, and frankly, there are plenty of cases where I've been frustrated by stupid copyright law (for example, paintings by Willy Stöwer without a definitive date of publication may still be copyrighted in the US, despite the fact that they've been out of copyright in Germany for over two decades, which means I can't use them). It is what it is, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I understand. I also agree with the fact that not all Chinese government produced images are PD, and I do agree that misuse of tags is very rampant. But as @Chipmunkdavis, there is threshold of originality, which may apply to some of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074401/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/con/2023-04/24/3613_824304.html ship emblems], especially Chinese frigate Xuzhou's [https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074529im_/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/pic/2023-04/24/824304_bc2c5ae1-a402-48c8-b1bd-03ab79642c69.png emblem] or Chinese frigate Xianning's [https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074501im_/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/pic/2023-04/24/824304_db2d0ecd-1e0a-4da3-98a9-81f9d38c1331.png emblem].

::::::::::::Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but does commons have special copyright rules on insignia, and are navy ship insignias covered by them? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I don't see how either of those emblems would be under the threshold of originality, they're quite complex. I don't think Commons has special copyright rules on insignia, why would it? CMD (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Good luck convincing Commons users of that; in my experience they wildly misunderstand where the threshold of originality lies and think everything falls below it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Ok thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749528075}}

A debate has arisen regarding what is the proper definition for "tank battle" over on Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?. There appear to be two competing definitions up for selection. Which of the following definitions should be used when deciding whether to classify a military engagement on Wikipedia as a "tank battle"?

:(A) A "tank battle" should be defined as any military engagement where tanks are employed by at least one side.

:(B) A "tank battle" should only refer to military engagements where tank-on-tank combat constituted a significant proportion of the fighting.

Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:C: A tank battle is what reliable sources describe as a tank battle. It would be WP:OR to apply a label that isn't supported by reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::How do RS define a "tank battle" though? Is said definition closer to A or B? Assuming that A and B are not sufficiently broad to cover RS's definition of a tank battle, what do RS say it is then? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::The trouble with RS is that 'tank battle' seems like an alien post hoc construction. They don't have a concept of 'not tank battle' either. Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If an RS calls it a tank battle so can we, As you say, it's not really clearly defined, and we can't use OR to define it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes C seems the safest, we go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::: In terms of how RS define a tank battle, doesn't this misunderstand RS? These are independent sources, who do not need to have a shared definition of anything. The best you can hope for is "widespread consensus", and this may not exist in all cases. From my own reading I'd guess most histories think of a tank battle as one in which tanks played a significant role, as opposed to simply being present, but beyond that vague idea I don't feel qualified to venture. Monstrelet (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It does not. RS do not have to agree with each other -- it's great if there is a clear consensus, but if not we can point out narratively how said sources describe it through attribution or by appropriately caveating. For instance, "The Battle of 73 Easting was, according to Source X, one of the most significant tank battles of the 20th century" or "The Battle of Kursk was a 1943 tank battle" (with an appropriate footnote citing both sets of the disputed references after "tank battle"). The point being that we do not have to -- nor should we -- use our own OR here. We have a number of ways for handling situations where RS disagree or a clear consensus does not exist. Also, folks should consider that the absence of an RS describing something a certain way, is not the same thing as them disputing that characterization. If one set of sources all describe something as a tank battle, it is not in dispute simply because other sources omit describing it as such; it *is* in dispute if they expressly contradict that distinction. The opposite of "tank battle" is "not a tank battle", not simply "a battle" or even "an air battle" as these things are not mutually exclusive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support B

:was on the fence but Monstrelet point convinces me - not every reliable source is going to use the exact words, this is only a category I think some common sense needs to prevail and allow us to categorise according to reasonable understandings of English and sense.

:Also in support of North8000, A is far too inclusive to the point of not being useful as a category LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Invited by the bot. Of course if the sources give guidance that's the best. But you don't need a source for every word used. "B" is pretty safe for this. "A" is far too inclusive to support using the term unless there is a good source which characterized it as such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Tank losses aren't always a good criteria for this determination, either (and although no one is mentioning that here, it does feature in the linked discussion that prompted this query). The Germans in particular had excellent maintenance and repair units operating very close to the front lines, and it took quite a bit for them to declare a tank as having been destroyed. Tanks engaged seems a far better benchmark, especially if you're not using RS. I would support "B" if it came down to it.Intothatdarkness 12:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

What does "significant proportion of the fighting" mean? Consider the Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux. This was the first time that one tank fought another. (Three German tanks engaged three British tanks.) For that reason, it passes C, as many sources tout it as the very first tank battle, but passing B requires "a significant proportion of the fighting" to refer to the historiography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Clearly there will be exceptions. This appears to be one. But once you leave, say, World War I B becomes more viable. Intothatdarkness 02:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::With regards to Villers-Brettoneux, context is important. During World War I, armored warfare and tank production itself was in its infancy so it naturally follows that tanks didn't play nearly as big a part as in later conflicts. However, even considering that tank-on-tank engagements in World War I played a smaller role in warfare and were smaller in general compared to later wars, it was Villers-Brettoneux which witnessed the very birth of that kind of combat. The fact that it set the precedent for all future tank battles to come merits its inclusion. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Until someone can adequately explain how B is going to be enforced (and you will not be able to), it's a dead letter. "Well, Battle A is a tank battle, because 20% of the forces engaged were tanks, but Battle B isn't, because only 19% of forces were tanks." Hard pass, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Operation Brevity is where the question arose. Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::RS show that there were tank-on-tank engagements between large groups of tanks. That is the requirement which must be met. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's not what B says. But setting that aside, who defines "large groups"? Give me a number of tanks.

:::::You seem to think this is an easy question to answer, because you have a particular end state for a single article in mind; but as someone who routinely has to manage the implications of these sorts of policy decisions in their day job, I can assure you that things get far messier, far more quickly, than you seem to be thinking. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The easiest solution might be to simply quote an RS that describes an engagement as a "tank battle" and go from there. If there's disagreement in the sources, that can be added to the article as well. Intothatdarkness 19:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Why are we trying to decide what we think a tank battle is? Present reliable sources that provide that answer, or on a case by case basis describe an article as a "tank battle" where the sources do the same. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not provide our own input on events. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::How about subjecting each military engagement to the following test?

::::::::(a)Do one or more RS specifically classify it as a "tank battle"? IF NOT, THEN proceed to (b).

::::::::(b)Do RS show the following?

:::::::::(1)There were at least a dozen tanks employed by each side in the engagement AND

:::::::::(2)Tank-on-tank combat took place in the engagement.

:::::::::Emiya1980 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ping|Keith-264|Parsecboy|Intothatdarkness}} Any thoughts on aforementioned proposal? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes, my thoughts are that your fundamental conception of the issue is fatally flawed; I would have hoped that it was predictable from my previous comment that any number you came up with would be arbitrary, and I would immediately ask what's special about 12 tanks. To whit: why would an action between 11 tanks per side not count as a tank battle? "B" is unworkable on its face, because as I and numerous others here have tried to explain to you, the only thing we should be considering is what reliable sources say. Parsecboy (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Stick with RS. If it doesn't say, don't make things up. That's already happening in enough areas of wikipedia (see the ongoing battles over capitalization). Intothatdarkness 14:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:C seems the only option here, given that per WP:V and WP:RS we need to follow what reliable sources say, not whatever the views of Wikipedia editors are. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::What about cases where RS do not explicitly refer to military engagements as "tank battles" even while providing significant evidence that large groups of tanks fought against one another? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Trust the judgement of the editor who puts the category in.Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If RS do not expressly characterize it as a "tank battle", then it is OR. That seems to be the take-away of the discussion here. Emiya1980 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• :(D) - invalid RFC - at least run askew of the goal, it was supposed to get input for *one* article or *one* category.

::#The causative discussion in question at Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?, which was and should be referring to the unsatisfactory category definition Category:Tank battles of World War II - Wikipedia and might be done in the talk page of the category to hopefully improve the WP:CATDESC at that category. Not applicable to other categories such as tank battles of WW I for example.

::#It seems also not applicable to just say refer to RS as this is not a cite discussion or about article body, it is a purely WP-structure question. There is no RS talking about what WP uses as a category definition, and whether RS used the term for the event may or may not be chosen as a criteria. The article discussion already went a bit into that, but basically it was an insufficient answer which is why this went to RFC. Would that be period RS said during WW II or is it a current historian retrospective? Is it required to be a majority of the descriptives, large WEIGHT, or sufficient if anyone says it ? Is it where RS mention tanks as meaning tanks were significant or must it be tank-on-tank and if so does that exclude combined arms battles ? Or is it RS as in an official NATO terminology definition or has a period-official designation ?

::#The answer seems - WP says we make this one up, however we want. WP:CATEGORY says the proper use is navigational by defining characteristics, with WP:CATNAME as much as possible defining the category's inclusion criteria in the name itself. And WP:CATDESC says the TALK page should give any required further description, preferably with examples and specific criteria. There is no WP requirement for RS. To my mind the name means an informal category of WW II battles which involved tanks, I assume notably, and a RS explicitly saying so for WP:Category is not required if the category definition does not specify. (There is no such criteria there at this time.) That would cover the largest combined arms battles (e.g. Battle for Kursk) down to the Eagle 7 tank battle at the Cologne cathedral - though generally described as a "tank duel" and not a "battle". It would allow for all events where only one side really had tanks and if there were few or no tank losses. (Which was why the question initially came up). The CATDESC edits could list all of this and say "If tanks are being mentioned in RS is sufficient." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::General consensus seems to be in favor of C. Anyone want to close this? Emiya1980 (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Man, this is not gonna be fun at all. I sort of knew I would have to reveal this at some point before, but I was so scared of the pandora's box and the amount of stuff that would have to be changed so I sort of avoided revealing this.

So most of the time, I saw the term "总队" being translated as "Contingent" for People's armed police units in English sources. This was already previously proven wrong with provincial units when I found multiple Chinese MOD articles calling it "corps" such as "PAP Tianjin Corps". At the time, I thought only provincial "总队" were called corps, while the 1st and 2nd Mobile corps/contingent used the term contingent. Additionally, since for defunct corps like the transportation corps, border defense corps, guard corps, hydropower corps, forestry corps and gold corps(Not including firefighting corps/China Fire Services, whose official translation is "Fire Department") I could not find an official translation for 总队, I simply went for "Contingent".

I recently found the following sources(https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/161592, http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/Videos/16377587.html, http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/Home/Focus/16383704.html) from China Daily and the Chinese MOD using the term "Corps" for the 2nd Mobile corps, meaning mobile units also use "Corps", and that all use(since for the defunct corps, the only reason I used ) of the term "Contingent" is simply a mistranslation from english sources, and that all official sources point to the translation of 总队 being "Corps" in the context of the People's armed police(outside of the China Fire Services, where it is department). Same thing applies to Post-2018 Chinese forest fire departments, which I mistranslated as "Contingents". Correct them as "forest fire departments".

If you see any use of the term "Contingent" other than mentioning that it is a mistranslation, please do change it Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

: Add the sources for the names to the articles. Don't just list them here. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::@RovingPersonalityConstruct

::Added them to the 2nd Mobile Corps. As for the others, they were simply mistranslated by me and aren't controversial Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Let me clarify: adding the sources demonstrating the use of the term to the mobile corps articles (I believe 1st Mobile Corps is missing a ref) is to preempt any need in the future for anybody to ask "where does this come from?"

::: Right now, someone would need to dig through the article history to find your edit, then dig through the WikiProject Military history talk archive to find the discussion referenced in your edit comment, and then do a bit more processing to find the important part of your post (i.e. the sources demonstrating the usage.)

::: Keep in mind that this is an English-language Wikipedia. It's unlikely to be obvious to the average reader or editor that a translation is "correct" without corroboration via reliable sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I haven't seen any MOD article that explicitly states the 1st Mobile Corps uses "Corps"(Or really, any Chinese coverage of the 1st Mobile Corps), but I saw the 2nd Mobile Corps using Corps, meaning the 1st Mobile Corps also uses Corps. Could I use the 2nd Mobile Corps reference for the 1st Mobile Corps? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ah, I found some things for "First Mobile Corps"/"first mobile corps" (close enough lol).

:::::How about:

:::::* https://www.cna.org/our-media/newsletters/pla-update/issue-5 (non-Chinese source referencing a Chinese-lang article)

:::::and a Chinese stat source like:

:::::* http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/TopStories/4910742.html

:::::* http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/ARMEDFORCES/CentralTheaterCommand/News_209132/16013114.html

:::::- RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 13:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks man Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on Captain James Cook article, and I notice that top-quality military biography articles do not start with rank as the first word "General George Patton was .... " but instead put rank after the name e.g. "George Patton was a general...." (or some variation such of that wording). Is there a MOS guideline that covers this?

I want to confirm that that "rank after name" is the preferred style, even for the Royal Navy. This is an important decision for James Cook, because he is invariably described as "Captain James Cook" the first time he is mentioned in any source. Thanks in advance. Noleander (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's a strange one. Generally American military people do not start with their rank, but British ones do. A quick browse of MILHIST FAs provides the examples of Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet, George Jones (RAAF officer), Fabian Ware, and Robert Poore. More specifically, for Royal Navy officers of the period there's Peter Heywood, Murray Maxwell, and Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Pickersgill-Cunliffe Excellent info, thanks. So, I gather there is no MOS on this? I'm not surprised the British articles have the rank more prominently displayed (they love their titles :-) Noleander (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Not that I'm aware of that's directly relevant. The MILHIST content guide only says that the lede should include "The highest rank achieved", it doesn't specify where or in what form. In this instance I would suggest having the rank before the name. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Got it, thanks. Noleander (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::But putting rank of any kind after the name seems to be general WP practice, so perhaps should be added to MOS. Examples: we don't put "Professor" or even "Queen" before the name. I don't see why military should be an exception. Errantios (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I wouldn't describe either of those examples as ranks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP has a few guidelines that are similar to this issue: MOS:PREFIX, MOS:POSTNOM , WP:LEADCLUTTER, MOS:CREDENTIAL, MOS:OFFICE ... and the overall theme is to start a bio article with a name, and move the titles etc to after the name (sometimes even after the first sentence). It would be nice if military biogr articles had a more uniform convention. I know there may be per-country arguments for varying convention, but even Albert Einstein does not start "Dr. Albert Einstein". I'm not sure why military bios permit the rank before name ... seems to be an outlier. Noleander (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The OP is not correct that top-quality FA bios on military people do not start with the rank. There are plenty of them. One of the points missed above is that by doing that you shorten the first sentence, as instead of “Foo was a naval captain” you start with “Captain Foo”. Neither Queen nor Professor is a rank, so the above examples are not relevant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, all. That there is an "overall theme" of starting with the name indicates that there is a general consensus to that effect and I see no reason why military practice should be an exception. It may be difficult to assess whether the policy, whatever it may be, should apply at all; but it could be still more difficult to determine whether an appellation, such as "Dr" or "Professor", is a "rank" or something else such as a "title" (although "professor" these days is sometimes a merely administrative moniker going with a job), and the issue might not always be either/or. To attempt also to take account of national differences would be asking for trouble: for one thing, there might not be any official source. Nor perhaps will a national practice be consistent: I like the British story of the fellow who, after World War II, insisted in civilian life on being addressed as "Captain"{{mdash}}until a man was appointed to a more senior position who had been a major and did not use the title. Errantios (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Rank and title are different things. Ranks always come before titles. Hence Brigadier Lord Lovat and General Sir Miles Dempsey. "Brigadier" and "General" are ranks, "Lord" and "Sir" are titles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I question whether using the "highest rank achieved" is universally appropriate, when the most notable thing done by the article's subject was at a more junior rank. Compare John Chard with how he is mentioned in Battle of Rorke's Drift. Without him being at Rorke's Drift, I very much doubt that Wikipedia would have an article on him, even if he had reached high rank. His own article would be better if it mentioned his rank at the time of the event that makes him notable and then the highest rank afterwards. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It's objective, while the most notable thing done by the article's subject is subjective. It can produce surprises though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::This may be an area where a Wikipedia style issue results in a poorer quality output. Yes, most military people do their most notable things at their highest rank, or are awarded that rank as a result of that thing. This might be why other encyclopaedias avoid stating the highest rank achieved at an early point. I have just been looking at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) as a point of comparison. Their article on the Duke of Wellington leads with "...army officer and prime minister", whilst Wikipedia's dives straight in with Field Marshall. That is arguably appropriate for him as a soldier (but he still did important things at a lower rank), but for a complete biography, I lean towards the ODNB offering. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should immediately follow the style of others, but I think we can use it to ask some questions about our own practices. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The ODNB is perhaps not a good example as all their entries start with a surname, reflecting its alphabetical print layout, so it's rather difficult to open with a rank. However, the predecessor Dictionary of National Biography did have the rank straight after the name and title. For example Wellington's entry opened "Wellesley, Arthur, first Duke of Wellington(1769–1852), field-marshal, was fourth son of Garrett Wellesley, first earl of Mornington [q.v.], by Anne, eldest daughter of Arthur Hill, viscount Dungannon." Hugh Trenchard opened "Trenchard, Hugh Montague, first Viscount Trenchard(1873–1956), marshal of the Royal Air Force", John Jellicoe with "Jellicoe, John Rushworth, first Earl Jellicoe(1859–1935), admiral of the fleet", &c. —Simon Harley (Talk). 21:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not sure that I follow your argument about Wellington in the ODNB. The current entry starts with "Wellesley [formerly Wesley], Arthur, first duke of Wellington (1769–1852), army officer and prime minister, was the third surviving son of....". The point that I am making is that it does not state "field marshal and prime minister". It also is even handed about his military and political careers, whilst the first word of his Wikipedia article, by its very position, emphasises the military aspect of his career. Dwight D. Eisenhower has the emphasis the other way round. I am not saying that is wrong, just that any belief that there is a standard way of dealing with this is not borne out in reality. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Promotion to a rank might have been by mere seniority. Thus Post-captain states (though unsourced) that in the Royal Navy at one time: "Once an officer was promoted to post-captain, further promotion was strictly by seniority; if he could avoid death or disgrace, he could eventually become an admiral (even if only a yellow admiral)." Errantios (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Now if only you had posted this a few days ago! I have been reading some good quality sources, one of which stated the promotion to admiral was on the basis of the seniority of the date of promotion to post captain. I am now trying to discover exactly where I read it so that I can add it to the article. I did not note it at the time because I felt it to be a well-known fact. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Not a battle, so relatively insignificant that it does not appear in James "A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France" (1924, 1990) or OH 1916 I (1932). I think that a move to Attack on the Boar's Head might be better but as yet I can't find a RS that mentions it except for the ones in the Biblio. Can anyone help? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:The intent was to capture the Boar's Head, not raid it. Keith-264 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::I have three books that are solely about the Battle of the Somme. Hart, Peter. The Somme: The Darkest Hour on the Western Front. New York: Pegasus Books, LLC, 2008. {{ISBN|978-1-60598-081-2}}; Prior, Robin and Trevor, Wilson. The Somme. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Originally published Bury St. Edmunds: St. Edmundsbury Press, 2005. {{ISBN|978-0-300-10694-7}}; Roberts, Andrew. Elegy: The First Day on the Somme. London: Head of Zeus, 2015. {{ISBN|978-1-78408-001-3}}. I had thought this action was significant enough to be covered in the chapters on the background and prelude to the battles. It was not. Roberts mentions 23 place names given by the British for various locations on the Somme, page 46. Boar's Head is not one of them. I assume it would not be worth the time to try to find mention of this in overall histories of the war or books that cover a greater, much less a different, period of time. I realize this is of no help for the articles but it is an example of the difficulty in finding other sources for this article. Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Senior has written about it in two books but in the later one, a biography of Richard Haking, (XI Corps commander) is about a page long. It's the insignificance that led me to change it to Attack... rather than Battle... I'm open to opinion though. There's a bit of a debate on the talk page. Thanks for taking the trouble. Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::I forgot to look at Duffy, Christopher. Through German Eyes: the British & The Somme 1916. London: Phoenix, an imprint of Orion Books Ltd., 2007. First published in Great Britain in 2006 by Weidenfeld & Nicolson. {{ISBN|978-0-7538-2202-9}}. In this book, there is this brief mention on page 126 which may refer to the June 30 action although, as described, it does not seem to me to definitely refer to such a large operation or even to the same time of day: "On the night on 30 June another failed British raid, this time against the 119th Reserve Regiment, helped convince the Germans they were going to come under attack on the Beaumont-Hamel Sector the next morning." I did not mention Hart, Peter. Somme Success: The Royal Flying Corps and the Battle of the Somme 1916. Barnsley, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2012. {{ISBN|978-1-84884-882-5}}. (Originally published Leo Cooper, 2001.) because it did not mention this incident, and as might be expected, has little information on the land war overall. I will post the information from my two posts here on the article talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Darius the Great has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg

An editor has requested that :3rd Michigan Infantry Regiment (Reorganized) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

File:Information.svg

An editor has requested that :1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

See Talk:List_of_American_Civil_War_units_by_state#Requested_move_29_May_2025

Took those photos yesterday. Feel free to add details to each file's descriptions on Commons. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greek_Expeditionary_Force_(Korea)_Uniform_Ath_War_Museum_2.jpg 1], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greek_Expeditionary_Force_(Korea)_Uniform_Ath_War_Museum_1.jpg 2] Catlemur (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Friendly fire during the Gaza war has been proposed for deletion, following a dramatic edit which I've reversed for now. Various editors have tried to start a discussion on the future of the page but have not been noticed by active editors.

I've called for a discussion on the talk page here, please let us know your views.

The ongoing deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendly fire during the Gaza war, I am proposing that an AfD be postponed until more editors have engaged. 20WattSphere (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I heard that regarding public domain, really old photos can automatically be PD after a certain amount of time

Recently found a [http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357.htm Xinhua image gallery] of Sunwu County Militia from the 1940s-1960s. Could I use these photos, since the militia article is really lacking in any photos of militia;

Here's the photos that I may upload if it turns out they are PD and can be uploaded; I added the dates just in case only some qualify for PD

1950s

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_9.htm - Militia train with mortar

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_11.htm - Female militia aims bolt action rifle(I can't identify the version, i think it's either a mosin nagant or a M1903)

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_13.htm - militia in military exercise

1958

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_7.htm, http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_8.htm - establishment of Sunwu County Militia division

1960s

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357.htm - Militia train with recoilless rifle

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_17.htm - Militia fire rifles

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_18.htm - Militia in anti-air exercises

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_24.htm - Militia in a guard post

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_16.htm, http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_25.htm - Militia on border guard tower on China-Soviet border

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_27.htm - Militia use RPG(RPG-2 I think, correct me if I'm wrong)

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2015-11/26/c_128470357_38.htm - Female militias conduct bayonet charge with Type 56 carbine(SKS licensed copy)

By the way, I think some may be better to illustrate the militia then others, so I don't plan to upload all, maybe some could be uploaded but others we do not need Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China may be helpful. Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, but what if the exact date is unknown but the decade is known? And what if the photographer is unknown? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Based on the link Curbon provided, none of those images would be public domain in the US. They would have to have been published before 1946 to have been already in the public domain when the URAA went into effect in the US, which extended copyright protection (even if they've since lapsed in the country of origin). Images must be PD in the US to be hosted on en.wiki, and also in the country of origin to be hosted on Commons. While most of those are PD in China by now, they're not in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh ok. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a RfC about proper names at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Request_for_Comments_on_what_is_a_proper_name MOS/Caps/RfC: What is a proper name]. This seems simple but is often a very contentious subject and really could use "outside eyes" from uninvolved editors. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing is simple once the capitalization brigade gets involved. It's crap like this that makes Wikipedia a horrible place in my view. Intothatdarkness 02:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. I abandoned an article on a fairly obscure battle I was intending to develop to at least a GA a few years ago when a group of editors who hadn't consulted the sources turned up out of the blue, decided that its title was slightly wrong and moved it via a RM in which they also didn't consult the sources. It was really frustrating and a total waste of everyone's time. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Quite. There was a thing a few years back about the use of Western when referring to the movie (and literary) genre. In pretty much every RS I'd ever seen Western is capitalized. But they argued it shouldn't be based on a series of relatively meaningless Google analytics (their favorite tool it seems...without considering the internet is functionally illiterate for a number of reasons). There was even a contention that 'Western' meant 'Western civilization' and not the actual genre. And any time you mentioned RS or specialist literature they just conjured the Google stuff again. Intothatdarkness 11:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)