Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#HMS Claes Uggla

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}}

{{rfc|hist|lang|rfcid=A473899}}

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)

Interesting question was posted on Talk:Commandant General Royal Marines (Reports to). Thought I'd follow it up here to get more eyes and hopefully some answers. Does the Commandant General Royal Marines (CGRM), a 4-star General, currently report to Fleet Commander, a 3-star Vice-Admiral?

Some confusion may come from the fact that prior to 2012, Fleet Commander was titled "Commander-in-Chief Fleet" and was a 4-star Admiral post, and prior to 2022, the post of CGRM was a 3-star Lieutenant General.

Is there an error here, or if it's indeed correct, is there more info that can be added to help with clarity? Cheers - \\'cԼF 13:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:A few years ago (2017) Fleet Commander was a member of the Admiralty Board. The CGRM was not. According to the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions in force then (pp. xviii-xix), the Admiralty Board, under the Defence Council, had "command over the officers, ratings and marines of Her Majesty’s naval and marine forces" and also administered them. If that is still the case then rank presumably doesn't matter. The administrative titles of the Navy change so often, and information published so infrequently, it's difficult to know what the current situation is though (for example the most recent issue of The Navy Directory published online is five years old now). —Simon Harley (Talk). 14:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Your best bet might be a freedom of information request. The Fleet Commander article cites [https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/royal_navy_appointments_reportin#incoming-1693242 this 2020 FOI request] for the reporting lines. This pre-dates the change (made in 2021 with the appointment of Lieutenant-General Robert Magowan) to the Commandant General role which upgraded it from a 2* to a 3* (maybe 4* now?) appointment - Dumelow (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{small|(Yep, he was a 3*, but he was succeeded by Jenkins, who's a 4*. - \\'cԼF 06:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC))}}

:::I've submitted an FOI, will update you all on how it goes! RedMonkey09 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, things are moving now... ;-) - \\'cԼF 06:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::My 2 cents: CGRM was, up until about 10 years ago, a real and substantive appointment, when it was linked to COMUKAMPHFOR. Matt Holmes seems to have been the last. There was no more justification or sense in keeping a two star to administer one brigade and the training /support organisation. Now it is a Colonel Commandant or almost "Royal Colonel" type post which is almost automatically in the gift of the seniormost Royal Marine officer on active service. Robert Magowan had another role; General Gwyn Jenkins' *task* is Chief of Naval Staff (1SL). He also has the protocol and ceremonial role of Head of the Royal Marines - CGRM.

:::::Commander 3 Cdo Brigade (yes, an old title, I know) for operational and most administration reports to the Fleet Commander. Director Royal Marines, a colonel, reports possibly through an intermediary to the Fleet Commander. But in the 2-9% of time that Gwyn Jenkins has for his old corps, he can overlook and supervise and advise regarding RM matters, almost exactly as a senior Army officer as Colonel Commandant of his old regiment (Mike Jackson for example, who was accused of favouring his old regiment the Parachute Regiment, retaining 1 Para --> SFSG.) Buckshot06 (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Having spent a couple of days putting the OOB into tables, the section has ballooned, shall I put it into a separate article like the Convoy PQ 18 OOB? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Good grief! Yes, I think so. Nice work there. Perhaps the infobox could also be usefully slimmed down. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::As I've plodded through the Med articles improving the OOBs (or putting them in) I have averted my eyes from this one but I've been surprised at how many sources I have accumulated since we wrote it. Med fleet operations next, then Axis air OOBs. Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've taken the liberty of beginning to restore the image of the Italian cruiser Raimondo Montecuccoli (probably the best image in the article.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 14:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And done. Do wish the IWM gave higher resolution images, but... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Keith-264}} I have admired you slogging through all this updating with the most recent information. I have been going over Admiral Lumley Lyster's career; it appears he commanded the carriers [plus the sortie scheduling?? I do not know] for this operation. He may only be listed once - might be worth a look. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I've just stumbled onto the above page via a Reddit thread. This WWII operation has scattered mentions in secondary sources, but most of them are not more than a couple pages long. The article itself says that this operation is "relatively unknown". Unless I've missed something, it doesn't meet WP:N.

But while I'd go ahead and redirect it, there's no clean place for it: the operation had objectives in both the Netherlands and Germany, and our articles are split by that ({{Sectionlink|Netherlands in World War II|Final year}}, Rhineland Offensive, Western Allied invasion of Germany, etc.). Does anyone here have a better suggestion? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Leave it as it is. I have good sources for it, and can fill in the references. It is not actually part of the Rhineland Offensive (now there's a really poor article). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, it's one of several thousand articles I haven't go round to. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::A battle fought between two corps-sized formations in western Europe is highly likely to be notable. I suspect that the lead is right though, in that the western Allied battles in the invasion of Germany during 1945 have been grossly under-covered by historians. I have the relevant volume of the British official history in case it would be of assistance with sources here. I also read an Osprey book that covered this battle, but can't remember which one. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Let me know if you remember it. I have assembled a large library on the 1945 campaigns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Fair enough. Glad I came to this page first! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated for some time by now(before I even started editing lol), and although I do agree that it was overly vague, I think there needs to be some sort of guidelines regarding military personnel. WP:BIO in itself is even vaguer, and probably is not really the best at determining notability. Additionally, literally every single notable person in the military would fail to pass WP:1E despite being notable(see Douglas Albert Munro, Xie Jinyuan, Yang Jingyu, Jimmie W. Monteith and so on for some examples).

Now, I would suggest that we should have some new guidelines for military personnel. Basically, we should follow the previous WP:SOLDIER suggestions, but make them less vague and turn it into an actual guideline.

If anybody thinks it should be further adjusted, feel free to post below Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why is GNG not good enough? Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:None of those looks like a WP:1E fail, can you explain that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe I have misinterpreted WP:1E, but overall I have seen many people interpret it that way Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If many people interpret it that way why do these articles exist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Rank was always far more problematic than decorations in my view. Too many people don't understand how it works or the innate differences (at least in the US) between branches of service. As far as I can tell the decorations piece seems to work within GNG...provided the decoration is high enough. There may still be challenges, but it's far easier to resolve those than it is to argue about what general officer rank is considered notable. Intothatdarkness 15:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:: WP:GNG works fine for me. With WP:SOLDIER it seemed ridiculous to me that we were deeming someone to be notable solely by rank when CEOs of huge companies are not automatically notable. Also lets remember in the UK we now have more Admirals than ships! Lyndaship (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That has been the case my whole life - they joked about it in Yes, Prime Minister. The purpose of WP:SOLDIER was to supplement WP:GNG, not supplant it, listing subjects that are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Clarification: My post is just here to state that we need new guidelines, what the modified version would say is completely another topic. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree. GNG seems to work fine, honestly. And as for your 1E examples: Medal of Honor winners tend to generate a reasonable amount of RS coverage based on the medal alone...especially those awarded after the number of decorations the US could award was expanded in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. I'm sure the same applies to VC winners and so on. Intothatdarkness 00:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I likewise don't see any reason to have anything beyond GNG. The old WP:SOLDIER guideline was deeply flawed and I don't think we need to be inserting that level of subjectivity into the notability process. The longer I've edited, the more I've felt that we should really just be sticking to the sources to tell us what is encyclopedic or not - we've had these subjective fights over whether certain military ranks, existence of state highways, inclusion of a place name in an overarching database, etc should be considered notable and it's usually more heat than light. If you can find two or three decent RS about the subject, that should be the bar for inclusion. Hog Farm _Talk 01:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I also agree that WP:GNG is the best option here. As an example of the problems with the old WP:SOLDIER is that it declared that all star-ranked military officers were automatically notable, despite modern militaries typically having large numbers of totally obscure such officers. For instance, the most recent [https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-10/Defence-Annual-Report-2023-24_FA.pdf annual report] from the Australian Department of Defence states that there were 238 star-ranked officers in the Australian Defence Force on 30 June 2024. Perhaps a dozen of them would have attracted enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with comments by others that WP:SOLDIER is neither helpful nor needed. Moreover, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? Point 2 of the eight broad area that we cover and Note 3 (as well as GNG) provide adequate guidance and flexibility. User Hawkeye7's comment that the guidelines require some flexibility as he notes there are persons who "are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion". This only deals with notability only for military service as within the scope of the project. A former, possibly even a current, soldier may be notable for other reasons and be covered by other projects even if they are not notable for their military service or it does not contribute to their notability. (On the other hand, they might have served and be within the project for other achievements in one of the eight broad areas, such as becoming a notable military historian in addition to or after having served.) Donner60 (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

For those interested: Talk:The_Holocaust#Requested_move_21_May_2025 (Hohum ^@) 19:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Last year, There is biographical article about Oka Takazumi, the chief of Japan's Military Affairs Bureau from 1940-1944. At present, it consists of only three paragraphs and has a total of six sources as references. Considering that the aforementioned figure exercised signicant influence over Japan's decision to go to war against the West and subsequently played a sizable role in the ensuing war effort, there is a lot of room for improvement. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to set aside time to expand upon it. Thank you for your consideration. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'm conducting a GA review and I'm a bit lost with US Army organizations. The original source I'm looking at says that this guy "served with the 101st Airborne Division and the 187th Airborne Combat team". From what I can tell, the 187th is a regiment within the 101st Airborne Division. Would this mean he did something in the 101st at the division level and then did something else in the 187th at the regiment level? Or does this actually mean "he served with the 187th, as a part of the 101st"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would phrase it as he "served with the 187th Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division." The 187th (at the time a glider infantry regiment) was assigned to the 101st.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::[https://armyhistory.org/187th-infantry-regiment/ It's not quite exactly the same thing as the 187th regiment] -- it was an augmentation. {{tq|With the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the 187th, now a parachute unit, was called up for duty. Under the command of COL Frank S. Bowen, the 187th was paired up with the 674th Field Artillery Battalion and supporting units to form the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team (RCT).}} I'd suspect the usage of "combat team" at that time almost certainly represents the ad-hoc RCT formation, rather than the modern standardized Brigade Combat Team (in this case, 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division), and would suggest the better edit is "served with the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division." This will also make more sense to readers because regiments are not necessarily functional in their organization and can cross brigade, division, and corps lines within the same regiment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::An RCT was a infantry formation with attachments [usually artillery, engineers, combat support etc], like Commonwealth brigade groups or today's US Army "brigade combat teams." There may have been a standardized organisation - the reference for digging further should be "Maneuver and Firepower." [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Maneuver_and_Firepower:_The_Evolution_of_Divisions_and_Separate_Brigades] Buckshot06 (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, and those attachments were what made it an ad-hoc formation, unlike the standardized modern BCT. Regardless, the point remains that the Airborne Regimental Combat Team remains the correct name for the entity, and a more accurate and understandable one than simply naming the regiment.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agree completely we must use the term ARCT. The point where maybe further clarification is required is whether a TOE was issued for independent RCTs. Given that airborne regiments frequently did separate things, much more than infantry regiments, I believe it's quite possible that "standardized and modern" could be applied to Airborne RCTs of the time if a TOE was drawn up, and, possibly, especially for the Korean War, for infantry RCTs. 6th in Berlin; 27th Inf Regt Wolfhounds are the ones that spring to mind from Hackworth's autobiography. Thoughts?? Also, do bear in mind that historians apply the term modern to anything after 1500. Post Cold War, or C21, might be a term that might work better. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Maneuver_and_Firepower:_The_Evolution_of_Divisions_and_Separate_Brigades/Chapter_6 Chapter 6 of Maneuver and Firepower] appears to indicate that infantry divisional RCTs were TOE organisations. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes and no. The org chart in Maneuver and Firepower is still showing three distinct infantry regiments with no indications of attachments (although the text calls them RCTs they aren't labeled as such on the chart). Shelby Stanton's World War II Order of Battle discusses them the same way. So while there was clearly an idea of what an RCT should contain, I don't think there was ever a formal TOE for them (at least not during the WW2 period and probably into Korea as well). The name RCT may have come into common use for regiments deployed without being part of a division framework. Intothatdarkness 12:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:During World War II, the 187th was part of the 11th Airborne Division, not the 101st. Originally a glider unit, it became a parachute regiment when the organisation of US airborne divisions was changed from two glider and one parachute to two parachute and one glider in 1944. It served as a separate RCT in the Korean War, and joined the 101st in 1964. It was never an RCT of the 101st. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ahh, I think I know what happened. The source that I quoted above was written in 1969, so, after the 187th joined the 101st. Betting the author didn't check backwards to see where the 187th had been during this guy's time in the military. Seems to be backed up by a second source that directly quotes his army record but doesn't mention the 101st at all. Thanks all for the help :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a ship in the OOB called Rembrandt but can't find any details. Can anyone help? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:have a look at [https://codenames.info/operation/rembrandt/ https://codenames.info/operation/rembrandt/] Nthep (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision#Requested move 26 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the infobox is overhanging the campaign boxes? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Template:Nowrap is used several times in the infobox. It prevents unwanted linebreaks, here e.g. within longer names, resulting in the infobox accordingly being broader. ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I had a look for one but didn't see any, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Do flatlist and plainlist have the same effect? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Plainlist has not (it is used in that infobox, too, containing the nowrap entries). While there also is a nowrap option avaliable for the list template as a whole (|class=nowrap|) it doesn't work with the images. Flatlist hasn't either; meanwhile it is its very own thing and ignores even the intended linebreaks between list entries. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Flavian dynasty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Founding of Moldavia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Recently heard of the new AVIC Jiu Tian/Nine sky flying aircraft carrier, can somebody make an article? it already exsists on ZH-wikipedia(https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E4%B9%9D%E5%A4%A9%E6%97%A0%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%BA) and has gained significant coverage by Chinese media Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think we need better sourcing than that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah definitely, but I'm seeing so much media talk about it that maybe it's time for an article; I'm not that good at making plane articles so would like some help here Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well there is the issue, these sources (plus social media posts) are not enough to establish notability, we need rather more than what may well be propoganda. We need independent third-party RTS going "I say, look a this". At this time we may be able to ahve a mention here Airborne aircraft carrier. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Slatersteven, here is a list of all sources below, rated in terms of how independent it is. My main problem is not notability, since it's pretty obvious it is notable, main problem is the name; Should we call it the AVIC Jiu Tian per it's pinyin name, or AVIC Nine Sky per it's translated name like AVIC Dark Sword?

::::(Sources; I separated them in terms of where they are from and how independent they are)

::::International Sources in English:

::::https://www.euronews.com/2025/05/19/chinas-new-drone-mothership-expected-to-launch-for-first-test-flight-within-days

::::https://www.twz.com/air/new-heavyweight-chinese-jet-drone-looks-to-be-a-swarm-mothership

::::https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/chinese-nine-heavens-drone-mothership-piques-interest

::::https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/j-15t-massive-strike-uav-break-cover-at-zhuhai/160634.article

::::International sources in Chinese

::::https://chinese.aljazeera.net/news/political/2025/5/23/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E9%A3%9E%E6%9C%BA%E8%AF%81%E6%98%8E%E4%BA%86%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E7%A9%BA%E5%86%9B%E7%9A%84%E8%A1%B0%E8%90%BD (Al jazeera chinese)

::::https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20250521-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%AE%E5%87%BA%E5%8F%AF%E8%BD%BD%E7%99%BE%E6%9E%B6%E8%9C%82%E9%98%9F%E6%97%A0%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%BA%E7%9A%84-%E4%B9%9D%E5%A4%A9-%E7%A9%BA%E4%B8%AD%E6%AF%8D%E8%88%B0-%E7%AB%9E%E4%BA%89%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD-%E6%AD%BB%E7%A5%9E-%E6%97%A0%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%9D%80%E6%8B%9B (Radio international france)

::::https://www.zaobao.com/news/china/story20250518-6416873 - Lianhe Zaobao

::::University sources

::::https://news.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1002/128559.htm - Northwestern Polytechnical University

::::Taiwan/ROC sources

::::https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20250523000874-260407?chdtv

::::Chinese Sources From local governments and hong kong sources (Local government media tends to be more independent overall compared to central government sources)

::::https://m.thepaper.cn/kuaibao_detail.jsp?contid=29297091&from=kuaibao - The Paper

::::https://www.nfnews.com/content/mobZejKzok.html - Nanfang daily

::::https://www.takungpao.com/news/232108/2025/0520/1088161.html - ta kung pao

::::https://i.ifeng.com/c/8jS8TUaptH4 - Phoenix television

::::https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20250518/bkn-20250518083447030-0518_00822_001.html - Oriental daily

::::https://www.hk01.com/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B/1074636/%E7%8F%A0%E6%B5%B7%E8%88%AA%E5%B1%95-%E5%BD%A9%E8%99%B9-7%E7%84%A1%E4%BA%BA%E6%A9%9F%E7%9C%9F%E6%A9%9F%E9%A6%96%E4%BA%AE%E7%9B%B8-%E4%B9%9D%E5%A4%A9-%E7%84%A1%E4%BA%BA%E6%A9%9F%E6%88%90%E7%A9%BA%E4%B8%AD%E8%88%AA%E6%AF%8D - HK01

::::https://focus.scol.com.cn/zgsz/202505/82968402.html - Sichuan online (owned by Sichuan Daily)

::::Chinese sources from central government

::::https://www.stdaily.com/web/gdxw/2024-11/12/content_257190.html - Science and Technology Daily

::::http://www.81.cn/yw_208727/16351820.html - Chinese Military themselves

::::http://www.news.cn/milpro/20241108/6d1e4d4c924747f89108916fbb79bfd5/c.html - Xinhua

::::https://www.chinanews.com.cn/gn/2024/11-14/10319268.shtml - China News

::::https://military.china.com/news/13004177/20250527/48387824.html - China .com Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::"The aircraft, which may be a mock-up,", so no these are not good enough to have an independent article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Which source says that? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::www.flightglobal.com, https://www.twz.com/ Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Those are only two of the sources, and also it's likely gonna have it's first flight quite soon; Either way, it fits WP:GNG, just main problem is what to name it, Jiu Tian or Nine Sky Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source of when they arrived in France? I've found this https://www.wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/battalion.php?pid=6463 but it isn't a reliable source. Crispybeatle (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Crispybeatle According the battalion war diary it disembarked at Le Havre on 12 September 1915. Nthep (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{EC}} The History of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry says [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/History_of_the_King_s_Own_Yorkshire_Ligh/1wH0Q4av6bYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA784 on pp. 784-785]: "The 9th and 10th Bns... the men were put through a hurried course before their departure for France in September 1915", and [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/History_of_the_King_s_Own_Yorkshire_Ligh/1wH0Q4av6bYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA793 on p. 793] says (discussing the 9th and 10th KOYLI): "The 64th Infantry Brigade had landed in France so recently as 12th September". Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)