Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposed modification of Firearm article structure

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}}

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

There are situations where the article body (beyond the lede sentence/section for the article's subject) uses an English COMMONNAME for a Chinese organization or somesuch, and then the term is immediately followed by the Chinese translation (lots of that going on in Militia (China), and then unit lists like People's Liberation Army Rocket Force#Base 61 and 78th Group Army#Organization.) I've caught myself adding them too. But it's all very haphazard; sometimes it's done, and sometimes it's not. (It's not so clearcut as WP:CHINESECHARACTERS which deals with clarifying romanizations.)

As of late, my thought is to not do this in general, with exceptions being made for "interesting" cases (technical terms, cases where the English COMMONNAME is ridiculously different - however one decides that - from the Chinese term.) So typically not organization names, or unit names, stuff that is very mundane and needs no clarification. Thoughts?

Pinging User:Arrorro and User:Thehistorianisaac. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think this ain't just for Chinese, I think this applies to all languages.

:I personally think that it's not such a big deal, though having the Chinese name(What I added is the original Chinese name, NOT the chinese translation) does offer several advantages, such as easier info verification and I don't really see why not. Another thing is, I think if they don't have an article yet maybe having the chinese name is better, as that allows it to be easier to do research. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:: I generally support letting the English COMMONNAME stand alone when articles exist for those topics, including when a non-English language Wikipedia article is linked.

:: I don't see the value of adding non-English names for simple cases or where the English name is adequate. Does something like "5th Regiment" need its native language name added if its really just "5th Regiment" there as well? I would consider names that are "simple" and with clear unique identifiers in the name (the "26" in "26th Division") to be good enough to start a search. Or in Ribbon bars of the armed forces of China, does the native lang version needed for "ribbon bars", "badges", "formal uniforms", etc..?

:: If it's just basic unit type designations (eg. what is the native translation of "division") that seems like something that might go in a footnote for the first occurrence rather then repeat the native lang version every time the English name appears. For example, in China Marine Surveillance, many/most of the ship names follow the same pattern; a footnote for the native lang version of Haijian would be more efficient than effectively repeating the same native language name over-and-over again.

: For lists, I am thinking about cases like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Public_Security_(China)&oldid=1281519769#Organization this] (not military history, but since there's a set of editors working on Chinese military/paramiltiary/law-enforcement articles this may recur): large lists where every item is provided with the native lang version (in full, it seems). Is this something desirable for all such lists? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::@RovingPersonalityConstruct I think it really depends on context. Maybe for the ribbon bar parts, certainly it would not be useful. However for the MPS article I do agree for having the Chinese name. In a lot of cases, there is a lot of bad quality in translations(for example, the MPS revision you showed me, I could point out so much wrong with the translations), and having the chinese name would allow for easier corrections. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:@RovingPersonalityConstruct I broadly agree with what appears to be your overall point which is that articles should use English whenever possible since this is the English version of Wikipedia, and would suggest that the reason why the translation issue appears haphazard (i.e. not a project-wide problem) is that a lot of it may be user-specific. The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem. Nghtcmdr (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Nghtcmdr

::Again, you have yet to respond to the ANI discussion regarding your own misconduct, which I would suggest you respond to instead of continuing to harass me. You are giving yourself very little plausible deniability at this point

::# Adding Chinese is not some "Political move". It's something that helps user understanding, and allows editors who understand Chinese to correct translations much easier

::# It is community consensus that chinese state-affiliated sources(and state affliatted sources) have been accepted in the past depending on context(outside of CGTN and globaltimes), and you have failed to understand WP:NEWSORG or WP:REPUTABLE.

::# Chinese state related sources have NOTHING to do with adding Chinese translations. You have now been doing WP:HOUNDING from what it seems, and having spread completely baseless accusations towards me, by falsely claiming {{tq|Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem.}}. I would highly suggest you stop your harassment campaign and understand Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning.

::Again, I request that you address your own misconduct on WP:ANI before harassing me(Or even better, just stop harassing me). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iran–Israel war#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)#Requested move 12 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Following on from the recent discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I would like to know when state-owned sources (sources with no editorial independence) can and should be used on military-related articles, specifically when it comes to descriptions of casualty events involving the armed forces from the same state. Many of the participants on the discussions there said state-owned sources can be used for non-controversial/exceptional/political details, claims and topics but that to me doesn't provide a specific enough of a criteria to determine its usability when the article topics are about military affairs where what counts as controversial/exceptional/political and non-controversial/exceptional/political are greatly blurred and where countries have arguably the greatest incentives to engage in propaganda and disinformation. Nghtcmdr (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Again, it really depends on context.

:{{tq| specifically when it comes to descriptions of casualty events involving the armed forces from the same state}}

:This is exactly when State owned sources are best used. To demonstrate the official statistics. For example, stuff like "Per iran: ### deaths, ### injuries and Per israel: ### deaths, ### injuries". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Imperial Japanese Navy bases and facilities has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. WP:LISTCRUFT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:1958 air battles around Fujian Province and Draft:History of Chinese Air Force have been draftified. They are creations of a student of mine, but I fear they are unable to or not motivated sufficiently to fix the issues. Still, there's some useful material there. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre#Requested move 22 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of American Civil War units by state#Requested move 29 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Army of the Czech Republic#Requested move 15 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have recently opened Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Should WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources from military veterans/personnel count as WP:ABOUTSELF in the context of discussing military topics? which may be of interest to members of this wikiproject. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:104th Regiment of Foot#Requested move 18 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)