Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Repetitive linking in list tables

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)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Partial reply. Official Marine Corps sources online support the sparse text. Each of the three units also have separate pages. The immediate problem for me in providing the sources is that I could not readily discern whether the composition of the three component units is the same as when the article was first added to Wikipedia. Maybe someone can pick this up from here. I can't spend more time on it now. I committed to work on a GA reassessment in addition to usual coordinator tasks that I handle. I have a few "real life" commitments presently as well. If this sits long enough without improvement, I will try to look at the sources again to see if the current composition of the units and necessary citations can be found and added. I thought it would be a little progress to post this note about available sources online. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 12 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)

https://www.militaryfactory.com/

What do you guys think? Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not really. It has no clear ties to a media publication and is a self-published source. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::It has been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard both in 2018 and in 2022 and both times it has been characterised as scraping content from other sources with no oversight. I'd steer well clear - Dumelow (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

|}

Quite surprised to see we don't have an article on this, and for it not to be mentioned at Military history#Historiography of military history, some sources for anyone interested:

• [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230625372_14 Palgrave Advances in Modern Military History, chapter: New military history (2006)]
• [https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-02866-4_87-1 Handbook of Military Sciences, entry: “New” Military History (2025)]
• [https://www.jstor.org/stable/26303481?seq=1 The "New Military History" and Army Historians (1984)]

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the origin of battlefield archaeology that may be of interest to members of this project here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Editor 12.171.47.210 has used data from BRUCE OLIVER NEWSOME, I wonder if the books are self-published and should be subject to scrutiny in case the editor and the author are the same. Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Certainly seem to be self-published - one of the books is published by "Tank Archives Press", which is described here as [https://www.panzerwrecks.com/product-category/tank-archives-press/ "the brainchild of Bruce Oliver Newsome"]. Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the scope of WP:MILHIST also include unarmed coast guards like the CMSA or the Canadian coast guard? Additionally, do unarmed coast guards used for paramilitary purposes like the CMS fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST even though they are unarmed? On the same topic, do armed agencies with a civilian law enforcement role (like the CBP Air and Marine Operations) fall under WP:MILHIST?

If there are no rules on this yet, I propose one of 5 solutions:

1. All coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST
2. Only armed, military coast guards like the USCG or CCG fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST
3. Unarmed coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST if they are used for non-search and rescue military purposes (e.g. CMS)
4. Unarmed coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST if they are organizationally under the military, such as Mexican Maritime Search and Rescue
5. All armed coast guards with military weapons(e.g. CBPAMO) fall under WP:MILHIST regardless of role

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would say (4). Even if unarmed, if they are organizationally part of the military, they're...well...part of the military. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with you that agencies organizationally under the military fall under WP:MILHIST, though this could lead to some pretty funny situations, such as with the {{Ill|China Fire Services|zh|公安消防部队}}, who as part of the MPSASF were manned by People's armed Police personnel (though in terms of command it was under the ministry of public security) and whose firefighters were often referred to "soldiers" in chinese media and received active service member benefits(In fact, i saw on social media people claiming to be CFS veterans say CFS firefighters were armed, though I found no reliable sources on this).

::That said, I do agree that all agencies under the military or manned by what is legally speaking military personnel should fall under WP:MILHIST, regardless of their role. Main problem is whether unarmed agencies not under the military with military roles or armed agencies with a civilian law enforcement role should fall under WP:MILHIST, like the CMS and CBPAMO Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it is clear that coast guards which are not under military control are not within the scope of the project. Civilian law enforcement and search and rescue by non-military coast guards cannot be considered "military" in any sense without military control, as I interpret the topics we cover. I know about some strange organizational set-ups by the Chinese and used the same interpretation to find one of them within the scope of the project (reluctantly) while I would have considered it outside the scope before the reorganization. I think that the Chinese calling firefighters and others "soldiers" is a euphemism used for their own purposes (morale?, more general government control? something else?) that we cannot take literally for purposes of the project. See note 2 of what topics do we cover. I have done quite a few bot assessment reviews and there are occasional close calls or judgment calls. I think the coast guard variations do not present one of them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::CMSA and canadian coast guard I agree that it should not count as WP:MILHIST

::::For pre-2018 Chinese firefighters, there can be some debate; Post 2018 chinese firefighters are definitely not under Wikiproject military history; If you want the full context see Ministry of Public Security Active Service Forces#China Fire Services and People's Armed Police#Forestry Corps; Regarding your claim that the term "Soldiers" was used as a euphemism, firefighters being referred as "soldiers" only really happened between 1982 and 2018 during the existence of the China Fire Services, and it only referred to the CFS firefighters who were people's armed police personnel, NOT volunteer or private firefighters which were simply referred to as "firefighters". The official use of the term "soldiers" does not happen to National fire and rescue administration firefighters since they are officially civilian government employees.

::::Summary:

::::{{Ill|People's Armed Police Forestry Corps|zh|中國人民武裝警察部隊森林部隊}} When it was originally founded in 1949 it was meant to conduct forest patrol and counterinsurgency against IJA and KMT holdouts. After the 60s it primarily was used to fight forest fires, however some forestry corps personnel were still seen with guns in photos and they also partially had a law enforcement role. After 2018 it became provincial forest fire contignents and lost their firearms and law enforcement role. Between 1982-2018 it was under the command of the PAP.

::::{{Ill|China Fire Services|zh|公安消防部队}}/Firefighting corps: From start to end it was always primarily a firefighting agency HOWEVER was part of the MPSASF meaning it was under the command of the Ministry of public security however were manned by PAP personnel and had military ranks. However unlike the forestry corps it was always solely used for firefighting, although apparently they were also used in show of force parades(from some biographies on the Ministry of Public Security website's Honor roll), and according to some less then reliable sources on Chinese social media claiming to be CFS veterans, they would have firearms.

::::Both PAPFC and CFS firefighters were considered active service members since they were from the People's armed police and would receive veterans benefits. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:FYI I usually follow 3 and 4 when it comes to adding wikiprojects to the talk page banner shell. 4 is due to them being in the military after all, and 3 is because many coast guards similar to the CMS are associated with the military. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:For me the general rule would be (4), but with the possibility open for exceptions where relevant. For instance, the canonical example in my opinion would be the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, whose actions during Dunkirk certainly merit scope of coverage under MILHIST, but they're a purely civilian entity.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• !vote for #1 because... sure, why not? - \\'cԼF 05:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• This is, presumably, a discussion concerning an amendment to or a clarification of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover?, and this talk page is absolutely the right place to do that. But on a procedural note, this shouldn't have been taken to an RfC. There are two reasons for this:
• #I see no indication that a prior discussion on this matter has reached deadlock (see WP:RFCBEFORE)
• #It has long been established that each WikiProject defines its own scope (this is one of the few areas where WP:OWN does not apply), so it should be a discussion for Milhist participants. An RfC pulls in all manner of random outsiders. Like me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Oh ok understood. thanks for the clarification. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::*I quite agree and suggest that this be closed and a discussion opened as whether and why we need to do more than consider each "coast guard" article against what the reliable sources say. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*Concur; we don't need to try to adopt some project-wide decision about scope when each situation is a little different. Each should be evaluated on their own, based on what the sources say. And if there's a dispute about a specific service, then we can resort to a project discussion/RfC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*:{{ping|Thehistorianisaac|Gog the Mild|Parsecboy}} Indeed, we would first determine what is in the scope of the project from whether reliable sources clearly put the subject of an article within our stated topics. I did not mean to imply otherwise (if I did).

:::*:Ambiguity can arise, however, when the article does not have much content that is military. Also, ambiguity might arise if there are few, if any, reliable sources in English and if as many as we have from citations in an article or can find in a further quick search about a topic do not give enough specific information about the control, affiliation or details concerning an organization, incident, operation or person.

:::*:I think a coast guard being armed, especially only with small arms, is not determinative if only law enforcement or rescue is the task and is the clear subject of an article (without more). Even civilian coast guards might carry small arms. Note 2 also mentions other excludable possibilities. There probably will continue to be some close calls on whether articles are within our scope. Reliable sources may often, but maybe not always, be available and lead us to sure and indisputable assessments.

:::*:We can try to be sure our guidelines are clear enough and comprehensive and enough to make appropriate decisions and to amend them if necessary. Of course, this is a project matter and we would likely find comments by random users who do not participate in writing or reviewing military articles helpful. This should not be the subject of a Wikipedia-wide vote, for sure. This has arisen with respect to a certain category of articles but it seems to me it could arise about other article topics apparently on the margin of the project.

:::*:In the end, a coordinator or other assessor occasionally will need to make their best judgment with the sources available and within the guidelines.

:::*:Offered for what all this random analysis this late at night may be worth as we consider further steps. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*::Updated no 2 to only include military armed coast guards;

:::*::For the "reliable sources" part, categorization into one of the 5 categories only occurs if there is agreement on which one it is Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note to everyone:

:Number 2 now specifically refers to military armed coast guards like CCG and USCG Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently the "commanders and leaders" section of the infobox for Operation Cobra lists Lesley McNair, who was killed in action due to friendly fire during the battle and was the highest ranking US officer to be KIA in the European Theater of Operations. However, at the time McNair had no actual command and was listed commander of the fake First United States Army Group only there as an observer to add to the deception tactics of Operation Quicksilver. There should definitely be more written about McNair in the article itself and also there should be a mention of his death in the lede, but I don't think he should be listed in the infobox as he didn't command any combat units. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I will remove him for now per WP:BEBOLD, but also added a discussion at Talk:Operation Cobra. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:55, 13 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)

Can somebody please translate the titles or links of the sources. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Recently translated the Chinese Milita's oath; Can somebody make sure I translated it properly? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

File:HMSRingdove.jpg Is this the 1806 ship or the 1833 ship? Needs categorization at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Mjroots}} This is HMS Ringdove (1833); see the caption mentioning John Tarleton as first lieutenant. Per his [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Naval_Biographical_Dictionary/Tarleton,_John_Walter O'Byrne] he was in Ringdove from 1837 to 1841, which is inclusive of the date of the image. The image is replicated in Winfield's 1817-1863 volume, confirming it as the Ringdove of the Racer class of brig-sloops. Per that caption, the author is H. John Vernon. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::The National Maritime Museum holds a finer version of the image, coloured, [https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-102888 here]. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, another image categorized. {{smiley}} Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

At the uploading of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Thuong_Duc,_Vietnam_-_A_Viet_Cong_prisoner_awaits_interrogation_at_the_A-109_Special_Forces_Detachment_in_Thuong_-_NARA_-_531447.jpg&oldid=10446571 the original cropped version in 2008], this was identified as being taken by PFC David Epstein (US Army). However, NARA does not so identify it, and I can't find any particular information to confirm this attribution. Anyone have something? We don't want to be the source of errors when avoidable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not directly related, but are we really going with the continued use of that file name? I think history is quite clear that that is primarily an image of a man being tortured. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fair point. Perhaps if we rename it to the caption at Stress position? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That seems OK, but if anyone has access to reliable sources that use, and caption, the image, they may be useful indicators of which way to go. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm giving it a few days for further comment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 18:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's in [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00045608.2015.1115333#d1e563 Taylor & Francis Online], titled "A suspected National Liberation Front prisoner awaits interrogation at a Special Forces Detachment close to Da Nang in 1967." [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/books/review/max-hastings-vietnam.html It's in the NYT], but behind a paywall. [https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/crimes-punishments/art/crimes-and-punishments-vietcong-prisoner Latham's Quarterly] "A Vietcong prisoner awaits interrogation at the A-109 Special Forces detachment at Thuong Duc, January 23, 1967." Neue Zürcher Zeitung [https://www.nzz.ch/english/vietnam-wars-forgotten-victims-brutalized-north-vietnamese-pows-ld.1665938] "A captured Viet Cong fighter awaits interrogation by American special forces in Thuong Duc in January 1967." Most source it to U.S. National Archives, Identifier Number 531447. I assume there may be a certain amount of circular and unstated referencing, but, still, plenty of RSs using the title. None that I have found credit the photographer. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Very strange to my mind, but if that's what they call it then we keep it like that. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Gog the Mild: Any information as to photographer? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:32, 17 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)

{{flag|Kingdom of Italy|23px}} Is this the right one for Regia Aeronautica tables? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I just started the article at military tattoo policies because there was a chunk of material on this topic in history of tattooing that didn't really belong there. I'd love for people to check it out, fix any issues, and add more historical context. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)