Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history‎

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}}

The appointment titles for the last few Royal Navy senior officers in New Zealand, for example, Edward Parry, have been thoroughly mixed up. I have taken what appears to be the official wording from the Navy Lists concerned from http://unithistories.com, for example at http://unithistories.com/officers/RN_officersH6.html. I cannot see any copyright markings on the unithistories.com site, and the data is originally Crown Copyright anyway. If there are any copyright concerns people wish to raise, feel free to approach me. Kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:The website's sources appear to be the service records and not Navy Lists. Except the editors have clearly misunderstood them. For example, Parry became Chief of Naval Staff and First Naval Member of the New Zealand Naval Board and Commodore, Second Class in Command of the New Zealand Squadron in succession to Henry Horan on 1 May 1940. unithistories.com seems to think that Chief of Naval Staff and First Naval Member were two different appointments, and doesn't even mention Parry's command of the New Zealand Squadron. Henry Horan was not appointed Commodore Commanding the New Zealand Squadron and First Naval Member in April 1938. That's when he was was appointed Chief of Naval Staff and First Naval Member, assuming the position on 8 June. —Simon Harley (Talk). 14:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::Slight tangent - would this article be better off at New Zealand Division (Royal Navy)? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Many thanks Simon. How many officers held the appointment of Chief of Naval Staff and First Naval Member of the New Zealand Naval Board? When/if was commanding the New Zealand Squadron separated? What do your records say?? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Zulu War Can anyone tell me how to make this stretch across the article as a footer? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:You'd want a military navigation template rather than a campaign box, and then ensure style=wide. See Template:Leda class frigate for an example of the differences. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks babe. Keith-264 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Battle of Hlobane I've put one here but it won't open, have I missed something? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::* Maybe a temporary glitch or something. Battle of Hlobane just opened and loaded for me. I moved a web link from its See also section to the Ext links section where it belongs. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} Thanks; I've tried again but it's still playing dead. Tried purge too but nothing. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oh it's working now, thanks everyone.Keith-264 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Just noticed that the v.t.e on the left hand side is missing, another mistake of mine? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi you'll want "name=" instead of "raw_name=". Would be best set up as a template so you can call it in rather than paste the full syntax on each page. Coincidentally I've been slowly filling out additional actions in this war, probably another 2-3 to come if/when I get around to it - Dumelow (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I was notified by {{u|Ooligan}} of a cache of scans they uploaded at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Department_of_Defense._Department_of_the_Navy._Division_of_Naval_History._1952-1971 which are, as far as I can tell, transcripts of German naval operations in WW II. They asked me to bring this to the attention of any German speakers who might be interested in further categorizing them, so I thought this is the project to ask. Regards SoWhy 20:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are there diffrences in the naming of the articles, namely "in World II" or "during World II"? And if it isn't intended, then which one is more grammarly correct? —— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 03:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

: (And "and World War II" and "World War II in") —— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 03:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure many of you have noticed a great number of articles popping up called "Battle of Such-and-Such" or "Something-Something War" that, upon examination of the sources, turn out to be, well, nothing much at all. I've been noticing these more or less since I started editing, but I feel like there's been an increase in them over the past little while. I'd like to suggest an RfC about sourcing for the topic, but first I'd like to workshop it with WT:MILHIST folks. My proposed wording is:

"Articles should not characterize a historical military action as a battle, siege, campaign, or war unless high-quality academic reliable sources do so. Military engagements that do not have such coverage are rarely appropriate topics for a standalone article."

Sensible? Not sensible? -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:More or less ... I think that in English speaking countries, the sources should also include governmental organizations, e.g. the National Park Service in US or its equivalent in other countries. Also, if sources written by participants refer to the engagement as a "battle," (again, using US history as an example, in a Civil War regimental history or a state issued tome listing battle honors for state units) Wikipedia should as well. I think there are many small actions which may have had a great impact on history yet had little combat or casualties. At the time of the events, they may not have seemed like much, but had an impact out of proportion to the actual event. Maybe working articles about smaller battles into the campaign articles? Or adding the title "Battle of Somwhere" and have it redirect to larger article or section of larger article? Anywho, that's my two cents.Boo Boo (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:: What I've seen the most is issues with the spate of recent creations of such things for India/the Middle East where there's centuries of ethnic, religious, and cultural issues underpinning the conceptions of the events, which are generally from centuries ago. Many of these articles are relying on rather old or on lower-quality non-academic works; my general opinion is that if for these sorts of things if the only sources claiming the events to be a battle, war, or siege (which also comes up a lot) are very dated or are non-academic, that's often a sign that a separate article is not warranted. Hog Farm _talk 20:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I've seen this come up recently for Southeast Asia, both centuries old battles and more recent ones. The sourcing can be very limited, and often be sources that have very small mention of an engagement occurring within coverage of a broader campaign. CMD (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I mean, isn't it also a sign of progresss that these are articles on history that is lesser-known among English speakers? At the same time, might editors also ask the authors if there is/are articles on these subjects in another language? If someone wants to write an article in English on a battle during the Mughal Empire, for example, wouldn't it be good for reviewers/editors to ask for a link to the equal article in Hindio or Urdu?

::::Boo Boo (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are definitely gaps that need filling, but the new articles are often poor ways to do this. As a recent example, there was an attempt to create a battle article for part of the Castilian War, but it was essentially a rehash of the (very short and mostly background at that) Castilian War article. CMD (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Many articles have been written in recent years, especially articles about engagements in Asia and actions occurring many centuries ago in medieval or ancient times that are of limited quality, limited detail and also misnamed. They may be based on possibly biased, obscure, low quality, questionable or difficult to verify sources, especially foreign language sources that few editors can translate. Some comments above note these types of problems. However, introducing a requirement for "high-quality academic sources" could turn out to be unduly limiting, cause disputes about sources and might inadvertently be stricter or less flexible than existing guidelines.

::::::There are many independent scholars who may be lawyers, have other occupations such as journalist or are simply authors who have written outstanding historical works. This is true for many of the wars of the United States and other English-speaking countries. Off the top of my head, such authors likely include Ron Chernow, Ed Bearss, Bruce Catton, Eric J. Wittenberg, Gordon C. Rhea, Edward Longacre, David J. Eicher, Rick Atkinson, Ezra J. Warner (historian), Peter Cozzens, Robert Leckie (author), Richard M. Ketchum, Thomas Fleming (historian), Max Hastings, James Holland, Prit Buttar and Scott Hartwig (NPS ranger), and others who do not have Wikipedia articles about them. Many are Pulitzer Prize and other award winners. In my opinion, adding a requirement for "academic" sources is a sure way to invite arguments about whether works by many reliable authors who are not college professors are not "academic" sources. Many of these works are published by academic or other reliable publishers. They are considered reliable sources, and reliable scholarship under existing guidelines for this reason as well as because of the awards that the authors have been given and reputations they have gained.

::::::While not perfect and perhaps not in themselves providing the best way to readily rename, much less cull out, misnamed or poorly sourced articles, I think that the current Wikipedia guidelines and policies may well be a better alternative than perhaps inviting more complications and arguments. Assessments can remain at lower class levels, though not a remedy for misnaming. Perhaps other guidelines and arguments against misnamed articles and suggestions for how to avoid or challenge them may actually now exist if we look into it further or perhaps some other guidance may indeed need to be proposed. Some proposals above seem to be on the right track and do not appear to need stricter "requirements" language to implement. Perhaps, they may need to be added somewhere for explanation or guidance, though I am not sure where to recommend putting it for now. That is my opinion concerning the proposal, as worded, for what it's worth. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Donner60, the intent here isn't that the sourcing standards for milhist articles are raised in a way that would exclude those kinds of sources when writing articles. The idea is that if we don't have a high-quality academic source calling it "Battle of Such-and-such", then we don't call it "Battle of Such-and-such" either (and probably it should be dealt with in a broader article, if at all). Does that address your concern? Though, it seems fine to me to remove the word "academic" from the wording and just leave "high-quality". -- asilvering (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::In the case of the British Commonwealth, there were battles nomenclature committees that met after the First and Second World Wars that laid down official names. However, we don't always follow them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes. I share your concern about many articles about minor actions being named as battles or wars when that is unlikely and may not even be justified by sources used, much less reliable. My main concern was that the word "academic" could result in contention about whether a well respected author who is not a professor is a reliable source. I think you and I have been around long enough to see that type of argument arise, even if not in exactly this context. I probably should have made my point more briefly but I did want to acknowledge that you raised a legitimate concern. Donner60 (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} I think that a considerable source of misnaming comes from people being taught restricted code English with verbs hedged around with adjectives and adverbs (Safe haven? How many dangerous ones are there; bah humbug?) and non-verbs being used as verbs, that would have been rejected by English teachers in the past. 'Battle' becomes a synonym rather than a technical (jargon) term for a military operation of a certain magnitude. The Battles Nomenclature Committee report of 1919 used 'affair', 'action' and 'battle' which can look archaic to a modern semi-literate individual. Either we school new editors to use terms in their technical sense, rather than for hyperbole or accept the lower standards of English comprehension acceptable outside Wiki. Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Donner (?) My rather limited acquaintance with Rick Atkinson, Max Hastings and James Holland puts them in the writer rather than historian category. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Professor E. B Long's book on the Civil War Day by Day uses the various names that you mention. That nomenclature goes back to a work by Dyer in the early 20th century, as I recall. As I noted above, I share the concern about calling skirmishes and such small or poorly sourced actions "battles". My concern was to try to avoid the types of unnecessary controversies that I think could arise about whether a work by a non-academic historian if we use the word "academic" in describing the requirements for reliable sourcing. I have a few books by the writers that you mention. I have found them interesting and I have seen that each of the three authors has been given an award of some sort or another over the years. I think I would not find them unreliable but other sources on the topics that they have written about can be found and their works might add to others if they state similar facts or conclusions. On the other hand, I don't recall citing these works much over the years, if at all. For the concerns raised about nomenclature or wars, I don't think they stray from generally accepted nomenclature, the concern here, since they deal with more modern conflicts. Donner60 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Perhaps it does depend on what you count as a historian? Is it the common place definition of someone who studies history or some more elite definition which only recognises people with specific qualifications and academic standing? Wiki generally sidesteps this with its "reliable source" qualification. I am, therefore, a bit confused why the RS standard used elsewhere would not apply in the case under consideration. Or is the issue that the claimed RS can't be verified because they aren't in English? Are we asking that there must be English language sources that refer to the war/battle to confirm common use of the term? Monstrelet (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think you put that rather well; we add 'foreign' names where we can find them along with the English name. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::An example of this is Gaza War; neither the Israelis nor the Gazans call it that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree. Well written @Mostrelet. Also, @Keith-264, I don't think the issue is "writers vs historians" (dare I say, popular historians vs academic historians? i.e., writing for a mass audience vs a small academic audience?). I'd refer you to asilvering's and Ifly6's comments below. Boo Boo (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure it really has much to do with "battle as a synonym", at least not the issue I'm concerned about, which is mostly that we're reifying events into "Battle of Such-and-such" when they're really not all that notable at all, and no one really thinks of them that way. Then we end up with pov-pushing editors arguing over which side "won" the Battle of Such-and-such, a determination that's nearly impossible to make based on extant sources, since they don't really describe the event much anyway, and no one's ever heard of Battle of Such-and-such, since it has never been called that in the literature before. It's a front for editor conflict that both doesn't need to exist and also shouldn't exist, if we're following what reliable sources say about the topic. -- asilvering (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:We should stick to proper English and use terms in their technical sense. We do not cater to the semi-literate, but we do follow WP:COMMONNAME. For example, in World War II, the campaign in north west Europe from 15 September 1944 to 21 March 1944 is officially "Rhineland", but the official historians found this too large for a single volume, and broke it up into "Siegfried Line campaign" (in the north), "Lorraine campaign" (in the south) and "Rhineland" (for the 1945 campaign). We follow this. The official campaign brackets what officially is, and the majority of academic historians refer to as, the "Ardennes Offensive", but we use the common name "Battle of the Bulge". What we do not allow is wikipedians coining a name for a particular action. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|What we do not allow is wikipedians coining a name for a particular action.}} We are currently de facto allowing this, hence this proposal. So if you have suggestions for how to adapt this proposal to deal with that without raising your other concerns, I'd be all ears. -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Boo Boo (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

: I would support further guidance against coining new "battles" out of thin air. I mostly edit on classical history topics and I remember a few examples: Battle of Carteia (46 BC) (discussing a minor naval action which is in no reliable source referred to by that name), this entire series of articles (reporting a pile of mythological events as six real "battles" also nowhere called by the assigned names). Ifly6 (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::ping I think we are all on the same page concerning the acceptability of misnamed battles or new battles or wars being coined out of thin air when reliable sources and in some cases the very text don't support such naming. I hope I expressed my agreement that this is a problem in my somewhat long-winded comment. The possible problem that I saw with the proposal was simply that inclusion of the word "academic" could cause unnecessary and unintended disagreements about whether some citations based on perfectly acceptable sources by credible and well-regarded non-academic (perhaps non-college professor) historians or writers might be raised by the use of that word in a guideline or requirement. It appears we still need to consider whether the proposal, without "academic", I assume, still needs to be revised or whether we are satisfied by the proposal minus that word. I am assuming that there is consensus on excluding the word academic. If not, please comment further on that as well. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Donner60}}, I've amended the original proposed wording. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I support the revised wording. Removing academic makes solid sense. Intothatdarkness 13:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Some years ago a change to the Infobox set up made pictures etc set at the usual 300px bloat the infobox on Firefox so I set lots at 250px. The other day I noticed a comment here (Hawkeye?) that image_upright = instead of image_size = worked better. "At last!" I thought and tried it but to get the right infobox width it needed image_upright =1.23. Imagine my dismay when I noticed that quite a few infoboxes were bloated again and that they were set at image_upright =1.23....by me. I'm changing them to image_upright =1.0 and checking them before pressing the publish button. If anyone notices ones I've missed, please let me know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:This may be because the default image size was recently increased from 220px to 250px. CMD (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Curiouser and curiouser. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Why are infobox image sizes huge now? The default size was increased to 250px last week (User talk:Hawkeye7#Tech News: 2025-16) in line with other Wikipediae and in response to an RfC last year (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 210#Increase default thumbnail size from 220px to 250px). So in infoboxes like {{tl|Infobox nuclear weapons test}} where there is a hard-coded {{para|upright|1.25}} card, you should also include a {{para|maxsize|300px}} (like it does). The problems have been with images that were reduced to 220px and are now enlarged to 250px, some of which do not look too good now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::* Thanks, MOS:IMGSIZE lists 250px as the default to match. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Mobile_gun_at_DAV_Chapter_22_HDR_2025_jeh.jpg

Seen as I was biking past, in Belleville, NJ. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:M56 Scorpion Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks kindly. I was much perplexed. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey,

The logo of the Non-commissioned Officer Academy of the People's Armed Police is currently a non-free use image on chinese wikipedia. Does anybody know how to place a non-free use image onto the english wikipedia infobox? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Here are two examples of non-fair use images that I helped provide fair use rationals. These should help you set up a non-free, fair use rationale template.

: :File:Boeing JSF X-32 on tarmac.jpg

: :File:DARPA Falcon HTV-3X 3.jpg

: -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Im currently planning to upload the PLAGF aviation badge, however currently the best version of the badge is on [https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E8%A7%A3%E6%94%BE%E5%86%9B%E9%99%86%E5%86%9B%E8%88%AA%E7%A9%BA%E5%85%B5/12809365?fromtitle=%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E9%99%86%E5%86%9B%E8%88%AA%E7%A9%BA%E5%85%B5&fromid=4127979 baidu baike]. Good news is, the reliability of the photo of the badge is backed up by [http://www.xinhuanet.com/mil/2015-10/25/c_128355026.htm Xinhua] and [http://military.people.com.cn/BIG5/n/2015/1017/c1011-27709061-20.html People's Daily], however it has some background and lighting issues. Should I upload the baidu baike version and explain that it is backed up by reliable sources, or must I upload a screenshot the Xinhua/People's Daily version instead?

I would prefer uploading the baidu baike version (as there are no lighting issues), but I will upload the xinhua or people's daily version instead if policy requires me to.

Anyways happy 76th anniversary of the PLAN. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Nvm uploaded it already Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed there's been a flurry of edits suggesting that VLS-equipped attack submarines are a distinct type/subtype. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ship_type_for_VLS-equipped_submarines for determining how far that should go, if at all. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea why it isn't working? - Dumelow (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyone know how to fix the display of non-article counts? Most are showing zero. It looks to be linked to the December 2024 movement in the underlying categories from eg. :Category:Template-Class military history articles (which is now empty) to :Category:Template-Class military history pages (which has 8,732 pages) Dumelow (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree to some extent.

:Maybe keep the article but maybe add "a dubious battle used by the kurds as propanganda" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, The article is cited by so many kurdish websites or sources, marked as a kurdish claim there isn't even a single book (English or western source) or academic source that is cited there, It talks about a battle that happened during the 1980s Which means During Iran Iraq War, There are so many scholars and plenty of books that described the war with it's operations, battles, etc.. and I don't think they have mentioned the "Battle of Hamek" in anywhere, Otherwise users would have added it in some redirect or a create a new page with it. On the other hand it gave off some type of Exaggeration, additionally one of Wikipedia policy is that you should use verified sources or scholarly sources, the article hasn't got any of that.. I suggest we nominate this article for deletion. Best R3YBOl (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Would not suggest delete, but instead mark it as a propaganda myth from the kurds Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Well this is not the first article that these sources were used, and it's not the first article that was made without Reliable sources, You can see these list of articles that also was made, For example this page Penjwen Revolt the Kurdish sources itself describe this revolt as a Suppressed revolt,I hope if some Administrators check this article additionally with these articles:Battle of Haj Omran (1966), Kirkuk executions (1991), Sulaymaniyah massacre, and Displacement of Arabs in Kirkuk under KRG administration. I am not trying to accuse anyone personally, but it's worth nothing that the user who created Penjwen Revolt and created other articles I mentioned, and there appears to be a possible pattern of battleground mentality or POV-pushing in their editing behavior, A closer review might be necessary. R3YBOl (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree. Tonnes of POV-pushing in kurdish related topics. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Would like to state that I've seen the creator of this page on other sides, and it's clear why he makes them (nationalist purposes). Although this doesn't always mean that the pages are unreliable, in this case it seems to definitely be for Kurd nationalism purposes rather than helping out Wikipedia. Setergh (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Not exactly sure how one can do this though? I mean, I don't know any issue template as such, and we can't state this without a source. Setergh (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Setergh@R3YBOl

:Update:

:The creator of the article, User:Gueevkobani appears to be affiliated with the Kurds and may have potential COI. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, I see that. Setergh (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

So, I plan to make an article about China Coast Guard corporal Wang Xiaolong (汪晓龙), who is the only known Chinese coast guardsman(of the Shanwei Municipal Coast Guard Bureau) to die in the line of duty, when in March 24, 2023 during a smuggling interdiction operation, he fell off a boat during a struggle with smugglers and was killed by the boat's propeller. Currently, he is already on the China Coast Guard article's LODD section and the List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty. May I ask if this article would be notable enough?

For evidence of notability and notability, tonnes of Chinese media/government agencies have covered the incident/have articles on him, including [http://www.news.cn/politics/2023-07/17/c_1129752986.htm Xinhua], [https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s6447e50ce4b05339adccb1d6.html Beijing Daily], [https://www.nfnews.com/content/xovxq2Xp3J.html Nanfang Daily], the [http://www.81.cn/yljnt_208627/ylml/W_208652/16215893.html PLA/Chinese military website], the [https://www.shanwei.gov.cn/shanwei/zwgk/jcxx/zwdt/rdgz/content/post_910506.html Shanwei Municipal Government], [https://gd.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202403/24/WS65fff22da3109f7860dd6b6a.html China Daily], [https://gs.ifeng.com/c/8PIlxPnToX9 Phoenix Television] . Additionally, there have been multiple posthumous military decorations such as Meritorious Service Medal 1st Class, Martyr Status and the {{Ill|China Youth May 4th medal|zh|中国青年五四奖章}}, and as stated above, he is the only known Chinese coast guardsman to die in the line of duty, and many similar US coast guardsmen(with similar awards and circumstances) have articles, such as William Flores, Charles W. Sexton and Nathan Bruckenthal.

P.S.

What should the article title be? There is already multiple Wang Xiaolong articles, so I currently think Wang Xiaolong (coast guardsman) is the best, but if you have other ideas just tell me Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:After the 2018 reorganization placing the Chinese Coast Guard under the Chinese military, this appears to be an appropriate topic for a military history article (otherwise, I might have concluded it was a police article, unconnected to the military). While I think your proposed title could provide sufficient disambiguation, adding Chinese before coast guardsman would likely be clearer. Although the guardsman's name is apparently Chinese, the name could refer to a person or ancestor who immigrated to another country such as the U.S. The information you provide appears to support notability. Donner60 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Understood. Thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::May I ask if a non-free image is also usable on a draft prior to being published? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:This may be a WP:BLP1E situation. If an article is mostly going to be coverage of his death, it would be better to have the article be about the event. CMD (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think this may be more a similar situation to the Nathan Bruckenthal article(which I have also used as a structuring template) rather than a Murder of D. Munusamy situation. There are quite some notable military personnel who are mostly notable thanks to their death or a single event which have their own articles like Michael A. Monsoor, Charles W Sexton, Douglas Albert Munro and the vast majority of Medal of Honor recipients. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I think my article: Arthur Herbert Thompson should be a B class as it has changed a lot since last reviewed. Crispybeatle (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Crispybeatle}} Hi! You can list the article here to request that a member of the project reviews it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! Crispybeatle (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I see that Hawkeye7 reviewed this article six hours after your reply was posted here. Now, the B class assessment has been made and no further review is needed. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Islamist insurgency in the Sahel#Requested move 26 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)