The Wikipedia:SOLDIER notability essay has been deprecated, and should no longer be used in discussions of notability at AfD and elsewhere.
Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.
Could somebody in the project please help me identifying the below gun as I have little experience in doing so?
The gun is located at the Rockingham RSL, Western Australia. It has no information displayed but, given the close proximity to Garden Island, I would say it might be from an Australian Warship. I would really like to name and categorise the images correctly so somebody pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. Calistemon (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Dumelow:. I can see the resemblance. It would be good to know what ship it came from. I may have to contact the local RSL. Unless somebody is able to narrow it down further, I will rename the files on commons and catergorise them accordingly. Calistemon (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be a serial number on the back image at the base of the pedestal. However, I have no idea whether it relates to the gun or just to the manufacture of the base it is sitting on. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
On pl wiki we have a poorly referenced article on pl:Spółdzielczość wojskowa, "a form of cooperative movement aimed at providing equipment (or capital for them) by conducting workshops by military units. Such cooperatives aim to supply soldiers with all kinds of products; in peacetime they are also supposed to defend soldiers against exploitation." It cites examples from a number of countries. On English Wikipedia we have nothing about this concept and my literature review failed to find this term being used in English works much if at all. At the same time, we have articles for Army & Navy Stores (United Kingdom) which is under Category:Consumers' cooperatives (the unreferenced stub at Army & Navy Stores (Canada) is not, and on a sidenote, it may end up being deleted as failing NORG unless someone cares to improve it). The Polish article mentions a number of similar organizations in various countries, but sadly the few it names don't have articles on other wikis, and that article doesn't have any interwikis. Seems like a fascinating, if niche topic, but before I write anything on English Wikipedia using Polish sources (assuming I can find anything decent), I could use help in figuring out relevant English name(s), which hopefully would lead to some English-language sources, too. TIA! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
For the British Empire forces of the late 19th and early 20th century Julia Wightman, Sarah Robinson and Agnes Weston opened various institutes and clubs for service personnel, some of which had canteens that sold basic necessities and luxury items; though they were aligned with the wider temperance movement rather than open to all - Dumelow (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Some of you may already know about this, or seen it, but an IP editor has been going to the infoboxes of numerous military units from all over the world, and in the "type" or "role" parameter, adding items like "Special mission unit", "raiding", jungle warfare", "close quarters combat", etc., etc., etc.... sometimes adding lists of up to a couple dozen of these types of entries in one edit.
Many, if not most of these entries are not sourced, and do not belong in the infobox, based on the type of unit. Not every infantry unit is trained in elite, special operations, for every extreme environment on the planet. This person uses multiple IP addresses, that all appear to be from Bangkok, Thailand. I believe they have been blocked, so further edits like this can be reverted as block evasion (on top of a lack of sourcing and just being wrong info).
Anyway, just bringing this to the attention of the milhist community, to be aware of, but also hoping there is something more that can be done. Any admins here have any ideas? Cheers - wolf 06:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
These types of edits are continuing, are there any admins here that can offer advice on what action can be taken to address this disruption? Thanks again - wolf 16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Nick-D:, you blocked one of this user's IP address a couple weeks ago (still blocked as of this post), yet these types of edits continue. Is there anything else that can be done? - wolf 13:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
A smarter admin than me might be able to do a range block. I'm semi-protecting relevant articles for lengthy periods, which often does the trick in cases like this. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human#Good article). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn(talk) 00:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Kursk period of WW2 occupation
Would any Eastern Front experts be able to clarify what period -- or indeed more than one period? -- Kursk was under German occupation? The article seems both internally inconsistent on this, and with other topic-related articles, but none give exact sourced dates. My best guess is that it was liberated sometime during Operation Star. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
See the Battle of Kursk article - it gives a date of 8 February 1943 for when the Red Army liberated the city. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd missed that date. From the lack of any 2nd, 3rd, etc Battles of, I presume it wasn't reoccupied subsequently? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
No. I think someone had got confused by the template and not checked its output. I have corrected it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Great stuff, thanks. I've detagged it and noted this on the other (lack of a) discussion. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Falaise Pocket, FA-class article, lede too long?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest on this article at the moment, but @Valetude: has been attempting to get some traction going on rewriting the lede for the Falaise Pocket on its talkpage. The article is currently at FA-class level, and it appears to have a bit of al lengthy intro. Does anyone have any time to help this chap out?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I've left some comments. Actually, the lead is the best part of the article. rest could use some work. Hawkeye7(discuss) 04:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe spread some of the wealth around! Everything in the lede should certainly be in article, so tightening up the summarising and moving a certain amount of detail to later, well-structured sections might be to the benefit of both. I've compared the FA version with the current one, and the intro is now almost twice as long, and has gone from three paragraphs to five, straddling the recommended maximum of four. Given that this version is 12 years old, mind you, I wouldn't take it as a bombproof that either version would survive WP:FAR. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm drafting an article on the USS Pima County, a WWII landing ship tank that had a second career as a ferry in the UK and elsewhere. I've got the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships entry but am a bit baffled by the abbreviations. It includes the line:
LST-1081: dp. 4,080 (f.); l. 328-; b. 50-; dr. 14-1-; s. 11 1 6 k.; cpl. 119; trp. 147; a. 8 40mm., 12 20mm.; cl. LST-511
Which I think means under her former name (LST-1081) she had a displacement of 4,080 (short?) tons when fully loaded. Was 328ft long, 50 ft in breadth and 14ft 1in in draft, with a complement of 119 and a troop capacity of 147. She was armed with 8x 40mm and 12x 20mm guns (cannons?) and was of the LST-511 class. Is anyone familiar with these abbreviations and could check that for me and/or confirm some of my guesses?
I'm a bit stumped by the s. 11 1 6 k. bit. I'm guessing it's her speed (I know as a ferry in Britain her speed was said to be around 12 knots) but is it 11 1/6 knots, 11.16 knots (surely not?) or something else (probably!)? - Dumelow (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Per this, the s is for speed and the k is for knots. Which still means the question is what the 11 1 6 means. Although it's worth noting that 11 1/6 is very close to 1.16. Hog FarmTalk 16:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
And this is a second DANFS entry for the same ship, but unfortunately doesn't shed any light on this. Hog FarmTalk 16:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Might the middle '1' in the speed be a typo? Looking at the other LST-511 class ships, they seem to all be down as either '12 k.' or '11 6 k.' Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I think it's a typo for 11.6 knots. Navsource (I'm not familiar with the reliability of this source) states it reached 11.6 knots on trials. I'll go with that - Dumelow (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I have a COI edit request over at Bob McDonald (businessman); a paid editor wants Senior Parachutist Badge and Expert Infantry Badge added to the awards section of the subject's autobiography. Is this standard? It seems to me that badges awarded merely for completion of time, activity, and training requirements wouldn't be sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the infobox (only in prose), but I thought I should get input from people who know. —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree with SmartyPants22, only major awards like Medal of Honor or the service Crosses should go in the infobox. If they don't have any of those, then just their top award (Silver Star, Legion of Merit, etc.) Then have an "Awards" section lower down the page, with all awards and medals in a ribbon rack presentation, just as it would be on their uniform, with a table right underneath to list out out the awards, in the same layout as the rack. (Don't agree with collapsing it all though, not sure what that's about). JMHO - wolf 18:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
UK Carrier Strike Group 21
Hello all, yesterday/today I wrote this article on the UK Carrier Strike Group 21. I'm obviously going to be adding a *lot* to it as and when events happen, but at the moment I'm not too happy with my design of the tables that showcase the vessels and squadrons involved; if anybody had a better design, it would be great if you could showcase them on the article's talkpage! Thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been troubled by some recent edits by a certain user Buidhe to the Armenian Genocide, and I decided to come here as it seems futile to voice my concerns at the article's talk page, and would like some expert opinion here. The Armenian Genocide is commonly cited as having killed around 1.5 million Armenians. This, of course, is subject to considerable debate. It depends on the dating (1915-1918 or 1915-1923) and can rise to 1.8 million in the latter range. On the lower end (and to note, more commonly cited by genocide deniers), it can go down to around 800,000. Naturally, on the Armenian Genocide page, I would expect to see a range for the death toll, just like in the Dzungar genocide, the Circassian Genocide, etc. Perhaps something around the lines of 800,000-1.8 million, something or other. But there is no mention of any number above 1 million or the most commonly cited number, 1.5 million. In the talk page and in his/her edits, Buidhe has repeatedly refused to put a range with any number above 1 million, as he/she seems to prefer a lower number for the genocide. Buidhe has also gone to other genocide pages, such as Seyfo and removed the higher range numbers. Not to have bad faith, but it seems Buidhe has deliberately set about lowering the casualties for these pages. I cannot ascertain his/her objective, but it has the effect of minimizing the tradegy.
Among others, of course. This seems to be a sufficient reason to include 1.5 million into the article, if it can get past Buidhe, though. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:590B:AC23:75C1:BF73 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, forum shopping is not good form. The estimate about 1 million is used because it would be difficult to find a range that is consistently used in RS. Estimates do vary but they center around 1 million and otherwise it would not be possible to decide whether to start at 600,000, 800,000 etc. or where to end (1.5 million is often referenced in political discussions but has been discarded by more recent research into death tolls during World War I, as stated by reliable sources). (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Spanish ironclad Arapiles
The article on the Spanish ironclad Arapiles states that she ran aground off the coast of Venezuela in early 1873, and was under repair from May until January 1874 (Silverstone, Paul H. (1984). Directory of the World's Capital Ships. New York: Hippocrene Books. p. 392. ISBN0-88254-979-0.). This cannot be so. Contemporary newspapers have her at Cartagena in late August ("Siege of Carthagena". Daily News (8528). London. 28 August 1873.) and under repair at New York in late October ("The Fernando el Catolico". Morning Post (31610). London. 22 October 1873. p. 4.). Can anyone pin down when she went ashore please? Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Aha, from the Alexandria Gazette of 10 December 1873: "the Spanish ironclad Arapiles, which has been in the dry-dock for two months past repairing". So presumably she began her repairs circa early October 1873 - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The Americans did delay the completion of her repairs due to the Virginius Affair. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Medal of Honor Recipients
Hello, I was wondering if someone could go through the Medal of honor recipient lists and add redirects to existing articles. For example Thomas Anderson is a red link on the List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: A–F but there is a page for him on Thomas Anderson (Medal of Honor). If someone could add redirects to pages like this which have different names then listed on the list of Medal of Honor recipients. This way people can t.ll which ones are true red links with no existing pages. I am specifically looking to do this on the American Civil War lists. I am not sure how to do this so any help is appreciated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Presumptively, it's just a matter of finding the redlinks, then searching if we have an article on them, and adding the corresponding WL if there is one Loafiewa (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
There is an open discussion at WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021 April 27#Requisition; during the course of which it seems to two of us that we lack an article about military requisition in its various aspects. There is a group of ten articles on the subject in other languages. Most are stubs; but de:Requisition and fr:Réquisition are moderately well-developed. None, however, covers naval requisition, which was historically important in the anglophone world at least. So, if anyone feels like taking on a project... Narky Blert (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
We have a brief stub, STUFT (acronym for "ship taken up from trade"), which is UK specific; agree we could do a lot more. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Torpedo boat confusion
An issue first raised in 2005 by User:PBS at Talk:Torpedo boat#Motor torpedo boat has never been resolved. The article seems to say that large steam-powered torpedo boats were replaced by smaller motor torpedo boats during the First World War. This may be true of Anglophone navies, but ignores large torpedo boats built by Italy, France, Norway, Japan and others during the 1930s and 1940s. There is a mention of German torpedo boats of World War II, but under the heading of Torpedo boat#Torpedo boat destroyers, which seems a nonsense to me. To my mind, the article should be about the large steam-powered fleet torpedo boats, and MTBs and destroyers should be written-out with only a brief mention retained. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it would help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have been writing articles on medal of honor recipients and I was wondering if it would be acceptable to move them to main space without doing AFC. They are similiar to other medal of honor articles with same sources and format as pre-existing. Afc takes a bit so I was wondering if it is acceptable to move them early? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 16:59 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The editor detailed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/KızılBör��1071 has been particularly active over the last 48 hours, including multiple sockpuppets active on the same articles in a short period of time, making rollback less useful. They generally target articles relating to the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, but have been branching out slightly more due to many of their target articles being semi-protected. Since they often use "one-edit-and-move-onto-new-sockpuppet" accounts, there might be some edits to random articles that slip under the radar. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KızılBörü1071 for typical username format. FDW777 (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to say, SMS Helgoland would be turned into a shipindex page if the move were to happen. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it should - I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it should redirect to Helgoland (ship), as there are a couple of others that aren't "SMS", and there's no real need to have largely duplicate indices. Parsecboy (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I've added the 1867 corvette to the shipindex page. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)