Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The 2024 coordinator election has begun with voting open until 29 September. The September newsletter is now available. 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. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Castlereagh–Canning duel Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) • 2008 Mumbai attacks • United States Special Operations Command • Kony 2012 Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,447) • only work on referencing and citation (43,228) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,759) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,887) • work on structure (31,871) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,175) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,925) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (13) • assessment as lists (7) • project tags fixed (1) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (6) • task forces added (8) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Military history WikiProject Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy Core work areas Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives Special projects Majestic Titan talk Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1504 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 32 Featured pictures 538 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 685 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,539 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships edit · changes Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012. This project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: David Stahel (18 July 2018). "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Retrieved 1 April 2019. Noam Cohen (September 8, 2021). "One Woman's Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia". Wired (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. Shortcut WT:MILHIST

@Dicklyon: Have we reached consensus about lower casing the word Campaign? Several articles have been moved again. Regard Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm pretty sure we have. Four more RM discussions have closed in favor of using lowercase campaign, like the previous discussions. Exceptions are possible, of course, if there are campaigns that are mostly capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some recent relevant discussions that I could find, where nobody presented a reason to cap any of these (except for the occasional unsupported assertion of "it's a proper name" from an editor or two):

• Talk:Bougainville_campaign#Requested_move_24_June_2019
• Talk:Burma_campaign#Requested_move_26_June_2019
• Talk:Italian campaign#Requested move 25 June 2019
• Talk:Balkans campaign#Requested move 25 June 2019
• Talk:Crécy_campaign#Requested_move_23_June_2019
• Talk:Tunisian_campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles

Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the discussion here. Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Did you forget a link? Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see there was another section archived: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Capitalization_of_"Campaign"_in_articles. Maybe if you see someone there pointing out a reason to cap some of these, you can summarize or quote that here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't managed to alter the consensus; I suggest you stop altering titles unless you do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus do you refer to? The discussions I linked were closed with a consensus that we follow our capitalization guidelines. If you think any of my moves were contrary to that consensus, please point them out. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles regarsa Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked that. That's where an editor first pointed out the inconsistency, and we decided to work on it. Consensus was challenged, then tested and affirmed with multiple RM discussions. In the process, nobody provided a good reason to use caps on any of these – unless I missed it, in which case you should point it out here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't a judge of what is a good reason, you are an advocate for a point of view. I suggest that you stop moving titles unless you have obtained consensus or be ready to be reverted. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always ready to be reverted and discuss. I asked if I missed any good reasons so that others could help judge. It's not up to me, but up to discussion, such as those I linked. If you find anything there that look like good reasons to leave some of those campaigns capped, let's talk; or bring up your own good reason. Otherwise, I see no challenge to the well-tested consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a list or RS on the East African Campaign (1914-18, 1940-43)? Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What with so much forum shopping going on with regards the capitalisation of "campaign", you'll be lucky to find a credible consensus. The whole situation is being manipulated by POV-pushing. Makes you wonder why we have a military history project when all the views of the military historian members have been ignored and changes/moves made regardless behind their backs. — Marcus^(talk) 18:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was the project not notified of all these discussions? What are you calling forum shopping? Was there some irregular procedure? Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're the bureaucrat, professor, I'm sure you can find your own answers to those questions. When you can't find excuses for poor conduct, do what you do best – invent them. Little point in me answering, when we both know you'll apply your own spin to anything posted that challenges your almighty opinion. Speaking from my own experience, I always thought this project worked best when issues were resolved based on the consensus of proactive members, as opposed to meddlesome pedantic editors who bully their way in thinking they own the place, citing guidelines like they were law, yet contributing no obvious interest in historical content creation. But it seems more editors these days are only invested in their own self-importance than letting projects function effectively within their own remit. Little wonder many of the MilHist members I see active now are new faces, a lot of the veterans seem to have drifted off, probably sick of being dictated to by pompous editors who spend more time creating and editing guidelines then throwing their weight about on project boards. — Marcus^(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as no, you don't have any good reasons to capitalize campaign in any of those, nor any specific conduct complaint. Thanks for your feedback. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How you "take it" is of no interest to me. Quit acting like you have the final say on everything by imposing your own interpretations of guidelines and comments in order to undermine consensus – it's pretentious, arrogant and belittling to the long-term members here who actually study military history rather than number crunch a bunch of artificial statistics with google; what I'd like to see is a specific guideline that advocates the use of these N-grams you keep throwing up as "evidence" – in my mind they are little more than WP:SYNTHesised data. I believe Google_Ngram_Viewer#Criticism also details reasons why reliance on N-grams as a "source of usage" is not only over-rated, but questionable. [[1]] uses the specific example of the word "figure", which N-Grams reports as having more capitalised results than lower-case. Yet this is known to not be the case; OCR is flawed and "c" can easily be mis-scanned as "C". And that alone throws a spanner in the works and makes your entire singular argument and your "evidence" – since N-grams is the only thing you have offered to date – highly questionable. Google cannot account for the accuracy of its results, nor does it offer access to metadata, i.e. the titles evaluated, so that we can verify the results and determine some degree of accuracy. We are having to take the graphs on faith. And that is not a "reliable source", it's as bad as citing a text book with no bibliography. And FYI, WP:CIVPUSH describes the conduct I specifically take issue with. You've changed a ton of titles based on N-grams, which you revere like it's some higher authority than the combined expertise of the members here, but I'm beginning to suspect a conflict of interest, from a self-proclaimed Google employee/associate, and strongly oppose this continual pushing of a single "source" that is lacking in merit, per numerous sources. You asked for evidence, again and again. Well, evidence suggests N-grams is not a reliable source. Go figure, professor. — Marcus^(talk) 10:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My employer in no way influences my Wikipedia editing, except that I avoid editing about them. I've been doing Wikipedia longer than I've worked there. I see the majority of your edits this year are about capitalization of Campaign; this discussion is a small part of my editing, which is wide ranging. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To get an idea how often a "C" might by misrecognized as "c", you can test other words or bigrams that you know are usually capitalized. For example, for Cambridge University, which occurs in lots of books, you don't see any "cambridge University" or "cambridge university", from which it's fair to conclude both that this is a proper name and that OCR case errors are not so common as to affect the stats much. Similarly for Toyota Camry. Campaigns don't behave that way in the stats, except when part of a name like Burma Campaign UK. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to downcasing "campaign" per our project's manual of style. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we conduct a survey of Milhist members before proposing an addition to WP:MILMOS#NAME on this issue. Could project members please indicate whether they support or oppose the capitalisation of Campaign/campaign in article titles? I suggest further discussion of this issue is done under the Discussion subsection. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that capitalization "in article titles" is something different from capitalization in the text of the article? Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67 - Can we get some closure on this matter before it loses momentum, which may suit the POV-pushing editor crusading to revise dozens of articles but doesn't close the book. I am concerned that Dicklyon has proceeded to move dozens of campaign articles in the last week or two despite there being a number of concerns expressed in the survey and discussion. RMs are not being notified to us, when MILHIST in nature, which I believe is intentional to prevent challenges. This needs to be addressed and resolved properly, given the underhand way these articles are being renamed en masse. Since there are a number of concerns regarding using N-grams to determine language usage, I wonder if it would be better to have the matter taken to Village Pump for a broader debate and determination of its validity? It would seem that MilHist burned out on the matter and a few who responded to the survey below from MOS don't think MilHist is the right place. So what is? — Marcus^(talk) 19:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that we need to have this discussion at WT:MOSCAPS rather than here, for a number of valid reasons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I find the terms of this standard offer to unblock Dicklyon interesting. It states: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. In light of the fact that a large number have of military campaigns have and are still being moved, many without at attempt to reach consensus and some via RMs offering no verifiable evidence, which some members consider controversial changes, within this discussion. In my mind, this is a direct breach of the unblock terms specifically stated. I stated a while back that this was disruptive to the project, but wilfully ignoring unblock terms determined by the community in accepting a standard offer has greater implications and is a blatant disregard for policy. A great deal of WP:PLAYPOLICY is being practiced and MilHist is proving very ineffective in challenging it and/or upholding the integrity of articles produced by its members. I wonder, if this behaviour is allowed to continue, especially behaviour that once got the editor blocked, whether it might alienate members who work so hard to research and create those articles in the first place? The standards set by MilHist are some of the highest on Wikipedia, but they appear to be held in disdain and not only is the project and article creators not being notified of RMs relating to MilHist articles, out of courtesy foremost, and as a result vast amounts of work is being revised by one editor on a crusade, using nothing but trivial percentages of data polled and synthesised by Google. And nobody here is overly concerned? Don't you find this disrespect for a project you dedicate most of your efforts to disturbing and an insult to the commitment required to keep MilHist successfully creating content? You don't need to "own" articles to know right from wrong, and everything about this revisionism is wrong. Letting this go is as good as giving a free pass to anyone else who wants to violate their unblock terms, use dubious data as evidence, or simply rehash articles to suit their own warped POV. — Marcus^(talk) 01:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Cadar (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Qwirkle (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A local consensus allows us to update WP:MILMOS specifically, since the primary MOS is generalised and open to interpretation in some cases, hence why we have MOS detail pages: for standardising formats to avoid disputes or continued use of unreliable sources. Since this matter is drawing significant attention, possibly due to its controversial nature, consensus is required to help resolve the matter and prevent further disruptions based on one POV. — Marcus^(talk) 15:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A new local consensus contrary to the MOS will not help resolve anything. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That’ s begging the question. The MOS does not oppose capitalization of proper names; the question is whether the word campaign is being used as part of one. Qwirkle (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But this conversation should be happening over at WP:NCCAPS. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  More like WT:MOS or WT:MOSCAPS. NCCAPS had free watchers, and is just MOSCAPS adapted to title questions (the case rules originate in MoS, not in the naming-conventions pages). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Use lower case. WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS (esp. MOS:DOCTCAPS), and years of consistent consensus results at RM can't be defied by over-capitalization fandom in a topical wikiproject. WP:CONLEVEL and several ArbCom rulings are clear about that. Wikiprojects are not magical kingdoms subject to their own invented "rules", and do not WP:OWN any topics they claim are within their scopes. Wikiprojects' style preferences are essays, not guidelines.

  English capitalizes less and less, and WP follows (didn't invent) that shift in practice. If sources (reliable ones in the aggregate, not just specialized ones) don't capitalize something with near uniformity, then WP doesn't either – first rule of MOS:CAPS. See also WP:SSF and WP:CSF. We've been over this stuff many times before. The habit of people writing for a particular audience to excessively capitalize things important to that audience, and of governmentese/militarese in particular to over-cap for emphasis/signification, creates zero obligation on WP's part to mimic that clumsy style, doesn't make the over-stylized term a proper name, and it doesn't generate any expectation of capitalization in the mind of the typical reader.

  Someone mentioned tendentiousness above. Shopping such a question, already settled in favor of lower case by multiple guidelines and numerous RMs, to a "house organ" venue clustered with "gimme capitals just because it's military" thinkers is what's tendentious, by definition – it's anti-guideline (anti-WP:Consensus) advocacy of an off-site viewpoint about how to write English, putting military-history buffs' preferences above the broad-audience needs of the encyclopedia. While consensus can change, it doesn't do so via selectively localized votestacking. If you think MOS:CAPS should and would change on some point, then appropriate venues for a proposal are WT:MOSCAPS, WT:MOS, or WP:VPPOL, in order of increasing number of eyes and brains.
  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c (SMcCandlish via untrusted public WiFi) 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe we should be using lower case in general, and I weighed in on a few of the move discussions linked above. I agree that this discussion really should be happening on WT:MOSCAPS. CThomas³ (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it should be in lower case, per North Africa campaign, unless the majority of reliable sources use an initial capital. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upper case on the grounds of OR if lower case is used, unless the majority of RS use lower case, determined by a list of sources acceptable to editors, not a quantitative analysis. Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on N-Grams above, and why we should not be considering it a "reliable source" to revise article titles. If Wiki requires verifiable sources, and it does, then N-grams fails to provide that basic requirement and this whole crusade to alter historical articles and rename every "Campaign" event on Wiki falls at the first hurdle, because the only evidence offered cannot be validated, but is supposed to be taken on trust, because "reasons" – aka, Google is holier than thou with dozens of hard-earned books on the shelf. The fact that numerous sources (https://www.google.com/search?q=google+n-grams+inaccurate) challenge the accuracy of N-grams should be a concern for everyone. Because if we allow one editor to go on a crusade aiming to rewrite dozens of articles simply based on what Google says, without any way to verify the data sources, we are opening a can of worms and giving other like-minded editors a free pass to manipulate the grammar of an indefinite number of articles based on what amounts to little more than digital polling. I believe that if this form of "editing" is to continue it needs to be cast in stone, i.e. approved by the wider community and added to guidelines, or we could see a widespread abuse of unorthodox evidence taken from Google software being thrown about without sufficent means to challenge its integrity. — Marcus^(talk) 10:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've always advocated exactly the opposite of letting sources vote on our style. The point of the n-grams links is just to make it really clear that in those cases the sources are nowhere close to the "consistently capitalized in reliable sources" that we use to decide to capitalize, per MOS:CAPS. The n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story, but in these cases it appears to be enough; if you see some where you think seeing the other side in important (e.g. here), say so and we can talk. Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, because I think that is missing: What are the positiosn within this survey? Support means supporting what exactly? Oppose means opposing what exactly? ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GELongstreet: Per the above, support of the proposal is supporting a move to formalise capitalisation of the word "campaign" in article titles where the proper names of military campaigns are (or should be, by English correct usage) capitalised. Eg. the WWII Burma Campaign. Cadar (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let’s not exchange one straitjacket for another. Campaign paired with a place isn't always used as a proper noun, and the older and more classically educated the writer, the more likely they are to sometimes use campaign in its original sense, for the season of taking to the field, even if the same sort of fighting immediately followed on after breaking camp from winter quarters, and to see what another might describe as The Such-and-Such Campaign as a series of related campaigns.

That said, in most of the articles which have recently been controversially renamed, campaign was being used as part of a proper name by the article, if not by all the sources, and should be capitalized. Qwirkle (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "in most of the articles which have recently been controversially renamed", but could you point out one or two explicitly that you think were "controversially renamed" and say how sources support what you are saying? Dicklyon (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of those which you have moved. Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those that I moved had RM discussions that closed with consensus to use lowercase, and the rest were similarly pretty well aligned with policies and guidelines that suggest lowercase unless sources support interpretation as a proper name. If you're not going to show one that is controversial, or wrong based on a reason that you can state, what do we have to discuss? And I was asking Qwirkle, since he claims such things exist but has so far declined to point one out. If you guys are just complaining about how much work I do, and won't point out errors or reasons to do differently, it comes across as nothing but personal attacks and whining. I get that you prefer caps usually, but that's not WP style when sources mostly use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explained earlier why your moves are controversial, in detail, with links. Your "evidence", your so-called N-grams, are a load of crap because they cannot be verified. So get off your high horse and address the cocnerns I raised about your "sources". Given that you claim to follow "policies and guidelines" I consider your wilful ignorance of WP:V the elephant in the room here. Verifiable evidence is a core policy; MOS stylings are only guidelines. Therefore you're being a hypocrite, by refusing to comment on the fact that your evidence, for what it's worth, is potentially bogus. Sticking a couple of words in a Google N-gram search box hardly amounts to "hard work", in fact it's as lazy as you can get in terms of historical research, so don't push your luck claiming to put in more effort than the guys who wrote the articles you're subjecting to this crusade of yours, which now comes across as a vanity project than a sincere attempt to help build an encyclopedia. And for your information, not only can consensus change, so can guidelines. And as no one guideline sufficienly addresses this problem, it's open to discussion and potentially requires MOS clarification. Why do feel the need to constantly undermine attempts to discuss the matter on the project pages where people who create and edit these type of articles almost daily probably have more experience and understanding of the situation than you seem to appreciate or allow them? Don't become a diva with that "personal attacks and whining" rhetoric now you are overwhelmed with editors are genuinely concerned about the issue; to me it seems like you're just saying that as an idle threat to your detractors. Prove us wrong. Take a seat. Shut up. Let project members consider the options since they're the one mostly involved in maintaining these articles. Isn't that why such projects exist in the first place, or do you intend to argue that they're worth less than the sum of their parts? — Marcus^(talk) 23:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus, nobody is relying on n-grams as a "reliable source" nor as the only way to look at usage in sources. I've always encouraged clicking through to book sources to understand what's behind the stats. And a generalized "something might be wrong" complaint is no substitute for pointing out an article or two where I might have got it wrong. Arguing hypotheticals is useless. I don't mean to undermine discussion, I just can't get anyone to present any specific challenges to what I've done so we can discuss them. And whether people complain about my work being too much or too little is not relevant either way; let's talk specifics. Dicklyon (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I neither support or oppose a blanket "capitalisation of Campaign/campaign in article titles". It depends on what the sources say on a case by case basis imo. Then again, I think lengthy discussions on it make a mountain out of a molehill, and are as useful as considering the numbers of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Everyone here could be doing something productive instead of obsessing over needless "standardisation". (Hohum ^@) 16:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hohum: I'm afraid that rather misses the point irt THE MOS: it exists in order to provide those with only peripheral interest in writing the encyclopaedia a cover—albeit one as transparent as a birthday suit—in the guise of "maintaining" it. This results in the regular over-indulgence in peripatetic fucking trivia that we see before us on a regular basis.^{Shout out to Gog the Mild} ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications have been made at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum has crystallised my views on the various aspects of this almost perfectly. (Thank you.) I write as an editor whose last FAC was renamed four times during the review and then had a requested move discussion opened - still while it was being reviewed. It ended up, shortly after the FAC closed, as Crécy campaign and is mentioned by Dicklyon above; this discussion may result in another name change. Frankly I don't care. I made no comment nor contributions regarding the five name changes to date and have nothing to add to Hohum's summary, especially his second sentence. So I am returning to "doing something productive". If anyone would care to check my current FAC, or any of the others, for departures from the MoS and record their thoughts as a review, I am sure that it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed on Hohum's second sentence: "It depends on what the sources say on a case by case basis imo." Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be, why are you not doing that before making RMs? N-grams is not sources. N-grams does not list titles, and N-grams does not provide context - the search criteria simply pulls the term you search from a bunch of undisclosed titles that Google bothered to scan into its database. That is not. I repeat – NOT – how accurate and verifiable referencing works. It's randomised polling, without any form of control to guarantee the results are impartial; we don't know if N-grams results came from genuine history texts, because there is no proof to support their figures, and that's in addition to the OCR inaccuracy issue. So, on a case-by-case basis, using N-grams as evidence is spurious and should be challenged as such. Any suggestion that Google's results can be trusted on face value is paramount to trusting a brand, and that a form of bias, which wiki policy does not tolerate either. So, back at the guy who is always demanding evidence – where is yours, and where has it ever been, besides linking to that unconventional N-gram, in order to manipulate editors into supporting RMs based on a fallacy? I say that, based on something an editor linked earlier, that I read, and from it I'm lead the believe that N-grams, in some cases, can amount to original research (See WP:CSF#Trying_to_"prove"_style_by_search_hits_is_original_research), simply because N-grams determines "trends", but does not determine what actual sources say about campaigns, or whatever term is searched, to allow the data to be relevant to us. — Marcus^(talk) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming. Is there a case where you think I got it wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's your position, you defend it. As Marcus points out, n-grams are a blunt instrument which fail the test of relevance. Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and look at your opening post for this entire discussion, Dicklyon, where you list several RMs. In some of those you linked to N-grams as your evidence. In each of those N-gram graphs, the difference between "Campaign" and "campaign" results is often something as insignificant as 0.00000001%, e.g. Borgainville Campaign: 0.0000000384% vs campaign 0.0000000976%. Seriously? You requested a move and claim a consensus based upon a 0.0000000592% difference? That's not just "getting it wrong", IMO, it's complete and utter bollocks! Can you translate 0.0000000592% into historically revelant terminology that does not amount to defering to a specialised or common style supposedly determined by N-grams and remains relevant to the general reader? When some passing Anon-IP/new editor says "why is this article using 'c' instead of 'C'?" and decides to move it can you explain in common terms why you moved it, and numerous other campaigns, based on RM consensus which only had N-grams thrown at them as evidence? I mean, seriously... I don't accuse people of false pretences without evidence, but these RMs were loaded with them. The only evidence you offered was N-grams or nothing at all. Can you explain that pattern, which you just claimed to look beyond, yet the RMs do not support your claim since no other evidence was presented? — Marcus^(talk) 21:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, only around one bigram in a billion is "Bougainville Campaign", in English-language books, so the numbers look a bit silly (that's about 10 million times more rare than the bigram "of the", which is about 1 in 100). Still, there are enough to pass the significance test, and you can see the ratio of caps to not, and how it evolved over time. I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. Nobody is suggesting that these stats are of any interest to the reader. I generally click through to get a look at the books and their hit snippets, to make sure I'm not counting inappropriate hits. E.g. if a significant number of books used the lowercased "Bougainville campaign" for something other than what we refer to with caps in "Bougainville Campaign", I'd likely notice that; or if I didn't, someone who wanted to challenge the evidence would look for that and point it out. I've been wrong before, and it will probably happen again, so if you can find a problem please do let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for which books were selected for the stats, if you have some good books that don't appear in Google book search, that weren't found in the libraries of Oxford and Stanford and such, please do point them out to us. I'm sure Google missed a lot of books that these libraries didn't have; maybe military history is poorly represented in those libraries. If so, it shouldn't be hard to find a few example of what they missed, and see what they say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this ngram thing is a useful metric either way. Let's look at high quality general texts, like the Oxford Companion to Military History, and the texts being used in the specific campaign articles. For example, in my copy of the Oxford Companion, the entries are "Gallipoli campaign", "Italian campaign", "Norwegian campaign" and "Mesopotamian campaign", among many others that have a lower case c. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that input! But I'm pretty sure if I had found a set of books like that I would have been accused of cherry-picking sources. Stats are more neutral. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, these stats are unequivocally not “more neutral”, they merely have a spurious feel of authority, kinda like back in the day when somone would print their own calcs on tractor paper because...computer!!! They can not address the usage within the books cited as to whether the phrase is being used as a proper name or not.

Looking at one example -Burma- in depth, I’d suggest that Burma Campaign is a growing usage, “Burma campaign” a declining one; BC a leftpondian, Bc a rightpondian, ≠and that the two best general books on the subject each use different conventions. Since one, Bill Slim’s own work, is lowercasical, this convention should not be ignored completely, whatever the final outcome.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the older a work is, the more likely campaign will be used in an etymologically correct sense, lasting only the fighting season, the time armies took to the field, after winter, or the monsoon, or such. Qwirkle (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the cap C has been becoming somewhat more common in recent decades for the Burma campaign. But looking at sources, it's still clearly "optional"; that is, we're not yet (by 2008 at least) at the point where sources cap it consistently. Also notice that the Wikipedia article started out capped in 2004, and many books since that time were likely influenced thereby (not just these that say so). And a lot of those uses in recent books are about the org "Burma Campaign UK" (founded 1991); that's why such stats from recent years need to be regarded more carefully. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an explicit look at correcting for "Burma Campaign UK" in n-gram stats. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that if you set Smoothing to 0 you get a higher number of results for capitalised Campaign, but with Smoothing of 3 lower-case campaign gets a higher result. Further evidence, IMO, that N-grams cannot be considered reliable. N-grams relies more on algorithms than actual results. Call me a Luddite, but I'll be buggered if I ever consider this digital-age crap conquered up by programmers better than professionally researched and verified history. History is something you experience on a human level, through dedicated studies, sometimes lasting a lifetime, not by number crunching nouns from a database. Google bosses would digitise their own dead mothers if they thought it would give them control over more information. I've never trusted that company, nor its motives, when it comes to it domineering the data our world has access to as well as its constant under-mining of democracy on behalf of big tech corps. Google may not own Wikipedia, but I'm sure it'd love to get its grubby mitts on the Foundation somehow. For now, I remain suspicious and skeptical of its agents, editing here on Wikipedia, whether openly or covertly, working to influence a wide variety of articles using Google-crafted data, as opposed to genuine sources which should take priority. — Marcus^(talk) 00:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poppycock. Here's the link. It shows a bump in "Burma Campaign UK" in 2008; not increase otherwise. Your opinions are noted. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Your last response amounts to a lot of opinionation, but no facts, no certainty, is presented. As for your claim that N-gram results "pass the significance test" – who says so? That's a very subjective opinion based on your own expectations, not Wikipedia's. There are no established benchmarks defined in Wiki policy that allow you to claim that any results you found "pass the test" and are therefore final. I'm more inclined to accuse you of cherry-picking N-gram results, since it's the only evidence you have ever offered, because it works in your favour. But neutral? There's no such thing as neutral data; all data is subject to some form of systematic bias, however slight. All Wiki articles are subject to selective sourcing, since editors can only ever write material or edit content with the sources they have to hand. But at least those who do use actual books are capable of citing their claims, from a title and page, giving others access to material that can be cross-examined and verified. N-gram fails to do that. Your "significance test" is based on blind faith, there is no data to support it. Wiki doesn't allow non-verifiable refs. Wiki doesn't allow synthesis. Once again you're trying to force us to rename articles based on what suits you alone, not what is generally used us those with a true interest in military history. — Marcus^(talk) 17:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "pass the significance test" I only meant that if an n-gram's stats are in the database, or in the plot, it's because that n-gram passed the cutoff of appearing in at least 40 books in the selected corpus. In most cases it's a lot more than that. No claim about statistical or other kind of significance was intended. By "neutral" I only meant that the stats were not collected with arguments such as these in mind. They are just stats from a bunch of books that were scanned for other reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman indicates that the USAAF's 467th Bombardment Group ground echelon sailed for the UK on 28 February 1944 aboard the "USAT Frederick Lykes". Looking for a link, I wondered if this was not a ship of the Lykes line. I don't see the ship listed under either USAT or Lykes articles. Can anyone identify this ship for me? --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was of the Lykes line. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not familiar with the data card you linked to. Am I correct in assuming that the Lykes Line kept title to the vessel during the war and it should be referred to as the "SS Frederick Lykes"? --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ship card says that it was under BB (bareboat charter) to the War Department. So I would think that USAT would have been appropriate. Its on the List of ships of the United States Army.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case anybody is interested in uniform insignia, there is a stub at Draft:Attentes. Rama (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article already Shoulder mark.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same thing. Attentes are a particular type of shoulder marks, like epaulettes, but all shouldr marks are not attentes — indeed, the top illustration of Shoulder mark show a rank slide, a type of shoulder mark that is neither an attente, an epaulette nor a shoulder board. Rama (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is unsourced, and I am having trouble finding the use of this term The wiki entry I posted is the best I could find).Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epaulette#France, c:Category:Attentes - which say it's a gilded strap. Is there enough for its own article, rather than as a mention on "Shoulder mark" and/or "Epaulette"? (Hohum ^@) 12:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another unsourced reference to this word. But I do note "shoulder strap called attente" So this is (in English (apparently)) called a shoulder strap (which tallies with the article Shoulder mark). Usually if we have a foreign word for an English term (for which we already have an article) we just put in the fact "In French they are called attente", assuming we can source this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an abundance of military regulations that we can use to source the article, for instance [3] for the Navy or [4] and [5] for the Army. Rama (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So its a french word, that in English means?Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder strap [6]. Rama (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So then we have mention of the fact in the shoulder strap article, not a separate article. We are not a French/English dictionary.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At some point someone asked me to remove the images from the rank field in infoboxes. At a different point, folks added them back in. Curious if there is any policy regarding the matter or if it is a case-by-case basis sort of thing. See Michael Collins (astronaut) for an example. Kees08 (Talk) 08:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of image?Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean an image of the rank insignia itself? Not sure what encyclopaedic value such things have. MOS:ICON refers to this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across Italian ship Trieste and question the title. The "Italian ship" wouldn't be part of the common name. It would work as a disambiguator if one is necessary. I checked the other two article in the Category:Aircraft carriers of the Italian Navy and they are similarly mis-named. Not sure if this spreads to other Italian Navy ships. If anyone wants to fix these go ahead. 17:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SHIPNAME. (Hohum ^@) 18:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and since Trieste is a thing, we need a way to disambiguate it and "Italian ship" works as a natural disambiguator. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't seem like a natural disambiguator to me at all. I don't think that name is commonly used in English sources. I did a quick google search on "Italian ship Trieste" and found mostly WP and mirrors. WP:NATURALDIS says the name should not be "made up". But removing the quotes yielded hits with "LHD Trieste"; it seems using that would me more aligned with its commmon name. MB 15:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use the role of a ship in the name of its article because that often changes over a ship's lifetime. Consider all of the passenger ships and freighters converted into attack transports or amphibious landing ships during WW2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overthinking the "not made up" thing - the policy is talking about neologisms, and describing the vessel by its nationality and calling it a ship is not one. In fact, using the specific navy designation probably would be a neologism (at least in the cases of arcane ship types like "landing helicopter dock"). Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe follow other naming conventions and have Trieste (Italian ship).Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:NATDIS, parenthetical disambiguation should be used only when there is no good natural disambiguator - that's not the case here, so we don't need to do that. Parsecboy (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled as it is because ships of the Italian Navy do not take a prefix, unlike ships of the British, American, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian and other navies. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given "ship" is generic and there was an Italian heavy cruiser Trieste in the interwar period and WWII, shouldn't we use the pennant number (L9890) as well? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the cruiser performed that role for its entire career, the article should be at Italian cruiser Trieste. Mjroots (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is. My point is that Italian ship Trieste is ambiguous in its own right and could refer to the cruiser, because it begs the question "what sort of ship?" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, If we were talking about a U.S. ship then it would be the USS Houston for instance. I'm assuming that this is about the RM Trieste? The cruiser? The Regia Marina was its Navy if that was the case. Maybe that just me talking crazy but wouldn't that be what it is called????Tirronan (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the Italians have never used a prefix like USS or HMAS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italian ship Trieste will be the title of the ship index page once it is created so a different title is needed for the page on the LHD Lyndaship (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to turn Italian ship Trieste into a shipindex page. Hatnotes at both articles adequately cover the situation. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my take as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change the guidelines then - Index pages If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name. Lyndaship (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the guideline should be changed to read "If there has been more than two ships with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name."? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_22#"Manned"_renaming. Sdkb (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

G'day everyone, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/149th Armor Regiment is getting close to promotion, and needs a source review. If someone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey PM, Kges1901 took the source review, let's hope that it'd be promoted as soon as possible. Cheers. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yuri Gagarin could do with another reviewer, maybe someone with some knowledge of astronauts? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We only need a source review before this could be promoted. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#RfC on mass changing "maiden flight" to "first flight". – Levivich 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

You are invited to comment in the merge discussion at Talk:List of carrier-based aircraft#Temporary carrier operations by non-carrier aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking advice here on the correct disambiguators to distinguish unrelated US Army units. The specific issue is with the usage of the designation '26th Cavalry', which was used twice by two unrelated units.

The first '26th Cavalry' was the 26th Cavalry Regiment (Philippine Scouts), which was destroyed in the 1942 Philippines Campaign and officially disbanded in 1951 (meaning that the designation was permanently retired from the US Army). However, the designation '26th Cavalry' was used again for a National Guard parent regiment under the Combat Arms Regimental System from 1963 to 1988, with entirely different heritage (the number '26' was likely used because it was part of the 26th Infantry Division (United States).

Complicating the problem, the 26th Cavalry was renumbered as the 110th Cavalry in 1988, likely to preserve the number of the 1920s and 1930s 110th Cavalry Regiment. However, the 110th Cavalry of 1988 did not inherit the lineage of the 1920s and 1930s 110th Cavalry and so they are historically unrelated.

Would it make sense to disambiguate by date in this case, having separate articles for the 110th Cavalry Regiment (United States, 1921–1940) and 110th Cavalry (United States, 1988–1996) with redirect from [[26th Cavalry (United States, 1963–1988)? Presumably, the use of (Phillippine Scouts) for the 26th Cavalry that fought in the ill-fated Philippines Campaign of 1942 (the most famous as it made what may be the last American cavalry charge in combat) is an adequate disambiguator. Kges1901 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised that the 110th didn't inherit the lineage of the earlier unit as both were National Guard units and they tend to stretch things a bit more than Regular Army units to preserve their heritage. That said, your plan seems fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the feedback. I've carried out the moves accordingly. Interestingly, the lineage was not inherited because the 110th Cavalry of the interwar period's lineage moved to the 180th Field Artillery when it was converted into the latter in 1940. The 180th FA became two different Field Artillery Battalions during WWII and postwar was reactivated in the Massachusetts ARNG, but was consolidated under CARS in 1959 to become part of the lineage of the 101st Field Artillery Regiment. Kges1901 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, that seems more reasonable. The NG cares less about what branch the unit belonged to than maintaining continuity. I know of one unit in Illinois that's switched from artillery to infantry, back to artillery and recently to combat engineers in the last quarter-century or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could add "U.S." directly to the title (e.g. 110th U.S. Cavalry Regiment), thus saving the clunky brackets with several entries. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regrettably, 'U.S.' has never been part of official designations in the US Army since 1917. Unfortunately, this simple distinguisher between state and Regular units used during the Civil War would be anachronistic in this context. Kges1901 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, context. Forgot about that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kges1901 I disagree and I think the answer is simple. One article for the 110th Cavalry Regiment (United States), and one for the 26th Cavalry, with our standard Soviet-style 'First Formation,' 'Second Formation' etc. The regt was reformed, number was reused, and links can adequately link the lineages. Why should we associated non-lineage-linked Sov divisions with the same numerical designation, and not do so for the U.S. Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came across 3d Transportation Support Battalion and wondering should it be 3d or 3rd? 3d seems to be a common name and 3rd is the official name. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official USMC website uses 3d. Personally I much prefer 3rd, but we should use whatever the majority of the reliable sources use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall a discussion here last year that resulted in a consensus to use "3rd" on Wikipedia. "3d" is the official US Government convention, but rarely used outside of official publications. Extensive but unofficial publications such as Shelby L. Stanton's "World War II Order of Battle" and Rinaldi's World War I series use "3rd". RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RobDuch, I must have brain fade. As a result of this discussion, MOS:ORDINAL was amended to deprecate 2d and 3d. So, 3rd it is then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are two military history articles on the same topic. I am wondering if anyone from this project would take a look at these two articles and make a determination as to whether or not these are duplicates. One is a very brief overview (here) the other is, of course, much more in depth (here). I'm out of my depth on these topics, so that is why I'm asking for help. Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Steve, that is not so much duplication of an article, but an article on a brigade-sized formation that forms part of a larger divisional-sized formation. I agree that the brigade one is underdeveloped. Generally it is accepted that formations of brigade-size (particularly fighting ones) can have their own article, as well as having a summary in the parent article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: - thanks for (ahem... ahem) keeping the peace :>) I appreciate your explanation and showing me the value of both articles. Well, on to other editing activities. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[ [134.36.250.200]] Can I have a reminder of the notice board to refer this to pl. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Waterloo_Campaign#Requested_move_18_July_2019 — Marcus^(talk) 16:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich

Recently, this has been assessed as "B class" for WP:Biography and WP:England, unfortunately, I don't think it would be that for WP:MILHIST. Possibly "C class" at most. Adamdaley (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Adam, thanks for that. I've assessed it as C-Class, a few missing citations there, but the coverage seems ok for B2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the rise and fall of several "Campaign vs campaign" discussions here, and suggestions that this is a MOS issue, not for MilHist to determine alone, I have introduced a detailed argument regarding the use of "campaign" as a proper noun at WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Campaign vs. campaign in military history articles for anyone who wants to weigh-in and consider the matter in the right place. Ultimately, I hope to see WP:MILMOS updated to provide more certainty with regards to formatting such articles and the name of military campaigns, given the lack of consensus, and now we have an editor – Dicklyon – taking upon himself to move a ton of articles with, it might be argued, a controversial lack of reliable sources to do so, it might be prudent to reach a consensus and establish whether to favour such events as proper nouns. — Marcus^(talk) 06:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point but I'm not sure the debate with Dicklyon over his moves is part of the question of whether c/Campaign is a proper noun. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well since that's where this concern originated, I thought it best to give some background, otherwise editors have no reason to consider an individual term for the MOS to specifically cover. — Marcus^(talk) 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign is pretty clearly not a proper noun; that's not where the debate lies. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too late to move the goal posts or stall the debate again. What sources do you have to support that Campaign is not a proper noun? N-grams don't count, since they don't provide clear examples of how sampled sentences are structured. WP:BURDEN — Marcus^(talk) 01:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this discussion is better kept centralised? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but for reasons unknown these discussions keep fizzling out and nothing is ever decided. Hours of time wasted, yet plenty of concerns raised in each. Any clue why these discussions just die while Dicklyon's move log keeps growing regardless of concerns about such moves?

• May: WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles
• June: WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Capitalization_of_"Campaign"_in_articles.
• July: WT:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign

What I mean to say is, if this wasn't a big concern, it wouldn't have cropped up three months in a row. Now we have a debate at ANI and an attempt to conclude the matter once and for all at MOS. Given the number of editors who made their opinion known in one or more of the "Campaign titles" discussions here, listed above, I'm kind of surprised that none appear keen to see the matter resolved by weighing-in at the WT:MOS, which was determined to be the best place to establish a consensus. I've debated the matter with Dicklyon ad infinitum, but am not quite feeling "backed" by MilHist on the matter despite what I've read in those May–July threads and my best attempts to find a solution. Would be really nice to get some comments, reflecting Milhist editor's views, either way, at the MOS discussion, and then perhaps we won't see the same bloody issue cropping up again next month, and the month after... I can think of nothing more tiresome than that. — Marcus^(talk) 09:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote atop German Air Force links to all three earlier German air forces (those of WWI, WWII and East Germany) and has for a long time. I therefore removed the link to this unnecessary dab page. A PROD has been rejected. Should the hatnote at the main article be reduced to {{other uses}}? Or should this dab page be nominated for deletion? Srnec (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do commodores and brigadiers meet the requirements of WP:SOLDIER because they aren't considered to be flag or general officers in their own countries, although they are completely equal in rank and responsibility to one-star flag and general officers in other countries? We have always held that they do. Now some are arguing that they do not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]