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.
Wings (1927 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
102nd Intelligence Wing has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Phillip has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi all. Recently the infobox to Angolan Civil War has been amended to include a long list of the various nationalities that served as foreign mercenaries or volunteers during that conflict. This results in the respective nations essentially being listed under the "combatants" heading of the infobox. I think this is highly unusual, and most of the other conflict-related articles I've read or revised do not have this feature, even those in which foreign fighters took part, whether as mercenaries or otherwise. As is it seems to make the infobox rather bloated, and I'm in favor of restricting the use of the "combatants" section solely to national governments which participated directly in hostilities. Thoughts? Katangais(talk)00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iran–Iraq War lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for Angolan Civil War. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --Katangais(talk)07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalities are not units. That’s the type of information that would be useful in the body of the article, but too granular for the infobox. --Katangais(talk)17:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mercenaries do not represent their country of origin and should not be presented in a way that suggests they do. They are not state players or a faction in a civil war so they do not belong under "belligerents" in the infobox. They are not a "unit" unless they are organised into a specific unit. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not the place for nuance or detail. An extensive list of units would be inappropriate. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments have no substance unless the other stuff represents best practice - ie two wrongs don't make a right. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be easier for some readers to find under the weapons range title with links to the other articles for further information. Perhaps a redirect to proving ground might not be comprehensive enough to cover it all. I didn't further scrutinize it, however. Donner60 (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Howitzers of similar caliber, role, era, and capability" redudant?
I reverted this, prompting a comment here. But then realised that they'd blanked a whole bunch of them too: Special:Contributions/Eurohunter (20 Jan 2025). I would support restoring the lot. It's a useful section for a comparison and pointer to related articles. Very far from "there is no point in doing this."
Me and other people already removed similar redundant lists from articles about tanks. This is just a list of other howitizers unrelated to this one. The whole point of see also is to add links to articles which haven't been mentioned yet in the article, so once they are mentioned in the article you remove them from see also - in this case there are just unrelated articles which will never be described in the text as it has nothing to do unless you have sources for some kind of comparison. Eurohunter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: How it makes it comparable? There should be direct source which clearly indicate comparison in some way - some kind of professional review, opinion from forces etc. Eurohunter (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just shifting goalposts in the hope that something will stick. You first claimed that these comparisons were redundant. Now you're claiming they're so significant that they must be easily sourceable. Which is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I don't know for what or I'm not sure what do you want to say by "Now you're" - so simpy the answer is both answers are correct. These lists (SPAM) were redundant to these articles, as there was no any criteria to add them - they were just random - why do not add 3, 4 or 15 more yet? There is no reason to cancel edits and they should be restored. If they are comparable then they shoud be mentioned in text with sources - this is far connection to these articles, so if you add them to section see also without any description it's very not clear why they are there. For this reason I didn't removed some see also as there was reason provided why they are there. Eurohunter (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section is expressly for similar or related articles that do not warrant being included in the prose. You need to revert your edits to the affected articles, as they are entirely without merit or basis in policy, procedure, or precedent. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: "The see also section is expressly for similar or related articles that do not warrant being included in the prose" - yes but it's not reason to add whole lists of unrelated articles (SPAM). There is no any description after link. Eurohunter (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that they are related based on weapon type, caliber, and function. You would have a case if someone added a 20mm antiaircraft gun to the 155mm howitzer article being discussed, but the weapons in the list presented are all similar in caliber, type, and function. These lists are quite helpful if a reader wants to see what other kinds of howitzers were used during the time period in question. Calling them SPAM is ridiculous. Intothatdarkness15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Intothatdarkness: There was no any description after link. Anyway, I could understand if these would be previous or next models of this same manufacturer, just not mentioned yet in the text or artilerry of other manufacturers but with something especially relted to be written in the articke in the future. Article should explain all related articlery, not see also sction. In this way we could focus on making see also lists than writting articles. If 100 countries would have comparable own artillery, would you add all of them? There are lists such as List of artillery by country or more lists at List of artillery by type. Why not just them? Eurohunter (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of wars involving the United States could use some attention from experience editors. Despite the accessibility concerns and lack of sources...there seems to be a little criteria for the list. Not sure how something like Operation Ocean Shield is a war. Seems to be confusion between military assistance, military interventions and military deployments etc. Moxy🍁23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is the right place to respond, but I'll do it anyway. The reason for this is because in reality it's meant to be a list of armed conflicts, not just specifically wars. Every "List of wars involving" page does it this way. Obviously the title doesn't exactly correlate to the topic, but at this point I feel like you either just have to deal with it (either way they are very simple and recognisable titles) or go out of your way to try and rename hundreds of pages like this. Setergh (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you, but once again, you'd be forced to do this to hundreds of pages. You might as well just leave it, it's quite a recognisable title anyway and gets the point across. Setergh (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As 23 January 1925 is a date, so too is 1925; both |orig-date=23 January 1925 and |orig-date=1925 are semantically correct. The reverse is not true: 1925 is a year date, but 23 January 1925 is not a year date. |orig-date= became the canonical and preferred form because editors complained about the dissonance of |orig-year=23 January 1925.
Currently, this project has about ~673594 551 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.
If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are more likely to get a review of a draft article (especially as you are a relatively new user) at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Since this is a new request, I suggest that this request not be removed for several days, at least, to see if any experienced editor who regularly reads this page nonetheless is willing to review it. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
