Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The April 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 Roon-class cruiser • Punic Wars • Arab–Khazar wars • Rani of Jhansi • Zhao Chongguo • Harry Crerar Featured article review Northrop YF-23 • Felice Beato • Surrender of Japan • Treaty of Devol • Augustus Featured list candidates Timeline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Advanced Tactical Fighter • Piri Reis • Tailhook scandal • Miroslav Kvočka • Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser • USS Romeo • Action at Sihayo's Kraal • HMS Hyperion (1807) Peer reviews Central Powers • Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem • SS Dixie Arrow • Operation Encore • Benin Moat • Battle of Edington • HMS Valiant (1914) • Dan Caine • Nicias Good article nominees Perdiccas • HMS Sheffield (C24) • 1991 Andover tornado • Henry O'Neill (soldier) • Statue of John Barry • First Jewish–Roman War • John Paul Jones Memorial • Allied occupation of the eastern Adriatic • Leopold I of Belgium • Second Anglo-Ashanti War • Operation Matterhorn • SMS Hyäne (1878) • Pete Hegseth • Gerhard Barkhorn • Ohuede • 2002 Marib airstrike • Oduwa • Allied prisoners of war of Japan • Prisoners of war in World War II • Urien • Obioye • Siege of Ak-Mechet • Mlađo Radić • Arigho • SS Dixie Arrow • Aaron Burr • Zoran Žigić • Croatian Committee • Milojica Kos • Manhattan Project feed materials program • Dušan the Mighty (paramilitary) • May 1995 Pale air strikes • Günther Rall • July 1936 military uprising in Barcelona • Owodo • Truce of Malestroit • HMS Noble (1915) • Liechtenstein in World War II • Ferré-class submarine • Java War • Hugh Roe O'Donnell • Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists • Fernald Feed Materials Production Center • Terrorism Confinement Center • Željko Mejakić • Dušan Knežević (war criminal) • Momčilo Gruban • Fiume question • Jingnan campaign • 1994 Serb Jastreb J-21 shootdown • Yongle Emperor • Cuscatlán Battalion • French ironclad Jemmapes • HMS Victory • Stanley Casson • Ben Roberts-Smith • Killing of Yahya Sinwar • Savannah River Site • Ninety Six, South Carolina • Leonard Parrington • Hongwu Emperor • Maria Mandl • Donavon F. Smith • Xuanwu Gate Incident • Beaune-la-Rolande internment camp • Sir James Affleck, 3rd Baronet Good article reassessments Battles of Lexington and Concord • 29th Infantry Division (United States) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (151,094) • only work on referencing and citation (43,192) • work on coverage and accuracy (126,804) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,947) • work on structure (32,286) • only work on structure (347) • work on grammar (8,199) • only work on grammar (51) • work on supporting materials (32,991) • only work on supporting materials (408) • assessment (6) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (12) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (8) • task forces added (3) • attention to task force coverage (648)

Requests for project input

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.

Requested move at Talk:Romanian revolution#Requested move 23 April 2025

This is a request to uppercase 'Romainian Revolution' which may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luhansk Oblast campaign order of battle

Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Islamist insurgency in the Sahel#Requested move 26 April 2025

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

DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Xiaolong (Chinese coast guardsman)

There is a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Xiaolong (Chinese coast guardsman) that may be of interest to members of this wikiproject. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Soviet Army#Requested move 22 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Soviet Army#Requested move 22 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. cyberdog958^Talk 06:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § List of Alexandrov Ensemble soloists

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § List of Alexandrov Ensemble soloists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on RSN about The Military History of the Third Century Iran by Ilkka Syvänne and Katarzyna Maksymiuk

There is a discussion on RSN about the reliability of this work, see WP:RSN#The Military History of the Third Century Iran. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Operation Brevity

There is a currently a discussion over on the talk page for Operation Brevity regarding whether the aforementioned military operation can properly be characterized as a "tank battle". Should you feel so inclined, please share your thoughts on the matter at Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"? Emiya1980 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What photo of the PLAGF aviation badge should I upload?

Im currently planning to upload the PLAGF aviation badge, however currently the best version of the badge is on baidu baike. Good news is, the reliability of the photo of the badge is backed up by Xinhua and People's Daily, however it has some background and lighting issues. Should I upload the baidu baike version and explain that it is backed up by reliable sources, or must I upload a screenshot the Xinhua/People's Daily version instead?

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

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

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

Battle of Hamek

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

I agree to some extent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Setergh@R3YBOl Wikipedia:Dashboard

Update:

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

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

@Setergh, Thehistorianisaac, and R3YBOl: There are several noticeboards where matters such as these can be posted to get administrator and even community consensus. One of the more general administrator noticeboards might be an appropriate one to report this. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and subdivisions such as incidents for the right one. Note the guidelines for posting and user talk page notice to a user being reported.

In addition to administrator noticeboards, for more general information on other noticeboards, as well see Wikipedia:Dashboard. Many of the of the topics listed in addition to the administrator boards seem to be single topic notice boards. I am not sure whether these are directly related to the main administrator notice boards. I also am not sure it is appropriate to list on several of these with respect to several problems caused by the same editor. In any event, these appear to include Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard It seems to me that this is the type of situation where trying to resolve issues on talk pages would be futile.

Note that while I am familiar with the existence of these noticeboards, I have almost no experience in using or commenting on them in nearly 15 years on Wikipedia. I am just bringing these to your attention, especially since some further action may be needed and you may wish to, and to be in the best position due to your familiarity with the problems, to take the action by reporting with the facts and your observations. This problem seems to require administrator attention and handling to make any real progress with it.Donner60 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Adding this note in case anyone will want to add to or correct what I wrote above - or in case you may want to pursue this in some way. This type of problem is not novel, of course. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I had asked on the (biggest) Wikipedia discord and I was told to go here, hence why I did. Setergh (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve taken a quick surveillance pass across the article; it does appear more as a minor footnote, and some of the language does suggest a particular point of view. That being said, unlinked articles from the battle article given in the header suggest some truth to what’s being reported, primarily within the greater context of the apparent Destruction of Kurdish villages during the Iraqi Arabization campaign which matches the year given. Under the circumstances, it may be more appropriate to redirect the article here for more context and better references. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

May have misunderstood, but have you found any better references to be exact? I don't fully understand what you mean by matching whatever year given, and I still have no clue what reliable sources may mention such a battle. Setergh (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding and apparent confusion here. The linked article in the header is given as Battle of Hamek, it claims that pershmergas fought Iraqi Baathist soldiers in 1982. According to the internet, Hamek is a village in the vicinity of kirkut. According to the article on kirkut, it was part of a major ethnic cleansing campaign from about the mid 70s to the late 80s (figure c.75-c.89). This fits the time frame the alleged battle occurred, suggesting that the battle may have been part of larger and then ongoing destruction of the Kurdish villages during the Iraqi arabization campaign. If so, then the article could be safely redirected to one of the Iraqi arabization pages to better cover the content. A further look back into the article history though shows that the article could have been hijacked, it’s first edits are about a more ancient battle, and a thread on Reddit [1] suggests there could be a copyright violation here as well. In short, we could redirect it, but if we are keeping it we need to roll up our sleeves and do a lot more work to either polish the article or better source the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Does this pass notability guidelines?

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

For evidence of notability and notability, tonnes of Chinese media/government agencies have covered the incident/have articles on him, including Xinhua, Beijing Daily, Nanfang Daily, the PLA/Chinese military website, the Shanwei Municipal Government, China Daily, Phoenix Television . Additionally, there have been multiple posthumous military decorations such as Meritorious Service Medal 1st Class, Martyr Status and the China Youth May 4th medal, and as stated above, he is the only known Chinese coast guardsman to die in the line of duty, and many similar US coast guardsmen(with similar awards and circumstances) have articles, such as William Flores, Charles W. Sexton and Nathan Bruckenthal.

P.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe my article should be a B class.

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

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

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

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

Battle of Kef (1705)

Hello! I need help finding more sources for my article: Draft:Battle of Kef (1705). I’ve only found one source which covers the battle, so I was wondering if any of you could help? TJ Kreen (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

On Chinese navy ship emblems(yet again)

I've been asking this for quite some time already, but I think i should ask again:

Can Chinese ship emblems be uploaded? Currently, to avoid any issues I just add an external media template.

But seeing how military insignia fall under the PRC copyright law's article 5(" laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof;"), may I ask again if navy ship emblems can be uploaded or at least given non free fair use? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: can I hear your opinions pls? obviously a external media template is fine, but it would be much better to have the ship badge itself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that miscellaneous navy images would fall under Article 5; that language is pretty narrowly tailored, unlike US copyright law that exempts "[any] work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" from copyright protection. Many countries have language similar to the PRC's, and as far as I understand, it has always been interpreted much more narrowly. They generally only apply to literal laws, government proclamations, etc., not anything that the government creates. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean in navy insignia. Military insignia is under it if I remember correctly, so why not navy ship insignia Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe either of those would be covered by Article 5. Where did you read that it applies to those? Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Nearly every single military/government insignia file cites article 5. Idk if it is the template but that's what happened Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Just because people are using a template doesn't mean they're using it correctly ;) There are probably millions of incorrectly licensed images on Commons because people either do not understand or do not care about copyright law. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but it's used on practically every insignia on wikipedia. If i remember correctly, I think I was also told the same thing by another user on wikimedia commons help desk. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Article 5 states ", other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof; "

I think this can be interpreted as(or has been interpreted as) including insignia and emblems of military units, gov agencies and so on. What matters is whether navy ships insignia should also receive the same treatment of mil unit insignia. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any way that a unit logo could be interpreted to be an "administrative document". We're talking about the equivalent of laws, executive orders, judicial decisions, etc. If the Chinese government intended to make any work produced by itself to be free of copyright, they would have said so. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Parsecboy. The wording seems to specifically refer to written documents. CMD (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20250225115857/http://gjw.gxzf.gov.cn/xwdt/gzdt/t12660000.shtml - Guangxi Regional Department of veteran affairs on the Guangxi's emblem - it cites the PLAN account on Weixin for the photos

https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074401/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/con/2023-04/24/3613_824304.html - Anhui Provincial national defense education office on ship emblems - it says the source is the Chinese military on weixin but never explicitly mentions the photos. The text at the bottom says "all use of photos without permission is not allowed", however this is not elaborated further.

Same article as above is also found on beijing daily https://news.bjd.com.cn/2023/04/23/10408220.shtml, which also cites the chinese military on weixin. Beijing daily copyright statement(https://www.bjd.com.cn//common/about.html?name=%E7%89%88%E6%9D%83%E5%A3%B0%E6%98%8E) states(my simplified translated version):

1. All media on the beijing daily website is subject to PRC copyright law
2. If content on beijing daily is used for commercial or advertising purposes, there must be written permission first and there must also be attribution.
3. without permission, no media or individual can copy or recreate stuff from the beijing daily website

I sort of have problems finding the PLAN on weixin, if not any account on weixin as I don't have the app, which basically leads us to a dead end.

Ultimately, the main goal is to find the PLAN's written copyright.

Additionally, may I ask if it turns out that the article 5 thing has been misinterpreted(most insignia images do come from sources where article 5 does apply, e.g. the PAP flag, and I doubt that this article 5 has been misused considering the scale that it has been used), then would the entirety of Chinese government agency and military unit insignias need to be removed?

Personally, I sort of doubt article 5 has been misused, considering the scale of which it was used, and that even though it seems to refer primarily to written documents, i think insignia technically counts in both section 1 and 2. It likely does not apply to government photos(e.g. MOD website photos) but i think insignia are not really covered properly here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis@Parsecboy

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg

PRC flag also cites article 5. Again, may be someone using it wrongly, and I do agree that the wording sounds like it was meant for written articles, but I'm starting to really doubt the extent of misuse here.

Additionally, on wording, PRC copyright law article 3 states it also applies to photographic works in section 3. So even though it is worded for written documents, the copyright law also applies to photos. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The national and PAP flags likely do not meet the Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality, so should be fine. The use of a licence of Commons does not imply it is right, licences are misapplied on Commons all the time. Copyright does apply to photos, but that doesn't affect Article 5. Article 3 defines 作品, whereas Article 5 is about specific 具, which is clearly a subset. CMD (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thehistorianisaac - I see you've been editing here for a couple of years; I've been here for 19, and have been active in the copyright space for more than a decade. Believe me when I tell you that misuse of copyright tags is rampant. A particular favorite of mine is the assumption that because we don't know the identity of some European image now, the photo was published anonymously 80 years ago, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies. No, that's not what the law requires; they have to have been published anonymously originally, which is generally very difficult to prove (i.e., how do you know what the original publication is?)

In your situation, just because some part of the Chinese government produced an image does not mean that it's automatically PD. Again, if they had intended to make a blanket rule like you interpret Article 5 to mean, they would have simply said as much. I realize that's not the answer you want, and frankly, there are plenty of cases where I've been frustrated by stupid copyright law (for example, paintings by Willy Stöwer without a definitive date of publication may still be copyrighted in the US, despite the fact that they've been out of copyright in Germany for over two decades, which means I can't use them). It is what it is, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I also agree with the fact that not all Chinese government produced images are PD, and I do agree that misuse of tags is very rampant. But as @Chipmunkdavis, there is threshold of originality, which may apply to some of the ship emblems, especially Chinese frigate Xuzhou's emblem or Chinese frigate Xianning's emblem.

Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but does commons have special copyright rules on insignia, and are navy ship insignias covered by them? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Bamyan (Mongol Empire)

Hello i have an article called the Siege of Bamyan that happened in 1221 by Genghis Khan of the Mongol Empire against Jalal al-Din Mangburni and i am trying week by week to find good sources on internet archive to improve and expand my article because at the moment it’s a okay size i guess but other articles like Siege of Bukhara and Siege of Merv (1221) and Battle of Parwan are written a lot lot better but mines is just eh not that good like those articles and im trying to make my article like them

But anyways i was wondering if anyone would be willing to maybe help expand my article? I can also help aswell Shadow. 547 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Maurice_Rose

Ref-desk question, if you have any wisdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category Query

I've come across some categorisation which is bothering me somewhat. For example:

• Lewis Halliday, a Royal Marine, is categorised as Category:Royal Navy recipients of the Victoria Cross. It looks like all Royal Marine recipients are included in that category—in my opinion mistakenly. Halliday's case seems to date all the way back to 2008.
• Ernest John Spooner, a Royal Navy rear-admiral I came across recently, is categorised as Category:Royal Navy admirals of World War II, despite not being an admiral. It seems that British flag officer of the era has been dumped in that category regardless of their actual rank—again, mistakenly in my opinion.

I know that American subjects have more specific categories, for example Category:United States Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients (for the marine example) and Category:United States Navy rear admirals.

So which is right? Or is their a third way? Comment welcome. I've had a look to see if there's anything on the project page on this or in the archives but did not get very far. —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I think if there is a subcategory that would certainly be better. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)