Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history

message: Japanese ships are considered male, not female.  Accordingly, I changed the pronoun on the pages of three Japanese WWII cruisers, but this got reverted.  Is this not an example of cultural insensitivity? Other Choices (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, do you have a reliable source for that? Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have an article, Japanese ship-naming conventions, and while it doesn't say anything about gender, FWIW there're a a few lines like "Converted warship; put the initial Ōtori (Hō) (鳳, phoenix) after her name", "Converted merchant ship; put the initial Taka (Yō) (鷹, falcon/hawk) after her name" and so forth, which would tend to militate against your OPs point I suppose. It's possible that these are just careless, but the article looks to have been carefully written by editors who seem to know their stuff. Herostratus (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

text: No, it's an example of common usage in the English language, this being English Wikipedia and all! Japanese Wikipedia can do what it wants. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Call the ship "it" and you'll be fine. -ProhibitOnions (T) 07:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This gendering of inanimate objects was quaint and silly, but is increasingly becoming outright problematic. Just avoid it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all problematic. Common English usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

text: "not that simple and straight-forward" - Well, yes, it is. If you see a "she" replace it with "it". As simple and straight-forward as can be. (If the sentence is complex and already has an "it" in it refering to something else, you can use "the ship" or the name of the ship.)  "can lead to more problems" - Name one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's just that your advice to just: "..." appears to directly contradict , part of the MilHist MoS here, as well as , from over on the main MoS page. Along with those two, and other P&G that may apply, we also had a fairly extensive RfC on female pronouns for ships just last year. There was no consensus to either eliminate existing pronouns in articles or to prevent use of such pronouns going forward. So when you have such significant feedback from the community, as well as at least two established guidelines on the matter, I'll again say that to advise people to ignore all that and even edit against it, is bad advice. If someone want to change an already existing "she" to "it" in an established ship article, or use "it" when adding new content to an article that already has the use of "she" established within that article, then there are processes they need to follow. That is the advice you should be giving. But, I'm fairly certain you already know this, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. (But this is longer than I intended so I'm not gonna ask either.) - wolf 11:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "appears to directly contradict WP:SHIPPRONOUNS" – The entire nature of this discussion is that SHIPPRONOUNS does not actually have consensus to say what it does. Its permissiveness with regard to "she" has been opposed many times by many editors. If this discussion doesn't resolve the matter, as previous ones have failed, then this needs to be RfCed at WP:VPPOL and actually settled permanently (one way or the other). It is not sustainable to have perpetual dispute about the validity of a guideline line-item continuing for another several years. Even the so-called guideline as it stands now is  not  the "she" usage, so it is not in fact a guideline (it's an ego-sop proving no guidance, just throwing up its hands and declaring a stalemate). Situations like this (e.g. the one about whether or not to capitalize the common names of bird species, and another "do it either way" bit we had about "Jr." or ", Jr." with a comma) do not last indefinitely, because they automatically lead to continued editorial strife, but the secondary purpose of our style guidelines in the first place is  that strife (the primary one is presenting intelligible and consistent material to our readers, of course).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

text: English generally uses natural gender, but many languages do not, with some languages having only masculine and feminine genders. In formal English, it's generally best not to use gender with inanimate objects, including for ships. That's as far as we to need to take the argument. BilCat (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But not for many others. Just a personal preference on your parts. Many of us clearly prefer the traditional usage and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Personally, I find it odd if I see a ship referred to as "it". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'm OK with "she" also. Why make the world a more cold and logical and genderless place. A ship is not a building, it is more a live thing and has been so considered by mariners for millenia. If we had "xe" (and xem and xyr and xemself) that'd solve it I guess. But we don't. FWIW, for my part, I don't consider "it" to be necessarily culturally progressive or woman-empowering or whatever if that's the overall reason for the whole conflict [narrator: it is]. I'd want to think on it more and see data. For now, let it go and go concentrate on, I don't know, advocating for us putting female thespians under the male term ("actor"), or something. Herostratus (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Except a ship absolutely is not a live thing (see definition of life), and absolutely is a building (an architectural and engineering construction in which people and/or objects are housed), just one that happens to float on water. This kind of excessive romanticism/fantasticism is a large part of why WP should not engage in Victorian "she" usage in regard to the inanimate. It's akin to magical thinking (and is in fact rooted in actual magical thinking, the superstitions of pre-modern mariners). It's an irrationality that does a disservice to our readers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter how many times you snidely imply that "she" is old-fashioned, "Victorian" or no longer used by anyone except old fuddy-duddies, it doesn't make it true or any more than an opinion on your part. The Royal Navy still uses "she" when referring to ships, for a start. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but please do not suggest that those who do not hold it are in any way wrong or that Wikipedia should adhere to your views. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not written to conform to military or other governmentese writing style. And just because I didn't shoot a firehose of citations in your face doesn't mean I don't have any and am just going by my own opinion. From under 1 minute worth of research time here's a whole bunch of material against she for ships (including British sources; so much for any attempt make a WP:ENGVAR case):  and  (page down to section on controversy).  And plenty on why the practice is sexist (even if it may not have linguistically originated that way): Adm. Chester Nimitz: "A ship is always referred to as 'she' because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder." "Vehicles, including ships, cars, trains and even engines often take the feminine gender, especially in informal contexts and when spoken of by men ('My car, she’s a beauty.') ... Seafarers, historians and writers alike provide various reasons for the tradition of calling ships she, ranging from viewing a vessel as a motherly, womb-like, life-sustaining figure to jokingly likening a ship to a woman who is expensive to keep and needs a man to guide her and a lick of paint to look good." Adm. Alan West: "Ships are called 'she' because they protect and nurture like mothers."   Connection to [pagan] religious/mythological notions: . This is all just from the first page of search results. Someone with more time on their hands could probably do a review of what current style guides are saying.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they could just dig up the last time it was discussed here. The point is though that you are seeking a WP:local consensus on MilHist to overrule the MOS guideline which says  (WP:SHIPPRONOUNS) This guide for warships restates the global consensus (and the wording) of our guidelines for merchant ships at WP:SHE4SHIPS and generally at  WP:Gender-neutral language#Ships.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. I'm the leading critic against wikiprojects trying to declare "local consensus" against site-wide guidelines. What I'm doing is addressing the source (this particular wikiproject) of the reason that MoS still has wishy-washy permissive language about "she" for ships in it.  I'm going after the root cause. The more minds change in here, then the next time that MoS line-item comes up in an RfC, the more likely the "she" stuff is to be removed. Virtually no one else on WP has a wild hare for "she" and ships; it's all coming from MILHIST participants (well, maybe a handful of people in tranport/transit-related wikiprojects as well, but I'd bet most of them overlap with MILHIST editors).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is never going to get beyond a WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT discussion. You're not going to prove you're right by providing citations, as they're all merely opinion, just like your stance is merely opinion. The status quo is the best way to go. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. If that reasoning held, we'd never adjust our style guide, ever, or even entertain discussions about doing so. But we do, and they're always based on what RS are currently doing, both what style guides are recommending and what the observable use across sources is shifting to. And they pretty much never have a immediate "we'll discuss this just once" impact, but are repeat discussions over a long period of time, with mounting evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence and opinion, however, are entirely different things. And this is merely based on opinion on both sides. As I said, WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating the same assertion over and over again isn't a cogent argument. And it's basically hypocricial "I DONTLIKE your position" opinion-mongering on your part. LOL  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese ships: "he" not "she" 

message: *I consider that this is sufficiently precise and clear, gets to the subject immediately, and is compliant with the naming convention for split lists. There may be some orders of battle that don't fit this format, but they should be rare. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  could an uninvolved coord please assess the consensus and close this discussion? Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion/suggestions

message: *Support per above. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Support/Oppose

message: Should dot (bullet) points be allowed in the results section?
This proposal was kick-started from a brief question I had related to if dot points are allowed in combat infoboxes. As stated by , the MOS specifically states what is and isn’t allowed. In this specific instance, there isn’t anything about dot/bullet points. No yes or in-fact no no. This surprised me, so I looked at the archives here and also found nothing about it. Below, I have included screenshots from European theatre of World War II, which shows it with bullet points (currently not allowed under MOS) and without bullet points.
This is not the only instance where dot/bullet points are (in this case were) used. Some of the most searched articles have them currently as well. Some examples are Attack on Pearl Harbor, Pacific War, Battle of Britain, Italian campaign (World War II), and ongoing events like 2023 Israel–Hamas war & 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. That said, some of the most searched articles also do not have them. Some examples are Battle of Midway, Battle of Iwo Jima, Battle of Gettysburg, Siege of Yorktown, and ongoing/recent events like 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel & Russian invasion of Ukraine & Siege of Gaza City.
In some fashion, we need a discussion/hard decision to either allow them or not allow them, since the most-searched articles are entirely mixed on the debate.
So, I propose that MOS:MIL allow for the inclusion of dot/bullet points for articles when appropriate. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone explain exactly where it says bullet points are not allowed in infoboxes, per the statement above "bullet points (currently not allowed under MOS)"? I can't see it. Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: At WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX:  (see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which says nothing about bullet points. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 10:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It explicitly say what is permitted. It says nothing about bullet points. See also below. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a piece of legislation. I consider you are being far too prescriptive with your interpretation. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

text: The two screenshots above aren't showing a difference of using a bullet list versus using some other list format, they're showing a difference of including a lot of detail (which happens to be in a bullet list) and not including a bunch of detail that possibly more properly belongs in the article body and isn't good to include in an infobox (e.g. because it might be oversimplication, easy to misinterpret, or otherwise problematic, though I'm not personally making those arguments about those specific list items). It appears to me that this discussion (aside from terminological confusion) has been completely mis-framed as being about bulleted list items when it is about detail level. It doesn't seem pertinent to this page, since it's a content dispute, and it belongs at Talk:Battle of Kherson.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of answered my question anyway. Was it a content dispute, yes, but reasoning in the dispute was MOS. You both just basically said it isn't a MOS issue, which plain and simply answered my generic question. Bullet points are allowed. Thanks y'all! The discussion will continue at the article talk page. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

text: At WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX:  (see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). At Template:Infobox military conflict:  Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE:  The template documentation for the result parameter makes it clear that the parameter is for who won and not for ancillary information consequential on who won (or didn't). Multiple dot points are usually used to show such ancillary information. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE:  Adding such additional ancillary information is arguably writing the article in the infobox and contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead. Such detail, if sufficiently key should be written into the lead, since such points are more prose like than single words or simple phrase. The infobox is unsuited to nuance and more complex detail usually represented by dot-point, where they do occur. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Parham wiki (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that what we are discussing is bullet points against the "Result" parameter, then I think Cinderella has summarised the position well. Bullet points more generally in the infobox is a completely different discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  this discussion has arisen because of addition and removal of bullet points against the result parameter. If the OP is a bit unclear on this, I think it is reasonable to construe the question to be about the result parameter (only). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dot (Bullet) Points - Proposal to allow 

message: The name  has been changed. Also, nothing has been written about  and other infoboxes. Parham wiki (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Should WP:MILMOS#TANKS be abolished? Schierbecker (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per nom Loafiewa (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Support Doesn't seem to have been followed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Support No need to have a guideline that has not been followed. In addition it would likely be difficult, or at least a big chore, to find and revise current article titles. I surmise that most, if not all, interested searchers will include only the name of a tank in the search without adding the word "tank". They would find the article whether or not the word is included in the search. If the article title is ambiguous, the proposal would not preclude inclusion of the word "tank". Donner60 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that someone after information on a Patton tank will likely key in "Patton tank", knowing that most hits from the search engine will be for the general. Keying in "Patton" to the Wikipedia will give you the article on the general, and you will then click on Patton (disambiguation) which in turn will point you to Patton tank, a set index article that will ask you if you want the M46, M47, M48 or M60 models. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Support however, there is a very specific issue of WP:PRECISION with less well-known bits of kit, which the current MILMOS doesn't have any guidance for. As an ex-Army officer with nearly three decades service and a pretty good knowledge of WWII and Cold War military hardware, I believe I am "a person familiar with the general subject area" per WP:CONCISE, but I didn't know what a TOG2 was. Where a tank (or other bit of kit of any size) has a well-known and recognised name (such as Tiger), or the "model number" and the name together (such as M4 Sherman) are well-known to relate to a tank, that is just fine. However, TOG1 and TOG2 were obscure British heavy tank prototypes in WWII, and it seems to me that in such obscure cases, where there is no "name" such as Patton or Sherman to go with the "model number", then at least "tank" should be included as natural disambiguation so that the article title meets the requirement that "usually titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". In reality, any short alphanumeric combination standing alone is inherently ambiguous in nearly every case (obviously some of the well-known examples above are exceptions, as few who are vaguely familiar with WWII could fail to know what a T-34 is), as it could relate to any piece of equipment or component or even be the international code for something that is not physical. Here is an example of what I mean: yesterday I saw a series of articles about Soviet/Russian ballistic vests that had been titled using their GRAU index, eg 6B23 only. 6B23 could relate to just about anything, and in fact is also the code for hypochondriasis under the International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Adding "ballistic vest" to 6B23 as natural disambiguation unambiguously defines what the scope of the article is, and provides for a "more natural and recognizable title" (per WP:PRECISION) than the alphanumeric code alone. I consider we should try to distil this idea into some guidance to replace MILMOS#TANKS but relating to all types of kit. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples show such general guidance would be helpful. Donner60 (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if we divided them into a few types: those bits of kit that are so well-known that they can be identified by just their alphanumeric code (such as the T-34 or AMX-30) or name, (such as Merkava) - with or without a model number such as Challenger 2 or Tiger I (a subset of which would be those that need the natural disambiguation of "tank" due to not being the primary topic, like Chieftain tank and Centurion tank); those that need both a code and name, (like M48 Patton and M4 Sherman); and those where their alphanumeric code/type/model is so generic as to be ambiguous, (such as Type 74 and TOG2), where natural disambiguation of "tank" is also needed. Can anyone think of other variations? I've used tanks to demonstrate the types of titles, but they would equally apply to AK-47 and FG 42, Panzerfaust, Modular Tactical Vest and Walther PP, FN Minimi, M16 rifle, M60 machine gun, 6B23 ballistic vest etc. The aim here is to give guidance not create a hard and fast set of rules. Thoughts? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles follow the Make-Model convention. (e.g. General Dynamics Griffin). Schierbecker (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Many heavies, especially prototypes, have received a recognition boost from authors like R. P. Hunnicutt and games like World of Tanks and WarThunder. It's difficult to say what will be recognizable to the average reader. Schierbecker (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that reflects what the general reader will know. The ones above, like Soviet tank models, are extremely well known due to blanket coverage about WWII and during the Cold War. Do you have some examples you would like to suggest wouldn't need disambiguation? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight), M8 Armored Gun System, Main Ground Combat System, Panzer 68, Chonma-ho and Ariete. I have an arbitrary personal preference for article titles that are somewhere between five and 40 characters long. Something like T-95 would be an edge case for me as the title is already very short and the tank is relatively unknown. Schierbecker (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Support with guidance to replace it, as suggested by . Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Support per Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose  Include tank or (tank) in article title to clarify what this thing is to the reader is adequate for me. [clarified/corrected wording] -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just making sure that you know this is a proposal to abolish this policy? I am confused by your wording. Schierbecker (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

text: * OK, I'll correct that to oppose. My preference is to only use "tank" in the name where it may be needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Support: This isn't needed. Tank articles, like all articles, already have enough "guidance", and despite that, it appears that, in many cases at least, that common sense has prevailed when it comes to the naming of tank articles. (jmho) - wolf 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What emerging consensus do you detect, ? Just to be clear what is being agreed to here. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A compromise to name every tank "Gavin". I was actually hoping you could suggest language to replace the current guideline. Schierbecker (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Peacemaker67 Seems like several participants are waiting for you to suggest a text to replace the current guideline with. They appreciated what you said about it. NLeeuw (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to abolish [[WP:MILMOS#TANKS]] 

message: There seems to me a tendency of some to over-police the results parameter guidance in the MILMOS, and I think that is because it is too prescriptive, effectively seeking to ban some results from being placed in the infobox. We need to make it clear in the guidance that the MILMOS does not trump the academic consensus on the result of a given battle or campaign. Style should not be permitted to trump the academic consensus on the substance. There certainly are battles that resulted in a Pyrrhic victory according to the academic consensus, and the MILMOS can be used as a bludgeon to try to remove the result that is clearly indicated by the academic consensus from an infobox. I think some modification of the wording needs to be made to better reflect the above. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-policing of results parameter