Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174

Italian Army units

Good Day, I am in the middle of a long term project of creating articles for all Italian Army units, which have received battle flags and been active after World War 2. This includes some 300 units, and so far I have finished about 110 articles. I would like to request more experienced editors to have a look at the articles below, as I believe these are not "Start" level articles any longer. There are also 27 articles rated as "C-class", which I would request other editors to have a look at and see if they are more than that class now. A further 17 articles regarding the army's cavalry regiments are rated C-class, but I will write longer introduction for these before submitting them here. Last but not least there are 40 articles rated B-class, some of which might deserve a second look. After finishing with the cavalry I will begin adding the remaining infantry regiments. Thank you, noclador (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Start:

C-class

B-class

I will look at these on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Noclador: Great work here. The problem is that everything needs referencing. Otherwise, the article will be C class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: thank you Hawkeye7 for having taken the time and looked at them. I always put the referencing at the end of the paragraphs, does it to have to come after every sentence? noclador (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
One reference per paragraph is just fine. But all the paragraphs in the body require references. If you look at 1st Regiment "Granatieri di Sardegna", for example, the "Structure" section lacks references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Got it. Source for the structure is the Italian Ministry of Defense's unit contact page, which lists every office and independent company and battalion of all Italian regiments and wings, but does not list subunits of battalions. Therefore I copied the battalion structures from the Italian wikipedia, where that info is available. Will check if I can update those sections. Thank you, noclador (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

2003 Bawean incident

2003 Bawean incident article is interesting, but it looks a lot like it is a near copy paste of google translation of a blogspot.com blog. Does anyone else want to take a look at it and maybe salvage the parts that are not blog sourced? F-16 photo looks lifted from a website and improperly licensed. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The blogspot looks to have copied heavily from this article from kompas but I don't know how reliable that is either, from their "inspiration" section. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

B-class checklist

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to change B-class checklist behaviour — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Major-General Herbert Stewart

Hello all. Just over from WP:CRICKET. Hope it is okay to leave this request here. I am currently expanding articles on Hampshire cricketers and next on my list was Major-General Herbert Stewart. However, I quickly realised that to expand his military career sufficiently would probably require someone with written sources about him, as he seems to be far more interesting and extensively written about than a simple second lieutenant in the Hampshire Regiment! Hoping someone can expand his military career subheading. Cheers, StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Use of 12 or 24-hour time

Should 12-hour, 24-hour, or military 24-hour time be used in articles pertaining to military history? Iseult Δx parlez moi 22:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the first of two RfCs I intend to open today; in the interest of placing the least burden on editors’ time; these will be RfCs of limited scope. I chose to open RfCs in the interest of resolving ambiguities decisively and somewhat proactively. An example article wherein the question of style occurs is Franklin–Nashville campaign. Iseult Δx parlez moi 22:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey (time)

  • Use 12-hour time by default or 24-hour time; do not use military time. The alternatives provide no further specificity—all formats provide specific hours and minutes—and military 24-hour time (that without the colon) is entirely absent from MOS:TIME. Indeed, the guideline takes care to note that 24-hour time is written with the colon. MOS:TIME also states that the choice of 12- or 24-hour time is context-dependent; I think that, similarly to WP:ENGVAR, we ought to give precedence to the dominant practice of time-styling to which the article subject is either most closely related or to reflect broader scholarship upon which the article is based. If no such connection is immediately obvious, I suggest 12-hour time; we must meet our readers where they are and give them the mercy of a time format with which they are most familiar. The majority of the English-language countries by population prefer 12-hour time; the U.S. and India alone tip the scales. As always, I must note that ARBCOM has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style. Iseult Δx parlez moi 22:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I have notified the readers at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers of this discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Use semantic markup and let the user choose. Paradoctor (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Use the same style as the consensus of RSs. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Wrong venue. The place to have a discussion like this is WT:MOSNUM, and see also WP:RFCBEFORE: you open a discussion first, then if it cannot come to a consensus resolution, later open an RfC to bring in more editors. For the record, I oppose any change to MOS:TIME or MOS:MILFORMAT without one helluva rationale for it. MOS:TIME in particular leaves the 12/24-hour choice up to editorial consensus at a particular article, and even for military topics it's going to depend on the military in question. The status quo is not broken, so there is nothing to fix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant and anachronistic. The vast majority of human history was before the advent of 24-hour notation or even the ability to actually tell time more accurately than specific hours. And I'm not even talking about standard 3600-second hours as we know it, but rather hours adjusted to the length of the season (shorter in winter, longer in summer). I'm from a 24-hour country myself but I would find it patently absurd to write "By 18:00 the Swedes had lost two flagships along with two fleet admirals" in an article like Battle of Öland. Whatever is behind this request, it's absolutely nothing that should be solved by imposing special dinky MoS standards for military history articles, regardless of time period. Peter Isotalo 10:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Use 12-hour time; exception: discretion of original author for modern military history. Note that this is not theoretical because a change from 12-hour to 24-hour time in an American Civil War article has been made and perhaps this could spread to other American Civil War articles or articles about military history before recent times. I agree with Peter Isolao. No contemporaries and no historians of whom I am aware use 24-hour time for books or articles preceding the adoption of that notation. American and English writers and readers would not find this to be easy to digest even in writing and reading about modern military matters but I would leave the use for articles after the adoption of the 24-hour notation to discretion of the original author as SMcCandlish suggests. (I would hope and assume they would not convert from the clock time used by the sources.) There is no reason to make a change to the time originally adopted for the article in discussion here and good reasons not to change. As stated in the article Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style."
  • I do think this is a proper venue for discussion about the use of time in military history articles because it arose due to a discussion about changes to a military history article. Also, use of 12-hour time is the usual convention by English and American historians (modern times perhaps excepted) and would be easier for the reader.
  • Note the article 12-hour clock. From the lead: "The 12-hour time convention is common in several English-speaking nations and former British colonies, as well as a few other countries." From the section of that article "Use by country": "In several countries the 12-hour clock is the dominant written and spoken system of time, predominantly in nations that were part of the former British Empire, for example, the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, the United States, Canada (excluding Quebec), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and others follow this convention as well, such as Mexico and the former American colony of the Philippines."
  • I will add a few examples from books about the Franklin-Nashville campaign to support my reference to use by historians and to further suggest why use of the 24-clock is unwarranted in such articles and the one under discussion in particular. In Jacobson, Eric A., and Richard A. Rupp. For Cause & for Country: A Study of the Affair at Spring Hill and the Battle of Franklin. Second Edition, the authors use 12-hour time e.g. p. 99: "around 2 p.m., p. 274: "about 1:30 p.m.", p. 448: "7 p.m. attacks". (The authors use the same abbreviations for rank used originally in the article under discussion in the next RfC which conform to the MOS.) In the pages on the Battle of Franklin in Eicher, David J. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. p. 773 map: "Franklin, Tennessee, November 30, 1864, 3:30 p.m., p 774: "By 9:00 p.m.". In Knight, James R. Hood's Tennessee Campaign: The Desperate Venture of a Desperate Man p. 66: "at 4:30 p.m.", p. 133: "at about 2:30 p.m." In McDonough, James L., and Thomas L. Connelly. Five Tragic Hours: The Battle of Franklin. p. 90: "Then by 3 p.m.", p. 126: "From dusk until about 9 o'clock that night". (Also some rank abbreviations as in MOS.) Gillum, Jamie. Twenty-five Hours to Tragedy: The Battle of Spring Hill and Operations on November 29, 1864 Precursor to the Battle of Franklin. p. 101: "1:00 P.M.", p. 270: "4:45 P.M." In Horn, Stanley F. The Decisive Battle of Nashville p. 105: "until 5:00 p.m." p. 127: "'About 4 p.m.,' Bates continues". There are a.m. and other p.m. examples. The point is to give examples of historians' use of the 12-hour clock, which are best shown by p.m. examples. Checking citations to these books and many others about the American Civil War will not show 24-hour clock time. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Wrong venue per SMcCandlish. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iseult, Jc3s5h, Paradoctor, SMcCandlish, Peter Isotalo, Peacemaker67, Mathglot, Hhfjbaker, Necrothesp, Gog the Mild, Tony1, Tony1, Parsecboy, and Nick-D: The other RfC about change to military rank (grade) abbreviations, stemming for a discussion with respect to changes to the Franklin-Nashville campaign article, appears to have reached a consensus. So I am noting the continuation of this RfC topic on another page here. Since I wrote the last and longest comment on this topic, and others have stated this is the wrong venue, I have opened a new RfC on the Talk:Franklin-Nashville campaign which appears to be the proper venue for the question raised in this RfC according to the guideline page. I have included the request for notice to the recipients on the History and geography and Wikipedia policies and guidelines lists. I will post my comments there after the notice is issued. It appears appropriate to ping the contributors to both of the RfCs about changes to the same article in case they are not on the notice lists and wish to make a comment on the page where this topic has just been opened. Thanks to all for their interest in these topics. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (time)

Iseult, May I ask what prompted you to raise this Rfc? Where is the previous discussion? Is there an outstanding problem with real-world examples, and a deadlocked argument about this? If not, would you consider just converting it to a regular discussion, to see if there is even an issue? An Rfc can be a significant expenditure of editor time. (Summoned by bot) Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: in short, IAR; previous discussion can be found here. The real-world examples can be found in the example article linked in my accompanying nomination statement and also here, here, and here, among others. I originally intended to pose a simple question here or to resolve this on my own through discussion, but my counterpart seems to prefer a referral, and, in any case, I saw the discussion becoming intractable through specific reasoning used therein; also, this venue seemed too inactive. I'm not strictly opposed to converting this into a regular discussion, but if this is an issue now, and this has spread across tens of pages, better to resolve this now, proactively, and amicably, before it snowballs too much. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your comments, and let's see how it proceeds. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Abbreviations of rank

Should abbreviations of rank, when used, conform to the style Brig. Gen. for Brigadier General as per or can NATO abbreviations of rank be substituted for the abbreviations shown in the table of military ranks in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia? Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the second of two RfCs I intend to open today; in the interest of placing the least burden on editors’ time; these will be RfCs of limited scope. I chose to open RfCs in the interest of resolving ambiguities decisively and somewhat proactively. An example article wherein the question of style occurs is Franklin–Nashville campaign. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Conform to the MOS table. NATO abbreviations are outside WP guidelines, and use of them in articles unrelated to NATO is questionable. Most readers are not meaningfully affiliated with NATO militaries; the table abbreviations provide greater context of the abbreviated words and do not lose specificity. Space considerations are relatively immaterial; in the example article linked, changes to abbreviations of rank saved merely 147 bytes. That is less than the size of the redirect [MOS:TIME]. Then again, we must note the last bits of the lede of MOS:ABBR: Always consider whether it is better to write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper. The table abbreviations strike a happy medium. The prevalent use of these abbreviations also their relative utility in an public encyclopedic context. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Ignore NATO. NATO has no special status in Wikipedia. Editors should not have to burden their minds about whether a particular military member served with a country that was a NATO member during the member's career. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) A bit o/t, but at some point, someone might want to ask a question about foreign ranks that, unlike German, say, look almost identical or are cognates of English ones. I've seen some recent changes to an article having a connection with France, where someone changed "Brigadier General" to "Brigade general", because it was apparently closer to what the French rank is, or was. Don't remember which article, but I could probably scare it up if it's important. Mathglot (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. In general we should not abbreviate ranks at all. There's no need for it. We should also use the actual rank for non-English-speaking countries, not tie ourselves in knots trying to find the equivalent (and is that the Commonwealth equivalent or the American equivalent?), which is highly subjective in any case. And I loathe these weird translations of foreign ranks in Wikipedia articles (e.g. counter admiral). For the most part, translations that are almost never used in the real world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Stick with what the MoS says. If there is a desire to change the MoS, this is not the appropriate venue. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Per Dog and Jc3s5h. Tony (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I generally take a dim view of prescriptivist motions like this. So long as the article is internally consistent and no one is making up abbreviations, any style should be acceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Stick with MoS, as the abbreviations specified there are more intelligible to more readers. NATO has no special influence over WP style, which is based on that of the main academic style guides and of predominant usage in independent reliable sources. An observation above is also correct that this is not the venue for changing MoS or creating contextual exceptions to it; the proper venue for that is WT:MOS or more specifically in this case WT:MOSABBR. Trying to do it via wikiproject is an obvious WP:CONLEVEL failure; the very reason we have CONLEVEL policy at all is a history of wikiprojects trying to override policies and guidelines in "their" topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Generally, stick with the MOS - aint broke don't fix it. Per above, there a very few instances where rank abbreviations should be used in an article and internal consistency is the primary consideration. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, I guess I can see this as more of a situation like Cinderella157 says. Uncle. Boo Boo (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I have the same view as Necrothesp in that I would prefer not to use abbreviations as it is easier on the reader and Wikipedia does not have space limitations. (I think repeating the officer's name is also good and clear practice.) If necessary, I would suggest following the primary author when using abbreviations is proper under the MOS. So stick with the MOS; and I think Cinderella157 puts it well.
  • In my opinion this RfC (and the one above) should not be viewed negatively. It resulted from a friendly discussion on the user's talk page about changes to rank (grade) abbreviations made to an existing American Civil War article. Other users might well not have noticed and expressed an opinion, even if it had been on the article talk page. The article was already both consistent and in line with the MOS on this very topic. The discussion did not produce an agreement and rather than arguing about it, or edit warring, the users (editors) agreed to refer it here. I think this is an issue of particular interest to military history article editors and writers. When all circumstances are considered, I think the users have proceeded reasonably, politely and in good faith. Donner60 (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Stick with MoS per SMcCandlish. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologize. Please see my comment below. Boo Boo (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Ignore NATO: NATO abbreviations should have no bearing on an international encyclopedia. It's silly. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (ranks RfC)

  • As with the RfC above this, why has this RfC been opened? Is this seeking to resolve an actual disagreement, or is there some other motivation? This doesn't seem like a great use of editors' time. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D: Changes to all caps NATO ranks and 24-hour time rather than 12-hour time were made to an article, Franklin-Nashville Campaign and are still there as of this posting. (IT appears they may be changed back soon based on consensus.) The changes are contrary to the MOS and common usage as I note in my comment above. The changes were discussed between the user who made them and the user who posted the RfCs on the talk page of the user who made them. The discussion was not posted on the talk page of the article but I came across them when I looked into whether there was any basis of discussion for the changes which really appeared out of order. The user defended the changes that he had made but I now see a later entry on the page which indicates that he would abide by the consensus of an RfC on this page. The discussion was friendly and polite but did not reach an agreement. I think there was some reason to be concerned that these changes might spread - or at least be retained in that article when they were not consistent with the MOS and common usage. In another such situation, I might well bring up such changes in an RfC here or perhaps in another venue for dispute resolution if that might be more appropriate rather than engage in a further discussion that had not brought about a satisfactory resolution and could become impolite or even in an edit war. So I think the two RfCs are based on an actual disagreement and is justified and in good faith as noted above. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes, if anyone wants to change them back to MOS, feel free. I am knee-deep in some other articles and will not be able to get back to make the edits for at least a week. I was wrong in doing those changes. Please forgive me, I thought I was improving the article. Again, I was wrong. Boo Boo (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Categorisation of battles by countries involved

I've got a question about how to categorise battles by countries involved if the battle happens on the territory of a third party that is neutral in the conflict. Lots of sieges and other battles (especially naval battles) take place in "neutral" territory.

Thought-experiment: Country A violates the neutrality of country B, seizes an abandoned B fortress for its own use, and then gets besieged by country C on B's territory. B tries to stay out of it, and successfully applies diplomatic pressure to get both A and C to leave its territory. C breaks up the siege and withdraws; A leaves the Fortress and also withdraws.

How should we categorise the Siege of the B Fortress? I think it should then be categorised as involving countries A and C, but not B. @Jc37 suggested using "target country" or "besieged country" instead. In this scenario, A troops (defending the B Fortress against C troops) would be the "target" or the "besieged". Yet, in a way, B is also a "target" of the aggression of both A and C. And the "besieged country" could be both A and B (C being the besieger). @Marcocapelle has argued that B has become "involved" in the Siege, whether they like it or not. He's got a point, but I'm not sure that's always applicable.

Are there conventions for this already? Or should we adopt one? This question arose from the Sieges by country CfR. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Created a draft outline page for the Iran hostage crisis

The page is currently over at Draft:Outline of Iran hostage crisis, for anyone else interested in contributing to this. Parham wiki (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Korean War dam bombing - war crime?

Hello all, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:United States war crimes#why deletion of Korean dam bombing?. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sochi conflict

There's a bunch of new standalone pages for battles added related to the Sochi conflict. I question whether each of these battles would be best clustered as sections instead of standalone pages. Here is how the Russian wikipedia page did it which is much easier to read. Pinging User:Nugoooo. The battles are:

Thanks all! Annwfwn (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless the sources and/or actual events will support much more detailed accounts of each battle, I think the Russian approach is the way to go. Anyone can subsequently spin off any of them as a separate article if they can generate enough valid text to make it worthwhile. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ben Driebergen nominated for deletion

The Ben Driebergen article is nominated for deletion. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Driebergen. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Military units in info-box

What is the best way to separate military and other units in the info-box. I have three example of wars/battles/events that are all orginsed differently. The first one is Shays Rebellion, the goverment forces had the state milita who was under command of the state general, however a wealthy former general formed another privet milita. The two forces worked together but would they both be considered goverment? Another exammpee of the 1912 Lawrence textile strike, the government had state politce and milita but from what I understand they where goverment forces and only working with American Woolen Co because it was illegal or dangrugs. The final example is the Clashes at the Turkish Ambassador's Residence in Washington, D.C. where the civilians that where attacked are separated from DC Police by a line/break. This is confusing and I do not know the way to do it. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Do not list them separately unless they are from different nations. The infobox is a summary of a summary, and should not have individual units. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
dangrugs? Keith-264 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Merging Two Divisions with Same Name

We currently have two articles: 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) and 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)1st (United Kingdom) Division , reflecting the history of two divisions that existed at different periods of time.

We currently have two articles: 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) and 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom), reflecting the history of two divisions that existed at different periods of time.

In each case, should the two division articles be merged into a single article? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Please answer 'Yes' to merge the articles or 'No' to leave them as separate articles, in the Survey section, with a brief supporting statement. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey. That is what Discussion is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

  • You have linked to 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) twice in the first paragraph. What is the second article that you say needs merging in that first case? I can see two separate links for the second case. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    User:From Hill To Shore - Thank you for calling my attention to the error, and my apology for the error. I have marked up the correction. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Have there been discussions of this issue previously? The lineage of these divisions is complex, and they have lengthy histories as well, so I'm not convinced that this is a topic well suited to this discussion page given that some specialist knowledge is needed. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    I think @EnigmaMcmxc: may have been involved in discussions before? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom). This is clearly an ongoing disagreement. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks. This might have been handy to know at the start of the RFC. Intothatdarkness 14:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed. As knowledge of what the sources say is needed to make sensible contributions here, I don't think that this is really suited to a general RfC. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    The linked (thank you!) RFC has weblinks to various sources that I would hope anyone would give the once over before voting.
    I would note that despite the claim that there is no official lineage used or one published online, that is a little hard to reconcile considering the material the divisions have put out themselves or how historians regard said formations. For example, the 1980s war memorial erected for the 2nd Division puts into stone that it was founded in Portugal (unlike the 2nd Armoured Division that was formed in 1940 in the UK) and then proceeds to list off all the locations that it served. Likewise, histories created by the divisions themselves are quite common (although not universal), for example: The First Division 1809-1985: A Short Illustrated History. Viersen, Germany: 1st Armoured Division; McNish, Robin; Bray, Paul; Messenger, Charles (2000). Iron Division: The History of the 3rd Division 1809-2000 (3rd. ed.). Salisbury: Headquarters 3 (UK) Division. The 1st (UK) Div, which was the 1st Armoured Division until it was renamed for its new role in 2014, celebrates Peninsular Day (which would be really weird, if as claimed, it was the reformed Second World War armoured division).
    Despite other claims made above and in the RFC, the British Army has consistently stated the 1st Division/1st Armoured Division (1970s onwards only) are one and the same, and that they were formed in 1809. Those sources, which also include NATO, the IWM, the Royal Engineers, and historians, outline this same position: the Cold War armoured divisions were one and the same with the 1st and 2nd Divisions and that they are not reformed Second World War divisions.
    It should also be noted that Buckshot, the main person pushing to have these articles merged, admitted that he has no single source to support any of his arguments, has consistently chose to ignore the published material (to quote his 2021 response for why they should be ignored: "corporals being told to write websites", and moves the goalposts around (such as the above claim about published lineages not being online like the US Army; or prior arguments that all sources should be ignored in favor for a written response by the Army Historical Branch).04:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

I am not entirely sure whether editors want a relitigation of the DR process here. I am in a position to respond if required.

But to summarize, my argument is based on *logic*: everything under the same title should be at the same place; the *single WP:TERTIARY source* that EnigmaMcmxc's claims comes down to, the Royal Signals history, makes no explicit claim that the two formations are different; and the ideas about 'moving the goalposts around' are fatuous in the extreme, as the three points actually support each other: (a) official websites do make mistakes (the new 6th Division website post-2011 did have at one point have historical data about 6th Airborne, 6th Armoured, and 6th Infantry on the same webpage); (b) the lack of official lineages, unlike the U.S. Army, is *exactly* the problem, because, as I said at the DR page, the British Army doesn't care enough about its divisions to trace lineages down to the last jot and title, unlike regiments; and yes of course, in the absence of those official lineages (c) AHB would be the final arbiter. I cannot imagine anything more authoritative. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if you were to use U.S. standards for this, the divisions would probably be in the same article because the US Army would consider them as having been deactivated and reactivated under a different designation. The only time this doesn't apply is if the formations happened to be active at the same time (although as can be seen from the mess that is regimental lineage in the US Army they aren't at all shy about tracing a unit back to a single company of a regiment or in my opinion making it up as has been the case with many cavalry units since the whole BCT thing). Intothatdarkness 17:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The burden of proof has been on you from the start (you are, after all, the one making the claim that they are the same formations). You claim I have a single source, only because you have (as highlighted above) used fallacies, straw man arguments, a plea to prove negatives, and ignored WP:V to advance your position. Even if one was to AGF on your claim that I have used but a single source to push a narrative (which then conveniently ignores all the evidence against your position) that still puts this argument 1-0 against you, as you have admitted you have *no* sources to back your claim. Alleged logic =/= WP:V and sources.
I would also note for the readers here, it's not like I have been alone in shaping the articles into their current status. They have gone through multiple reviews, with various editors all suggesting the current split based on lineages; maybe we should have them all pinged as well so we can get their thoughts.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're replying to @Buckshot06 here. Intothatdarkness 19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Correct, sorry for any confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. And having looked over the linked articles, it looks like these divisions existed at the same time (at least during World War II) and had no unit overlap. In US terms, at least during that period, they would have been considered two different divisions. Note I only looked at the World War II articles for both divisions, and am not "up" on the twists and turns of British lineage stuff. Having said that, I didn't see any overlap in subordinate units within the divisions, and that's often a key indicator with US stuff. It's also somewhat difficult to evaluate based on the number of subordinate articles for these units (X division in Y war and so on). That would likely count as OR in any case. Intothatdarkness 20:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
My response to EnigmaMcmxc is : What fallacies? What "straw man arguments"? What ignoring of WP:V? Show me, please. If you want to get cut and dried about it, you are advancing arguments on the basis of a bunch of non-independent sources - official websites - and the Royal Signals history - the only THIRDPARTY source. None of them actually makes any explicit statement saying 1st Armoured = 1st Infantry after the war, or 1st Armoured = 1st (nothing) Div of the very late 50s and then 60s, etc etc. That is the core reason this disagreement is possible, because the community of watchers and historians of the British Army care about *regiments,* not brigades and divisions. It's only us all with seemingly far too much time on our hands that get down to this kind of level of detail (!!) Buckshot06 (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Lets see: 1) choosing to literally ignore what the sources say and their context; 2) trying to discredit multiple independent sources by linking them to one incorrect piece of information that you found at one point in time; 3) the continued demand to prove negatives; and 4) the continued shifting of goalposts (trying to shift the conversation onto regiments, the no one cares, its just us with too much time on our hands etc.)
The sources literally say that the 1st and 2nd Divisions were formed in 1809, that they continued to exist through the Cold War, were re-rolled as armoured divisions, and then further on re-rolled again.
At the end for the day, you are arguing to advance merging the articles or, more precisely, divorcing the history from two formations and merging them with the history of two unrelated formations just because they shared a name. You claim logic, which is just to ignore sources that you don't agree with, and have admitted that you have no facts to support your position. Your claim is that they are one and the same. Until you prove that, your entire argument boils down to "trust me bro", and why should articles be merged on that basis?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Southern Thule

Greetings, anyone here familiar enough with the Falklands War to expand whatever mention is needed of it in Southern Thule? Military history isn't a topic I know anything about, but it seems like at least a few sentences are needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Already an article on it: Operation Keyhole. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant on Southern Thule, not a dedicated article. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 10:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing on French Army in World War I

Hi, large amounts of this article are closely paraphrased from various articles at this website of uncertain reliability. If anyone is willing to take a shot at rewriting/adding sources to parts of the article, it would be much appreciated. Relevant discussion can be found here: Talk:French Army in World War I#Plagiarism on a grand scale. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

1953 Korean dam bombing a war crime?

Anyone who is historian-minded want to evaluate whether the US bombing of Korean dams in WWII is a war crime? Then, take a look at: Talk:United States war crimes#why deletion of Korean dam bombing? – ishwar  (speak) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the basis of what reliable sources say, not editors' opinions. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Example: Well, that's what I would have thought as well. However, that does not seem to be the case for some editors on the United States war crimes article, in which some historians' published perspectives can be excluded based on an editor-created set of criteria. You are, of course, welcome to contribute on that article's talk page. – ishwar  (speak) 16:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Please provide here one source that says it was a war crime. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
see: Talk:United States war crimes (You already asked the question there. Did you miss my response by mistake?) – ishwar  (speak) 16:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as this page is on my watch list, that one is not. But the question here seems to be can we call it a warcrime, based on those sources no. Not in our words. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

2016 Indian Line of Control strike has an RFC

2016 Indian Line of Control strike has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Righteous army#Requested move 1 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Righteous army#Requested move 1 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

HMS Kent (1820)

Is there a vessel missing from the HMS Kent shipindex page? Trewman's Exeter Flying Post of 28 September 1820 reports the launch of a 74-gun ship at Plymouth named Kent. I don't think it is Kent, which was launched at Blackwall in December 1820. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see. Colledge & Wardlow don't record one, nor do Manning & Walker. The 1798 HMS Kent was rebuilt at Plymouth with a circular stern between June 1817 and October 1820; I expect the Flying Post is referencing the completion of that work. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that would explain it, a re-launching. Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Carlisle (November 1745)

Hi. I found Siege of Carlisle (November 1745) while browsing; it has been entirely unreferenced (save for a single external link of uncertain reliability) for the past 17 years. I figured some editors here may be interested in seeing what can be done with the article. Do note that this is not the similarly-named Siege of Carlisle (December 1745). Curbon7 (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have made a very modest start. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion: Rebellion in Tskhinvali

This page just copies parts of Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–1920). Nothing new is restated. Annwfwn (talk) Annwfwn (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge Request

Should Russian cruiser Varyag (1899) and Japanese cruiser Soya be separate pages? Discussion is here.Annwfwn (talk) Annwfwn (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Claims in infoboxes

Hello. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I have a question regarding content in infoboxes, particularly on battle articles. What is the rationale behind inserting claims in infoboxes? For example, Battle of Kyiv (2022) contains claims about casualty figures. Since MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is clear that infoboxes summarize key facts (not claims), then there must be reasons to have an exception and I'm wondering what they are. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd think mainly because the facts are still in dispute, so the next best thing is to note claims. It's been more than a decade since the end of the Iraq War (at least from the US's perspective) and there are still only estimates for many of the casualty figures. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to write solely about the claims or the estimates in the article's body? Iraq War already has a section about casualties and there is also another article about Iraq War casualties. For example the Russian invasion of Ukraine article only discusses the casualties in the article's body. However, I only used "casualties" as examples and my concern is about claims in infoboxes in general. Some articles even contain alleged belligerents in infoboxes for example. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but you try enforcing that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
In most conflicts, casualty figures will always be estimates, some more precise than others. Is that what you mean by “claims,” or can you define that more narrowly?
Regarding belligerents, there is a consensus to deprecate adding a write-in “Supporters” field into the infobox, at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter. IMO, only legal belligerents according to contemporary international law should be included in most infoboxes for modern international conflicts.  —Michael Z. 17:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, by "claims," I have in mind something that is claimed by one side and which is regarded as a claim by reliable sources. Something that has not been verified or reviewed by a third party. I hope that's clear enough. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
We are still having to fend off claims India shot down an f-16 from 4 years ago. It would be best if infoboxes only allowed confirmed information. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

categorisation question

UNESCO have just declared 139 Western Front cemeteries and memorials as a World Heritage Site called Funerary and memory sites of the First World War (Western Front). Should all the constituent sites that have articles be categorised as World Heritage Sites or should that apply to the parent article only? I'd ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites but that project appears to be inactive. Nthep (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If I have counted correctly, there appear to be 36 blue linked articles on that page, with the prospect of over a hundred more appearing in the future. My view would be to create a category for those sites and make it a subcategory for wherever we categorise World Heritage Sites. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I haven't checked all of them yet. If there's 36 that's all I've looked for yet. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore have done what you suggested and created Category:Funerary and memory sites of the First World War (Western Front). Thx. Nthep (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Units in Shays Rebellion

I have a talk page on Shays Rebellion and I need more help. I fell like the units should be better organized but I do not know how because the privet militia does not have its own page or any insignia or flags. I found a source of a militia unit caring a flag but I do not know if it is the privet militia or state militia. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's the Forster Flag? See Flag of the United States#Revolutionary War and [2]. I'm not sure that painting you've linked is historically accurate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Military launches

I have added[3] a little bit about RAF launches to Launch (boat)#Military use in the UK, but I do not have any references to support this. Can anyone with appropriate sources fix that? Also, the whole section on military launches is without any refs. The only redeeming feature is that there are two linked articles that cover both Motor Launch and Royal Air Force Marine Branch.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Decisive Victory

What are the requirements to classify a vicotry of a decisive victory in an info-box? Both the First Schleswig War and Second Schleswig War, say “decisive victory” while the Battle of Midway and the Battle of France, despite both being major victories only say American or Germany Victory. Another example is the Red River Bridge War but that is unsourced and I believe it was a joke. What is the best way to explain vicotry? LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used in the infobox - Template:Infobox military conflict states "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Loafiewa (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Was there consensus for recent format changes to American Civil War unit Infoboxes?

Wikipedia recently notified me, via alerts in the Notices icon at the top of my user screen that "Links were made from 2 pages to 25th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment." Those links were made from the 26th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment and the 24th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment to the 25th Pennsylvania article. The revision history for the 26th Pennsylvania article indicates that an editor "added military unit sidebar." Apparently, an editor(s) has been adding this same new section to the Infoboxes of multiple Pennsylvania units, but I don't remember seeing a proposal or discussion of these planned changes on the Milhist or Pennsylvania WikiProject pages, or on the talk pages of the individual Pennsylvania regimental articles that were affected. Did I miss the discussion, or did the editor(s) not seek consensus before adding the new sections to multiple Infoboxes?

I'm concerned because the sidebar that is being added, "Pennsylvania U.S. Volunteer Infantry Regiments 1861-1865," causes unnecessary confusion and may be presenting the wrong information to readers about individual military unit histories. These new sidebars include subheadings of "Previous" and "Next," which create the false impression that these military units had chronological predecessors and successors (that, for example, the 25th Pennsylvania was preceded, chronologically, by the 24th Pennsylvania and followed, chronologically, by the 26th Pennsylvania), which is misleading. The editor(s) who made this change this appears to have followed the same format that is used for elected state and federal political office holders that show each article subject's predecessors and successors (the officials elected before and after them), but Pennsylvania regiments were not formed this way. The data added via these sidebars, while well-intentioned, is confusing and unnecessary. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the entire Milhist group because I believe that a discussion should be held by both the Milhist and Pennsylvania WikiProject groups as soon as possible to determine whether or not these sidebars need to be significantly improved or removed entirely. - 47thPennVols (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Hhfjbaker: as the editor in question wouldn't be wrong. ...GELongstreet (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I have been adding them as I have on those of other states. I have been trying to keep in line with Dyer and Fed Publishing, both 1908). It is the same sidebar as that of present day U. S. regiments. I thought I was making it easier to navigate. Pensylvania IS a unique case where regiments were given numbers by the U.S. Army, but were always referred to by their "Pennsylvania Reserve" number or were converted to artillery or cavalry. I did not change the article name, but referred to it sequentially and tried to put the article name in parentheses after the volunteer number. Some of the regiments that were three-month call-ups initially re-enlisted keeping the number and their article addresses that. I thought it was helping, and I still think so. as GELongstreet knows, I am more than willing to admit to being wrong. I think it's a good addition. I thought I caught all the conversions on the articles I added the box to. On which specific page(s) does it cause confusion? I can add a note or fix a typo. Cheers. Boo Boo (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hhfjbaker, GELongstreet, and 47thPennVols: - what about a bottom-of-the-page navbox, like exists for Template:Missouri Confederate units navbox or Template:Texas Confederate units navbox? They're in use for the MO and TX CSA units, and I think there's one in existence for Louisana CSA as well. These provide the navigational benefits without the drawbacks of the implied chronological sequence. FWIW, Arkansas CSA units do use a form of Template:Military unit sidebar, although I think the bottom-of-the-page navbox is superior. The only issue is that I don't think it will show up in mobile view. Hog Farm Talk 23:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll echo Hog Farm's preference for bottom of the page navboxes over sidebars. Generally, I think that they're kinda redundant to the lede if the latter is done properly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, GELongstreet, and 47thPennVols: - I think they make it easier for the reader since they are near the top of the page. They've been done for a lot of U.S. units as I work my way through them. As far as consensus, I've been making these additions since 2020 and have received no negative feedback until now. I thought that could be considered consensus. Better to ask forgiveness than permission? I think the real issue may be more the accuracy where one has to closely read Dyer et al. to ensure that the sequence is correct when dealing with conversions between the branches (e.g., Pennsylvania). If someone catches an error, they should correct it. All in all, as I have said, if you can convince me these are causing less precision, I may agree. If you find an inaccuracy (better information than Dyer or Fed Publishing) or out right error, feel free to correct it. These boxes work really well for current U.S. Army units, and I started doing them because it was tedious scrolling to the bottom of the page to get to the, e.g., 17th Maine from the 16th Maine. Boo Boo (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Both sidebars and navboxes do not show up on mobile devices currently, Hog Farm, and there are about twice as many mobile readers as there are on desktop. :-) While I can appreciate the thought and work that went into these sidebars, I'm struggling to see why adding prominent links to the two regiments in the series benefits readers. Why would they be clicking through these one by one? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The one-third non-mobile users is still a huge audience. I know of two currrent history majors that use the regimental pages for background and for finding links to 19th-century sources. I still think they add to the page. Boo Boo (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hhfjbaker: Wouldn't a proper navbox for these instead of navigating one-by-one be more helpful to those history majors? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Ed here, we shouldn't assume that a reader at the 16th Maine article is going to be primarily interested in the 15th Maine or the 17th Maine; they could well be wanting to navigate to the 20th Maine or the 1st Maine or an artillery unit. I think the proper navboxes are to be preferred. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Army Strategic Reserve Command#Requested move 15 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Army Strategic Reserve Command#Requested move 15 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

What's more authoritative—the Naval Vessel Register or the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships?

Here's an interesting one. NVR says that the entire Connecticut class was struck from NVR on 10 November 1920. However...

The dates do align for two battleships in the class (New Hampshire and Vermont), and DANFS doesn't give stricken dates for the final two (Connecticut and Louisiana).

For the table at Connecticut-class battleship § Ships, do we trust one source here? List both? Neither? Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

DANFS entries often include mistakes, and from memory people in previous discussions of it here have noted that entries were often written by people lacking relevant qualifications (E.g. often junior officers who needed to be kept occupied). I'd go with the NVR as it's likely to have better quality control. It would be worth checking both these references against what's stated in high quality secondary sources though to see how their authors used the various source material. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I’ve noticed things like date errors in DANFS in the past, and have contacted NHHC to get them corrected (RADM Samuel Cox answered my email in one occasion, and he was pleased I brought it to their attention - I think he’s still there). I’d contact them to see if they can double check the dates, but in the meantime, I’d go with the NVR. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The NVR isn't perfect either, though is it has less errors, it's a primary source. If there's a conflict between the two, I'd look to see if there's another source available to help confirm one or the other. (imo) - wolf 07:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all, I appreciate the advice! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Joseph T. White might need the page edit

On his page, it state "[...]was the last U.S. soldier to cross the demilitarized zone into North Korea." I guess after Travis King, that sentence is incorrect? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Adamson Tannehill

It's already in your little alert box up there, but this Revolutionary War commander could do with some specialist eyes (i.e. not mine!); the creator has a dual chronology of military command and civic office offer holding to present, that may—or may not—be helped by my suggestion. But you must've encountered this before, so I'd encourage any ARW specialists to look in. Many thanks, Serial 15:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move - Blockade of Germany (1914–1919)

For good or ill, I have put in a requested move to put Blockade of Germany (1914–1919) back at Blockade of Germany as the primary topic. The previous move (8-15 September) went through seemingly unnoticed, certainly uncommented on - neither in support or opposition - so if I've got the wrong end of the stick then please weigh in at Talk:Blockade_of_Germany_(1914–1919)#Requested_move_30_September_2023. Thank you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

List of military equipment losses during Russo-Ukrainian War

I think if there is article Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War and even List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War, just for aircraft losses, there should be also List of military equipment losses during Russo-Ukrainian War for land and navy equipment. So List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War is just a part of missing whole List of military equipment losses during Russo-Ukrainian War. Eurohunter (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it even achievable to create a reasonable list of military equipment losses? Neither side is reporting accurately. Are there reliable sources available? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
www.oryxspioenkop.com/ is generally considered the best resource on this topic, and it notes that its figures under-count actual losses (as they require photos to verify each and every equipment loss). Any Wikipedia article would basically duplicate that website. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I think there would be more sources which has articles about military loses because they are often commented by specialists etc. Eurohunter (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
To follow up on Peacemaker67's comment, such an article in an ongoing conflict could never have any reasonable basis for any reasonable degree of accuracy and would undoubtedly be based on synth and blog sites. This isn't what we do. And where would we draw the line as to what it is populated with - down to pistols? It would probably head toward this level. While we might have an article for particularly high value equipment like ships and aircraft, even aircraft losses are probably difficult accurately source. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: For sure there is notable military equipment losses like tanks, self-propelled artillery or armoured fighting vehicles. I think it's not any less accurate than majority of Russo-Ukrainian War articles. Eurohunter (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
You will never find reasonable sources for losses in this mess. Any referenced estimates that can be gleaned from reliable sources can be inserted into the war article in a sentence or two. Random, incomplete, and unprovable lists are not needed in an encyclopedia. Per NOT. GenQuest "scribble" 19:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Endorse Peacemaker, Cinderella157, GenQuest. Let's not do this. We *might* get reasonable equipment losses from both sides - 20/30/40 years afterwards. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
(Re: where would we draw the line, clearly we would need to go as far as the sources go, which in case of Winter War is per-unit lists of "lost: 11x underpants") Ljleppan (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Categorisation of WikiProject "members" to "participants"

G'day everyone, you should be aware of this discussion, which will affect a few things around MILHIST, and if successful, may indicate some wording changes within MILHIST pages. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Deepest thanks

G'day everyone. Just a note to express my deepest thanks to those who supported my nomination as coordinator emeritus, and especially to Hawkeye7 for nominating me. I am in august company. Well done to those who nominated for the new coordinator tranche, and to those who served over the last year. As with everything else in life, Milhist is run by those who turn up. I look forward to helping out again when needed. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It's extremely well deserved given your huge contributions. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
What Nick said. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:2023 Chinese submarine incident

The Times has a story about the Draft:2023 Chinese submarine incident. 55 Chinese sailors supposedly died when their submarine was caught in a trap designed to catch the subs of opposing forces. Thriley (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Galley up for FAC

I've been working on galley on and off for over ten years and finally decided it was time to go for a barnstar. Assessments and input would be greatly appreciated. Here is the FAC page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galley/archive1 Peter Isotalo 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This needs urgent attention

G’day all, could someone take a look at this please? I’d do it, but I’m just home from surgery and feeling a bit off colour. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I've got a morning of meetings at work, but have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for attention. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Numajiri

Could participants here please take a look at Battle of Numajiri? There is a Japanese-language article at ja:沼尻の合戦, but the English-language version is very poorly sourced by comparison. Can anyone help? — The Anome (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict

There is a proposal in the talk page to make a separate section in infobox for all civilians. That particular user is also proposing that other conflict infoboxes be revised to accommodate their argument. See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:October_2023_Gaza%E2%88%92Israel_conflict. Borgenland (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice

More eyes needed on not just this AfD, but ones like it. (fyi) - wolf 08:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about Veteran Tributes

There's currently a discussion about the source veterantributes.com, which is used in some GA and FA MILHIST articles, at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1831–1891)#Requested move 29 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1831–1891)#Requested move 29 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 03:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heraclius invasion in Georgia

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heraclius invasion in Georgia that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Annwfwn (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yaroslav Hunka#Requested move 3 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yaroslav Hunka#Requested move 3 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — MaterialWorks 19:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

ACW orders of battle titles

A Raymond Confederate's bottle battle order.

A couple of years ago, there was an RM initiated by Hog Farm at Talk:Confederate_order_of_battle_at_the_Battle_of_Raymond that resulted in a move from Raymond Confederate order of battle to Confederate order of battle at the Battle of Raymond, in an attempt to make it consistent with the titles for orders of battle for other conflicts that are featured lists. However, they noted about all the articles in Category:American Civil War orders of battle are in the format of "Raymond Confederate order of battle" or "Camp Wildcat Union order of battle".. Following this RM, the corresponding Union OoB was analogously moved, as were Confederate order of battle at the Battle of Westport and Union order of battle at the Battle of Westport. However, now years later, as far as I can tell, those two battles remain the only ACW battles having order of battle articles with this title format. All others remain in the form [battle] [belligerent] order of battle, e.g. Gettysburg Union order of battle, or just [battle] order of battle when not separated by belligerent or for redirects. I agree there is no reason the title formats should not be WP:CONSISTENT here, but at least for ACW articles, the de facto consensus on format remains contrary to the result of that RM, and I don't believe an RM about a single lesser known battle should dictate consensus that is contrary to the overwhelming status quo. Is anyone aware of any existing naming conventions or evidence of past consensus that nearly all of the ACW oob articles for some reason aren't following (yet)? Otherwise, I'm inclined to start a new RM to return the outliers to the consistent format, unless there is interest in a wider discussion, either about establishing a clear naming convention, or in the form of a large RM (though the former is probably a better approach). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to say that while many (esp US editors and most milhist buffs) will read "Gettysburg Union order of battle" and know that Gettysburg was a battle, who on earth would know that more obscure ones were battles? Why not sieges? Or raids? Or campaigns? I think that there is way too much assumed knowledge at play here. To me it makes sense to state which side's order of battle it is first ie "Confederate order of battle", then the type of military event and its name ie "at the Battle of Raymond", than say "Raymond Confederate order of battle". My first question on reading te latter is what is a "Raymond Confederate?" Just because the majority of articles are formulated one way does not mean it is better, clearer or anything else. It might be a bit more concise, but in nearly every case that is by making a significant sacrifice of clarity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree with Peacemaker. We are writing an encyclopedia, we are supposed to explicate. (What is a Raymond Confederate?) Gog the Mild (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
+1 to my esteemed colleagues above. We're a general-interest encyclopedia, and the article titles should reflect that. Is this something we should propose codifying at WP:MILNAME? Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
As the proposer of the original RM from several years ago, this was inspired by Peacemaker's comments at Talk:Confederate order of battle at the Battle of Raymond#Quick look, which I agree with. The Raymond Confederate format is more concise, but is also much more opaque, and I think the other format is clearer. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
+1 per above. We might prune a word or two from a long title but certainly not "Raymond Confederate order of battle". Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with User:Peacemaker67 and others above. Donner60 (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Would someone like to come up with a draft for us to discuss with a view to the end result be proposed as an addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Naming conventions. I note that WP:MILMOS#CATNAME seems - under Intersection categories at the end - to capture the spirit of what has been agreed quite well. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Good grief! Yes, obviously. Completely unhelpful titling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with others here. Just because a mistake is widespread, that does not justify keeping it. It is still a mistake in need of correction. On a separate note, will a concensus here with a change to Milmos be sufficient? I can't be the only one to notice there has been some very vocal criticism, and persistently so, of any local consensus at a project level, for pages that fall under that project's subject matter, saying that such matters must be determined site-wide for the consensus to hold any sway. I just hope we're not wasting our time here is all I'm sayin. Cheers - wolf 00:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My intent was not to necessarily argue the new format is worse, my point in starting this discussion was that it made zero sense to me to reach a local consensus about a format change for a single article, use that to justify moving a few more, then move on to other things and leave a couple hundred others with the previous format; consistency is one of the WP:CRITERIA, and the moves thus far go against that. I agree "Raymond Confederate" is awkward and potentially confusing, but the newer format is cumbersome and unconcise, in that "battle" is repeated. I would probably favor a compromise like "Confederate order of battle at Raymond" or "Union order of battle at Gettysburg", allowing for some flexibility like "Confederate order of battle for the Atlanta campaign". If "Battle of Gettysburg" is sufficiently precise (seems obvious), then any title containing "battle" and "Gettysburg" should be sufficiently precise to indicate it as a subtopic of the battle. Anyway, if there is genuine interest in improving the titles while maintaining consistency, if we need a well advertised RfC to amend the naming conventions at MOS:MILHIST, then let's do it.
Thewolfchild, I assume that a local consensus will not convince, and why should it? That is why I asked above if someone would care to draft some wording aimed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history, where it says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". If accepted as part of the MoS, it will be as binding on editors as anything ever is on Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
As perhaps a proofcase of the sort of confusion this can cause, Atlanta Confederate order of battle and Atlanta campaign Confederate order of battle currently exist. The former is obviously going to cause confusion - is it for the battle or the campaign? So something needs to change. I don't think the ambiguity of battle or campaign would be resolved by Confederate order of battle at Atlanta. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I've knocked something together in my sandbox, take a look and see what you reckon? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that together. I had another thought about an alternative; there is already a naming convention that addresses part of our challenge here. Most of these, where the orders of battle are separated by opposing force, are really "long lists" or "splitlists", and in those cases, the descriptor indicating which part of the list each includes is indicated after a colon per WP:NCSPLITLIST. So I think the best format may be "[event] order of battle: belligerent" e.g. Battle of Raymond order of battle: Confederate or Atlanta campaign order of battle: Union or Battle of Gettysburg order of battle: Union. It satisfies Hog Farm's concern about ambiguity by not including the event descriptor; "battle" is still repeated but is more separated in the title, making it less awkward; it's more concise than the format discussed above while conveying the same information (i.e., is equally precise); it also would lead to more consistent titles than the more descriptive format. Just as important, it puts the unique part of the title (the event) first, so the article a user seeks is more likely to come up in searches, rather than us having hundreds of articles beginning "Confederate order of battle at" or "Union order of battle at". We would then want a {{List of lists}} at each base name, which would be easy enough. Obviously, in cases where there is a single order of battle for all forces, the colon format wouldn't be used, and the "[event] order of battle" base would simply be the title. Thoughts? I will try to put together a draft. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, worth a look. Why don't you put it in my sandbox under the one I drafted, and people can see them both in the one place? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Input at requested move sought

Talk:Rhodesian Bush War#Requested move 4 October 2023 may of interest to members of this project. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

HMS Fountain (1833)?

The Royal Yacht HMS Royal Charlotte (1824) was broken up in 1832. From her materials, a tank vessel named Fountain was constructed at Pembroke Dockyard and launched in December 1833("South Wales". North Wales Chronicle. No. 333. Bangor. 17 December 1833.). She was to be used for supplying water to vessels on the River Medway. What is not clear is whether she was a vessel of the Royal Navy or not. Can anyone clarify please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

Winfield does not mention anything of the sort in Royal Charlotte's entry, nor does he list any ship named Fountain. Warlow and Colledge list only one Royal Navy Fountain, a 34-gun Algerian ship captured in 1664 and lost in action in 1672. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
The latest edition of Colledge, Warlow & Bush adds another Fountain, but it's a WWI-era drifter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: maybe not, but now that we have internet access to old newspapers it enables these little nuggets to be discovered. I've added what I could to the ship article and left ownership unclear on the list of ship launches, pending further info coming to light. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Fountain may not have been formally part of the RN and just served as a dockyard ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

A Parliamentary committee report from 1848 has her being designed by Sir William Symonds, laid down in November 1832, and launched on 25 November 1833. I think she was just counted as "Yard Craft", and manned with people who counted as dockyard workers, but if ratings were needed I'm sure they would be drafted to her. She evidently could be commanded by naval officers: Fountain was under the charge of a Master named H. J. Strutt in 1837 when being towed by the sloop Snake under Alexander Milne and they captured a Portuguese slaver. —Simon Harley (Talk). 17:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Simon Harley: do you have a weblink for that report? Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
It's on the godawful pay-walled Parliamentary Papers website. —Simon Harley (Talk). 18:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Mjroots, Google Books has it here: Parliamentary Papers - Volume 21, Part 2 (Page 856) - about two thirds the way down the page. Alansplodge (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks, Alanspodge, fascinating. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1806)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1806) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Annwfwn (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

October War

I came across an edit on October War that raised some question marks with me. But seeing the content of the edit I am extremely cautious. The fact is that somebody changed the article "October War" from a redirect to "Yom Kippur War" into a disambiguation page. Editor added 2023 Israel–Hamas war to make the dab-page. However, I do not see any evidence that the present conflict is named "October war". What is wisdom here? The Banner talk 08:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone verify these "last words" by Trotsky's assassin?

This is a little outside of the usual wheelhouse, but I figured since Leon Trotsky led the Red Army, it's fair game to ask here. I just removed a startling quote from the page for Trotsky's assassin, Ramón Mercader. It read: [Mercader's] last words are said to have been: "I hear it always. I hear the scream. I know he's waiting for me on the other side."

The source given is a 2017 Guardian article (link), which does indeed include the quote, but also hedges by phrasing it as "said to have been". There is no actual attribution given. An IP editor added the quote to our Wiki article the same day that the Guardian story was published in 2017.

I am completely unable to track down a pre-2017 source for these supposed last words. I don't know what's going on with The Guardian, but it seems to me that if this is not a total fabrication, it *must* show up in some sources between Mercader's 1978 death and the 2017 newspaper article. However, I cannot find any. Does anyone else have any information on where this quote might have come from? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It is quoted in this book [4]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
That is a post-2017 source, but it does include a citation! The citation given there for the paragraph which includes the "last words" is The Mind of An Assassin, by Isaac Don Levine, p. 149. However, that book appears to have been published in 1960, so it could not have been used to cite Mercader's last words in 1978. The paragraph includes a few different pieces of information, and the citation for the Levine book also says that Levine "summarizes the findings of the Mexican criminologists", who are described by the body of the text as working in the 1950s. I believe that's the part of the paragraph that the Levine citation is for, leaving the "last words" still unsourced. However, I am trying to track down The Mind of an Assassin to double-check this! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The Mind of an Assassin appears to have been republished in 1979, so that could be a plausible source for the "last words" story. I have requested the book through interlibrary loan, but if anyone can check a 1979 edition more quickly or find an alternate pre-2017 source, that would be very helpful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I've now gone through a 1979 edition of The Mind of An Assassin carefully and the supposed "last words" are nowhere to be found. Not only that, but the book was clearly not modified from its 1959 original at all for republication in 1979 - there is no added text, Foreward, Postscript, etc. Unless a pre-2017 source is found, I don't think this quote should be regarded as credible anywhere on Wikipedia. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
That's some serious work, Ganesha811! Well done. You should document it on the talk page of the article so that people rolling by in a few years don't re-add it. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I've just done so, and about to leave an invisible comment in the article as well! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the legwork. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zeitoun incident#Requested move 14 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zeitoun incident#Requested move 14 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Alalch E. 19:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Tanks of the Soviet Union

Shouldn't it be moved to Tanks of Russia? Eurohunter (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It needs either splitting or moving to Tanks of the Soviet Union and Russia. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Given the huge crossover, I would keep them together. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

5–10 minute check of this article?

I'm considering Military dictatorship for FAC. Given the nature of the article, I'm hoping to get a few quick opinions on it. Can it can be reasonably said to cover the topic comprehensively? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not comprehensive, and in some aspects, deeply flawed. There are significant weaknesses in the characterisations of a military dictatorship in the lead that aren't borne out in the wider literature. Well done on getting it to this point, but I wouldn't even bring it to Milhist ACR at this stage. A peer review is probably the way to go. That way you can get detailed feedback on where it needs expansion and better examination of the sources and examples. A big topic, and kudos for having a crack, but nowhere near ready for FAC. I'd start with asking buidhe to expand on her concerns expressed during the GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'll workshop it a bit more. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian civil war#RfC on infobox

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Luxembourg Rebellions

Hello I am working on the folloing articals:

Luxembourg Rebellions

I have been working on them and this Wiki-project has been a lot of help providing a lot of sources, the articles are up for merging and I wanted to ask for help. Discussing about this in this Wiki-project has led to me believing that they should be separate. If you guys want to help that would be great.

LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Also does anyone know how long until the merge is removed and the article are kept? LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I still think that that whole collection of articles adds nothing new to Luxembourg#Two German occupations and interwar political crisis (1890–1945). The Banner talk 10:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:First Perso-Turkic War#Requested move 9 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:First Perso-Turkic War#Requested move 9 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heraclius_invasion_in_Georgia#Requested_move_9_October_2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heraclius_invasion_in_Georgia#Requested_move_9_October_2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Annwfwn (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Orders of battle naming convention

Continuing the recently archived discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_171#ACW_orders_of_battle_titles, we have a couple proposed naming conventions for order of battle list articles at User:Peacemaker67/sandbox. Let's continue the discussion and perhaps get something implemented so we can bring consistency to these kind of article titles going forward. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the best course is action is for anyone who is interested in contributing to improvements in either proposal, make some comments under the proposals in my sandbox, then I’ll draft a formal MOS change proposal for editors to start from, and build a consensus for which one is preferred. Of course, someone may come up with an even more elegant solution that people will get behind. I’ll start work on that in the next few days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Global assessments

Also pinging MSGJ

Hawkeye7, could you clarify what you mean by this? Are we talking about joining WP:PIQA? (Project-independent quality assessments)

That would entail adjusting WP:MIL/ASSESS to match WP:Content assessment, leading to the following changes:

  • A-class stays, but CL, BL, AL would go away (at least for now, we're trying to figure out ways to implement them globally but that's still in preliminary stages)
  • The autodemotion logic for B-class criteria would be replaced with the standard logic: 1 criteria failed = C-class, all criteria passed = B-class

Is that fine? DFlhb (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose one criteria-fail being rated as C class. It may be logical, but leads to a lot of crappy articles of minimal value to readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I could possibly be convinced, but my first inclination is to agree with Sturmvogel. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not following; how does it lead to crappy articles? DFlhb (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The meat of an article rests in the 1 and 2 assessments, the others are merely icing on the cake. A C class ought to be fail 1 or 2 and a start should be fail both 1 and 2 with the others being effectively irrelevant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I would like us to harmonise with the other projects. Retention of A-class is a sine qua non though. I'm not sure how tied everyone is to list assessments, with MilHist or without. Clearly the C class criterion require some further discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I have to say that I do appreciate list assessment having brought a few through to FL, but I'd like to know more about what would happen to list-class under this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Theoretically it could be useful. Losing our A-Class system would mean a hard no from me, but I’m not sure how much difference using our Start/C arrangements makes as compared to the 1 x n = C, 2 x n = Start makes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If joining the global assessments is important to the project, then there are other ways that we could track what you currently call A-class, without losing any information. For example I assume that all/most A-class articles have already passed GAN? So it would not be inaccurate to describe as GA-class and then include an extra note that it has passed A-class review. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't as a rule send MilHist articles to GA unless I aim for DYK or a four award. I gave up on GA after History of penicillin (not a MilHist article) was rejected. Most A-class articles are bound for FAC, not GA. I currently have history of military logistics at A-class. It is not a GA and never will be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Hawkeye. That isn’t a workable solution. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

One possible solution for the B-class criteria would be to have article-level B-criteria (the criteria would be filled in the banner shell, not in project banners, and would be common to all projects), and MILHIST could run its own logic on those criteria. The ratings (the B-criteria criteria) would still be common to all projects, so this wouldn't be a detriment for PIQA; it would just be displayed and categorized differently for MILHIST, but the avoidance of duplicated effort across projects would be preserved. DFlhb (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see good logic for why MILHIST, one of the few projects that actually cares about non-FA assessments (particularly A- and B-class), should be expected to bend to the assessment desires of the mostly-defunct other projects and PIQA who don't care about assessments near as much as we do. Hog Farm Talk 13:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
While not wishing to appear truculent, I agree. There seems to be some cart before horse happening here. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Excellent point, Gog. I don't know what the other active wikiprojects think about this, perhaps if they don't have an active ACR process, then it doesn't affect them much if at all. We have a great bot that looks after our project banners, brings new articles to our attention and assesses new articles up to B-Class, and that is supplemented by actual reviewers who QA the bot's work and contribute to our higher level assessment. What on earth do we (and WP by extension) stand to gain from this? It appears to be very little. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the criticism and hesitations expressed by others. I specifically agree with Sturmvogel, Hog Farm and the several comments about A-class. I may be wrong but I view GA as a sort of B+/A-. I think there is some value to that but it need not be an intermediate step. Currently, it seems that there are not enough reviewers for articles above B class. I am not sure how that factors into it; I have worked on a few GA reassessments and have one in process. I have never assessed an article above B class but plan to move up to those reviews in the not too distant future. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
A critical shortage of reviewers is affecting A-class and GA very badly. Most of our A-class nominations date from June and July, and I fear that people have stopped nominating. FAC is doing okay though, with only a couple of nominations older than two months. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/World War II

Template:Editnotices/Page/World War II has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/World War I

Template:Editnotices/Page/World War I has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

M11/39 photo request

M11/39 tank I've looked for more photos on wiki and haven't found anything. Can someone help? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Are these those? Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
And maybe this one? Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
That last one is a L6/40, not a M11/39. Monstrelet (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes#Requested move 13 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes#Requested move 13 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — MaterialWorks 15:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

HMS Exeter - concerns

I've raised concerns at Talk:HMS Exeter (68) about recent additions to the article - including whether recent additions are undue, and whether the use of large quotes in references are appropriate. Comments are welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that Sturmvogel 66 has cleaned this up. It may be worth keeping an eye on since there is an indication that the user who added the problem edits is not engaging in discussion. Donner60 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Iraq War#Result in infobox

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears this has been resolved by the block of a stonewalling editor. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

More eyes needed on an AfD

Could members here take a look at the AfD for Skirmish of Chenab (1739) please? It has had almost no participation, and no sources have been brought to light by the AfD. If it goes to No Consensus it will be stuck in limbo, with no way forward to fixing it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Three new comments now. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all! -- asilvering (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Retainers and fee'd men of Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury

I've recently tagged (but not assessed) this article to the project. It's an impressive bit of scholarship but it does have technical issues. In particular, a ridiculously long, thin timeline which takes a lot of time to scroll through. Could a technically-minded editor which much wikifoo please have a look and see if this can be presented more effectively? Thanks. Monstrelet (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Request of article review

Hello. I am new to article creation. I have to ask, is it possible to ask for some help with article review? Review on some article can take a lot of time, if you could point me to a page where I can ask for someone to review and publish my drafts, it would be of great help. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation is a good page to get information about article creation and review. Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

History of military logistics

if someone could supply source and image reviews for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of military logistics, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I have added this comment to the assessment page: "All of the images are from Wikimedia Commons and have the required image information on the Commons pages. All are either public domain or own work with a version of a Creative Commons share-alike license. Clicking on the image leads to the Wikimedia Commons page from which there is a link to the Creative Comments page providing info on the applicable license type. None have restrictions unacceptable for Wikipedia use." If something else is needed such as detailed comment on each image, please let me know. I will read through the article promptly. Given Peacemaker's support, I anticipate joining him with few or no further comment. Donner60 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Ossetian rebellion in Georgia (1920)

Talk:Ossetian rebellion in Georgia (1920) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Talk:Ossetian rebellion in Georgia (1920).Annwfwn (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rhodesian Bush War#Requested move 12 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rhodesian Bush War#Requested move 12 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

New articles on the end of WWII in Bavaria needing attention

Dachau Uprising and Freiheitsaktion Bayern. I've tagged them for accuracy and posted notes on the talk page. This is not my area and my German's not good, but they are legitimate topics. Srnec (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Turkish-Georgian war

Turkish-Georgian war has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Talk:Turkish-Georgian war.Annwfwn (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor#Requested move 20 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor#Requested move 20 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

March of the missiles

Just letting all and sundry know that I've finally finished R-5 Pobeda, which means I've completed the R-1|R-2|R-5 trifecta (with a nice little reference to the R-3). When I get the courage, I might overhaul R-7 Semyorka. I spend most of my time at Project Spaceflight, but of course, there's overlap. Hello! :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Libyan geography question

Sonderkommando Blaich Does Bir Misciuro in the article refer to the modern Murzuk (there seems to be a multitude of obsolete colonial names and modern repacements in Arabic). Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, no, it's further south than Al Qatroun. Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21. Your contributions would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire Featured article review

I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kidnapping of Shani Louk#Requested move 30 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kidnapping of Shani Louk#Requested move 30 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Alalch E. 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

2nd AIF Reserve Motor Transport Companies

I noticed that there are no articles on the 2nd AIF's (Australian Army in WW2) "Reserve Motor Transport Companies". I'm wondering are these units noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article about them (individually or collectively)? 2/3rd Reserve Motor Transport Company was involved in moving Allied units (mostly British Indian) into Thailand at the start of the Japanese invasion in December 1941 and perhaps were the first Australian units to engage the Japanese (citation needed!). Later they ferried Allied units back to Singapore. In February 1942, the British generals decided that 2/3 Reserve M/T Coy was important enough to be evacuated from Singapore. They were initially going to be unloaded in Sumatra but were finally unloaded in Java where they became part of Arthur Blackburn's "Blackforce" and were captured at the end of the Battle of Java, after dumping their trucks into the ocean. They became prisoners of war and many died building the Thai-Burma railway. Any thoughts, comments, suggestions on how to proceed are most welcome. Thanks Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The relevant notability guideline is the general notability guideline. You'll need significant coverage (more than passing mention) in reliable sources (not e.g. self-published) that are independent of the subject (not written by e.g. members or their family). Ljleppan (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, generally company/squadron-sized force elements are not independently notable because there isn't significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject, although there is a published history of the 2/4th (out of print of course), I expect it was written by a participant, so it mightn't be sufficiently independent (as Ljleppan rightly points out), and other secondary sources would be needed. However, 400 men is hardly a standard-sized "company". Not sure if any other companies had a history published. There are mentions in Wigmore's volume The Japanese Thrust (of the official history), and may be reasonable coverage in the AASC history Equal to the Task, by Neville Lindsay (again not easy to access a copy). There might be a bit in Faulkner's Arthur Blackburn, VC: An Australian Hero, His Men, and Their Two World Wars, but I've lent my copy out so can't check. That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. Good luck with finding sufficient reliable secondary sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is a merge proposal to merge The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars into History of the United States (1789–1849). The discussion is in a deadlock due to lack of input. The writer of the first article opposes the merge while I, as proposer, support the merge. More input is needed and appreciated. The Banner talk 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Left a comment and support for the merger. Donner60 (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nuclear threats during the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested move 16 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nuclear threats during the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested move 16 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 04:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Waging Peace in Vietnam

Could some members of MILHIST take a look at Waging Peace in Vietnam? The book itself seems like it probably meets WP:NBOOK, but the Waging Peace in Vietnam#Synopsis section seems overly detailed and possibly some WP:NOR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK issues. The beginning of Waging Peace in Vietnam#Confronting the legacies of war has the feelings of a possible WP:C-P violation given the "In this chapter, we hear from the Vietnamese, ...". The pronoun "we" is also used on several other occasions throughout the "Synopsis" section in similar ways which has a non-encyclopedic feel to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America has an RFC

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed titling guidance for orders of battle (MOS:MIL)

G'day, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#Proposed article titling guidance for orders of battle that may be of interest. Please have a read and add your views, and hopefully a consensus can be achieved. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Delhi (1737)

There is an issue with the article titled 'Battle of Delhi (1737),' primarily regarding the battle's outcome. To begin with, the title itself is inappropriate as it was not a battle but rather a raid, as explained by historians. The second issue pertains to the ambiguity of the conflict's outcome. During this raid, there were two subsequent conflicts. In the first, the Marathas emerged victorious, but in the second, they suffered defeat and retreated.

We kindly request your assistance in reaching a conclusion for this historical event. A move discussion has been initiated, but unfortunately, there has been little engagement in the discussion. We kindly request your review of the discussion and consider the possibility of renaming the page while providing a conclusive summary of the event. Your support in this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you! Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

MOD or MoD

I note that the UK Ministry of Defence styles itself MOD not MoD (see Working for MOD). We already have MOD Chicksands and MOD St Athan. There may be merit in moving MoD Abbey Wood, MoD Bicester, MoD Boscombe Down, MoD Corsham, MoD Donnington, MoD Feltham, MoD Kineton, MoD Lyneham, MoD Sealand and MoD Shoeburyness for consistency. Or we could just go with the majority position i.e. MoD. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that a recent change? MoD has been used almost universally for as long as I can remember. That said, when it's used a designation prefix like those depots (a la "HMP" or "RAF") I would say it should probably be in all caps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I have always used "MoD" but I came across this edit dated 21 October 2020 where the edit summary says "Amended to references to MoD to MOD (as per Ministry Of Defence's own style guide)". Dormskirk (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This document (DCDC Writers' Handbook) dated September 2023 also refers to "MOD Brand Guidelines". Dormskirk (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
MoD (War Office if I had my way) I'm not sure we should trust an arm of the British state when it comes to grammar and syntax. Calling it a brand (sic) is enough to make you sick. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Harry. Has been MoD for donkey's years. I think we should only change it when it becomes predominant in reliable secondary sources, per UCN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree also. Our MoS is not the government's or other entity's Manual of Style. Trivial, so leave it alone. GenQuest "scribble" 05:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
No strong opinion on my part. Looking at the smoothed Google Ngrams data, "MoD" seems to be the vastly preferred spelling at least until 2019, but the unsmoothed data is less clear esp. w/r/t 2018-2019. I'll also note that per MOS:CONSISTENT Proper names use the subject's own spelling, even if that's in the context of national varieties of English. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

HMS Ranee

Should the HMS Ranee article be moved, given that there was another ship of the name launched at Singapore on 4 September 1848? ("Portsmouth, Saturday, October 1848". Hampshire/Portsmouth Telegraph. No. 2560. Portsmouth. 28 October 1848.) Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

A Google search is somewhat complicated by the carrier having embarked 1848 Naval Air Squadron. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Although my copy is not the most up to date, Colledge & Warlow only list this one Ranee. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only thing that I found was this which mentions a Ranee as a steam tender. If this is the one, then an auxilliary naval ship would not have carried the "HMS" prefix. If it was a commissioned Royal Navy warship, then it has apparently escaped the notice of the internet, as far as I can tell. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Attalus I

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo RfC

An Rfc on whether some minor figures in the battle should be included as commanders in the infobox is taking place here Talk:Battle_of_Kosovo#RfC_Should_Muzaka_and_Jonima_be_included_in_the_infobox?. Khirurg (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"Minor figures" according to the user above, notable figures according to WP:RS bibliography. Botushali (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Adolphe DuBois d'Aische - name

I've started a discussion on the talk page of Adolphe DuBois d'Aische - Talk:Adolphe_DuBois_d'Aische#DuBois_or_du_Bois? on how his name is spelled - comments are welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edward I of England#Requested move 5 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Edward I of England#Requested move 5 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 14 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 14 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Jefferson Davis

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of RFC

An RFC is in progress on whether the Free City of Danzig should be listed as a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland. Participation is welcome at: Talk:Invasion_of_Poland#RFC:_Free_City_of_Danzig. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Soviet tanks in Ukraine

I’ve created a section stub at Tanks of the Soviet Union#Russo-Ukrainian War. Please contribute.  —Michael Z. 17:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Harriet Tubman

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Harriet Tubman/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeking feedback for a discussion at Talk:List of World War II flying aces

In a previous discussion Talk:List of World War II flying aces/Archive_1#Size: Should this list be all inclusive? it was concluded that the list of WW2 aces is too large and not manageable. More recently this was challenged and the original large lists was reinstated, making the list not maintainable. Seeking feedback please, @HugeUranium:, @Director:, @Zawed:, @Peacemaker67: Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Maratha raid on Delhi

Previously, I sought your assistance for this article, and now I find myself in a similar situation. The resolution of this article was determined with @Gog the Mild's help, and the page was promptly protected due to high vandalism shortly thereafter. Currently, a user has requested edits, asserting the opposite of the conclusions you and I reached. Upon scrutinizing this user's history, I uncovered instances of vandalism, particularly in misrepresenting sources. It seems the user may harbor personal animosity towards the Mughals. In the revision of the Battle of Khanwa, the user falsely claimed the battle was indecisive, contrary to the source. Personally, I noted this discrepancy and provided a quote from the same source. This raises concerns about the user potentially engaging in similar behavior here. Please reassess the situation, considering that the user believes I am against them, and they have even resorted to making racial, religious, and misogynistic slurs (check the revision history of the talk page). Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about Second Operational Phase (1942) at Talk:Second Operational Phase (1942)

This article is a stub that only cites primary sources and begs the question of the first operational phase. I am opening a discussion about the future of this article. Is there a better place for this content to reside (an existing article) or perhaps a refactoring to expand it to encompass Japanese strategic planning more broadly leading up to and in the early stages of the war? Please contribute to the discussion at the articles talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

British Army medical categories

At Recruitment to the British Army during World War I#British Army medical categories there is a list of thirteen medical categories from A1 to D3. Were these categories specific to World War I? I don't think so, because I have heard of WWII soldiers wounded in action to be downgraded, for example from A1 to B3. So, do we have another page listing the catgories at other periods? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Redrose64, see This forum post, which gives a detailed description of the system used in the Second World War, but without references. The First World War system was apparently used until 1940, when a more sophisticated grading was introduced, our article on this seems to be PULHHEEMS. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
And PULHHEEMS was also the system in Australia for a long time post WWIII (not sure about during). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Maratha invasion of Deccan

In the ongoing edit war for the 'Maratha invasion of Deccan (1739)' article, I've been involved in removing WP:RAJ sources. The other user persists in adding WP:RAJ and primary sources while removing existing data. The issue revolves around the 'result' parameter in the infobox. After reviewing conflicting sources indicating both victory and inconclusiveness, I'm uncertain. Could you please assist in reaching a conclusion on whether it was a one-sided victory or inconclusive? Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs to FAR

I have nominated Battle of Red Cliffs for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Location of a battle in infobox

What is a common practice? Are we giving the current administrative location or the historical one? Take a look at this change by @Forward.ops he changed location from "Zborów, Ruthenian Voivodeship, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" to "Zboriv, Ternopil Oblast, Ukraine"? I don't strong opinion about this, but I have feeling there should be a common policy that determines that. Marcelus (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Because when the battle ended, the Zaporozhian Cossacks has captured these territories and it’s became a territories of the Cossack Hetmanate. So, maybe you’re right, but I added a modern names of the location to be not being confused. Because before it was a Polish-Lithuanian territory, after that it became a Cossack Hetmanate territory. Forward.ops (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Historic battles should be located in the historic area. Use a parenthesis or note to explain its modern location. You can't have a location of an event in a polity that doesn't yet exist. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 16:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. That’s correct Forward.ops (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
First of all Zborów/Zboriv didn't become part of the Cossack Hetmanate right after the battle (or ever as a matter of fact). Secondly you added contemporary Ukrainian administrative divisions.
@Forward.ops can you now revert all your changes on every article you changed location to contemporary Ukrainian? Marcelus (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
That’s gonna be hard and long, but I will try it Forward.ops (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Up-front source review of Russian language sources needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Igor Mangushev

G'day, Igor Mangushev has been nominated at ACR, and I have had a quick look. I'd be very reticent to put the effort into a review unless someone with a knowledge of the reliability of Russian language sources had had a look first. I may not be on my own. Any assistance appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Royal Engineer's records

Can anyone locate a date of birth for Henry John Harman? Shyamal (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This says 1830, not a date but a year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, definitely better than nothing. Shyamal (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
An Ancestry family tree indicates 13 May 1850 based on his India baptism records, which is supported by census returns and the fact that he left Woolwich around 1869. —Simon Harley (Talk). 13:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I got the same answer as Simon - the date of 1830 seemed very early, as the age limit for entry at Woolwich was around 18.
Ancestry also has a service register which gives him as born Halesworth, Suffolk, 13th May 1850. The other data matches (commissioned lieutenant from a cadet July 1869, promoted captain July 1881, died Florence 14th April 1883). This is from WO 25/3914 and to my surprise that is online from the National Archives if you want to verify it, albeit in a single giant PDF - I had no idea these records were floating around. They're two-page "records of service", so not comprehensive but they will cover the key biographical data. Might be useful to keep an eye on for future. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Well done Andrew! I had a copy of the Army list, but it only gave the dates of his promotions and not his date of birth Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking for references on Operation Helltank

Operation Helltank (aka Hell Tank aka Exercise) was a series of tests made by the RAF and British Army to test missile-firing helicopters against a Warsaw-Pact like tank formation. The results were, in one case, 45-to-1 in favour of the helicopters. This is a story that needs an article!

I've been looking for sources for a long time and so far only found passing mentions, mostly in relation to the later US-led Ansbach Test series. Can anyone offer some suggestions and/or resources? I have looked at all the cogent hits in Google Books so far, with most being largely useless. "The Tank" seems to have a longer discussion, but I don't have a copy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Had a brief look, not being an expert:
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
For some reason, The Tank does not appear linked in Google from Archive, which I find rather annoying. I did look for copies, it simply wasn't displayed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: That link proved extremely useful. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Might be useful:
Ljleppan (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have the ability to get this memo: "HELL TANK Exercise, UK Defense Establishment Memo #2/69, Jan 69." Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Might not Pass wp:RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The UK Ministry of Defence is R enough for me! I just can't get to the Archives in Kew to read it, the North Atlantic is a bit chilly right now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Just put it in your diary for 150 years time, the Gulf Stream will have disappeared and the seas will be MUCH MUCH warmer (too f***ing hot!!) :( Buckshot06 (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Blackadder Goes Forth

Blackadder Goes Forth 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. Spinixster (chat!) 09:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

How to assess a B-Class article in practice?

Hi everyone!

I am from the Chinese Wikipedia. Around ten years ago, my WikiProject (translation) implemented the B-Class checklist mechanism (translation) following the example of WP:MH/B?. However, our B-Class assessment have come to a halt partly due to the complex workflow.

For instance, in this assessment (translation), both the reviewer and the editor spent a considerable amount of time on it, but the review result was quite simple — B1=no and B2/B3/...=yes were added to the WikiProject banner.

Regarding other B-Class review requests, reviewers have a great deal of respect for this kind of reviews, but they don't really want to do them. As a result, almost all stronger articles are left unreviewed as C-Class and eventually become GAs directly. This is similar to A-Class reviews in other WikiProjects.

The B-Class assessment mechanism at MH is well-run; I think one reason is that the review process is serious but not overly complicated. Simplifying the operation can help activate the process, although I don't have a strong sense of how effective it would be. How do you assess a B-Class article in practice? How much time does it take for you to review one? How thoroughly do you read the article?

Thank you!--Lopullinen 05:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

G'day. For me, the B-Class review is a quick one, only taking a few minutes to read the article, checking that the criteria are met. Of course, the more you do the quicker you get. We now have a bot that automatically assesses up to B-Class, but the B-Class ones are checked by a human at the end of the month. If there are any criteria that only marginally meet or don't meet the standard, I tend to err on the side of yes, as B-Class isn't a big deal. The main criteria of contention tend to be b1 and b2, but if every para is cited at the end at least (and quotes are cited), and the sources appear reliable, it should be a yes. b2 is harder to judge, especially if you don't know the subject. A quick Google Books search for the subject will identify any obvious sources or material left out, but we are not looking for comprehensiveness here. b3 is easy to judge, and b4 likewise in most cases. b5 is met if there is an infobox (if appropriate) or an image, unless the article is quite long, in which case a couple of supporting images etc would be expected. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of the Wilderness

Someone named User talk:Sormando, who appears to have been in several edit wars, keeps changing the InfoBox image for Battle of the Wilderness. I think it is ugly, and I would rather see a color image. I thought the original image was pleasing for readers. Any thoughts from anyone else? I think we have a case of someone who does not write articles, but only changes other people's work—and will not compromise. TwoScars (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@TwoScars and Sormando: - my general thought on this is to avoid the Kurz & Allison illustrations as they are usually horrifyingly inaccurate. File:Battle of Chancellorsville.jpg (Stonewall shot in battle in broad daylight), File:Battle of Vicksburg, Kurz and Allison.png (Grant's Canal actually working in the background), and File:Battle of Pea Ridge.jpg (pretty much everything is wrong, particularly that involving Pike's tribesmen) are particularly egregious examples. File:The Battle of the Wilderness, Virginia, May 5th & 6th 1864 LCCN2003656457.jpg is in color but is rather garish and isn't going to be much of an improvement over the Kurz & Allison image for accuracy. How about File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg (the cover illustation of Rhea's book about the battle)? My choice would probably be the Winslow Homer painting, but of the black-and-white images, I'd probably go with File:Capture of a part of the breastworks.jpg over the current image in use. (File:Major-General Wadsworth fighting in the Wilderness LCCN2004660194.jpg) Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
You may edit it however you like but I agree that those illustrations are highly anachronistic. The illustration I presented was made by Alfred Waud, a famous wartime illustrator who was eyewitness to the battle, often sketching the fighting on the spot and in the moment. Food for thought.
Best Sormando (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, as a non-ACW person, I find File:Capture of a part of the breastworks.jpg the most visually pleasing and most likely to be accurate given it was done contemporaneously. I think the current one, File:Major-General Wadsworth fighting in the Wilderness LCCN2004660194.jpg too dark to make out details, even on my 27" monitor. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I had edited the article earlier this year with that illustration as a replacement for the Allison & Kurz one, but another editor had removed it, citing that 'it does not show the dense forests in which the battle was fought', so I chose differently this time, but edit as you see fit.
Best Sormando (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
PM and Sormando - what about File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg? This is in color, I can't think of any accuracy concerns in its portrayal of a small unit action for this battle, and it shows the dense trees that characterized the battle. It's public domain and the book that is probably the single most important modern treatment of this topic used it as a cover illustration. Hog Farm Talk 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Whatever the consensus of the MH people is fine with me. I like the File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg image, as long as others prefer it too. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Personally I find the Winslow Homer image too dark. File:The Wilderness near Palmers and Spotswoods Houses.jpg (which is already in the article further down) shows how densely the terrain was wooded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I added the category "Battle of the Wilderness" to the current Wadsworth image. I will keep looking for an image that makes everyone happy. I would like to have a color image that shows the woods. I think the fighting on Orange Plank Road is more interesting than the Orange Turnpike (apologies to Iron Brigade, John B. Gordan, and Jubal Early fans). Orange Plank is where Hammond slowed down A.P. Hill and the CSA almost split the Union force. On the next day, Longstreet got wounded near the Orange Plank Road. Maybe the Library of Congress or Harper's has a good image, or perhaps Sormando knows of more images. TwoScars (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Assessment for the Regency of Algiers article

Hi; I think this article: Regency of Algiers is ready to be checked if it meets the criteria of a B-Class article, a review would be welcome. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

G'day, if you list it at WP:MHAR someone will check it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Assistance on Battle of Kherson — Future GAN

I am hoping to eventually GAN the article, but some assistance is needed before that. First of all, I have a copy/edit request at the copy-editor guild, which has to happen anyway before the GAN, but recently, another editor added a non-neutral tag to the article. Can some assistance be given to help in order to get rid of the non-neutral tag? I started a talk page discussion on the battle’s article for the non-neutral tag. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about List of attacks on U.S. territory

Is this list worth saving? Right now, it has no inclusion criteria and I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It could be moved to List of foreign military attacks on United States territory, I guess. How to handle the US Civil War and various terrorist attacks might need discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 Done Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Redundant units in section See also

See also is often filled with redundant unrelated units of the same type, or most of them are already mentioned in the text. Let's remove it. Example K9 Thunder#See also: Panzerhaubitze 2000, AS-90, T-155 Fırtına, K10 ARV and probably others are already mentioned above in the text or even has their own section, so there is no need to repeat them to section See also. Looks like some missed something and thinks see also works in this way, but it's not the case. There is no need to create section See also and fill it with redundant lists. Eurohunter (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

1947 Jammu massacres

Kindly participate at Talk:1947 Jammu massacres#Dating, for sharing your views with regards to the dispute that whether we should state Jammu massacres started in August 1947 or October 1947. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it really related to WikiProject? Parham wiki (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki: Which articles? Always give examples. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Apollo 11 and Apollo 15 Parham wiki (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Apollo 15? The one with the three US Air Force officers? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, But the Apollo program was not military. Parham wiki (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
"What topics do we cover? We generally consider any article related to historical or modern-day warfare or military affairs to be within our scope." It is difficult to see how Apollo 15 fits into this, or any of the eight "broad areas" we then list. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Wehwalt added it in 2018 [5]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't remember the circumstances. No objection to reversion if you feel it justified. Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I can see how it might happen - for several years, one requirement for being a NASA astronaut was experience as a test pilot (at first, the criterion was military test pilot, see Mercury Seven#Selection criteria). This meant that virtually all astronauts of the 1960s were selected from the U.S. armed forces - the few civilians (e.g. Neil Armstrong) to be selected had previous military service. It wasn't until Jack Schmitt flew on Apollo 17 in 1972 that a pure civilian was part of a space mission crew. So out of 32 Apollo astronauts (Grissom, White and Chaffee included), 31 had some military connection. So it could be said that all crewed Apollo missions fall within MILHIST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • True that is a direct connection between most astronauts and the military. But that's not a direct connection from the military to the NASA Apollo program itself imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
It's worth noting that each of the crewed Apollo missions involved a fairly large military operation to retrieve the capsule and crew at the end of the mission (as an aside, this might be an interesting topic for a stand-alone article?) Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I have the material here to write such an article. I can add it to my to-do list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
It will be interesting. Parham wiki (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Convoy HX 79

The article and several others has Janus (1939) [Sweden] 9,965 GRT Sunk by U-46 but this is not shown in Hague (2000) and Rohwer and Hummelchen (2005). Can anyone suggest a source pls? Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Jordan, Roger W. (1999). The world's merchant fleets, 1939: the particulars and wartime fates of 6,000 ships. London: Chatham. ISBN 186176023X.: page 572 confirms Lyndaship (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks V. much. Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Reburial of 6 civil war veterans from Hart Island To West Farms?

In 1916, six Union soldiers who were buried on Hart Island were disinterred and reinterred at West Farms Soldiers Cemetery. There's tons of sources that mention this. Today, however, I heard a theory that the reason this happened is that there was new legislation passed in 1916 which changed the rules for who was eligible to be burried in a military cemetery; rather than having to have died while on active duty, now any veteran was eligible, even if they died after they were out of the military. I can't find any sources which corroborate that. Anybody know anything about this? RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display#Requested move 7 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display#Requested move 7 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Aror

There is a conflict in the discussion section of the Battle of Aror regarding the 'strength' of the battle. We hope you can help us resolve this matter. Imperial[AFCND] 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on MOS:MIL

There is an ongoing MOS:MIL discussion about where or not dot (bullet) points are allowed in the infobox. Feel free to discuss the issue here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#Dot (Bullet) Points - Proposal to allow. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to abolish WP:MILMOS#TANKS

Hello,

I have made a proposal to abolish WP:MILMOS#TANKS. You may comment here. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Schierbecker (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Merge_discussion

There is a requested merge discussion at Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Merge_discussion that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dan the Animator 22:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#Request for comment on first sentence of lead and scope

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Could do with some more input. Thanks, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Review a Conflict of Interest military article?

Hello folks, I need your help. I'm a long term Wikipedia developer, 18 years, wrote 107 or so nontrivial articles, uploaded over 4000 free licensed images most in other people's articles. Out of those 107, four are conflict of interest articles, as detailed here. The first three, written by me as drafts in 2016 and 2018, went fine, reviewed by uninvolved people (including an author of the WP:COI guideline, and an Arbitrator and Wikipedian of the Year!), pushed live, not touched by me since.

The last one, Kessel Run, I just wrote a few months ago, also got it reviewed and pushed live by an uninvolved person... is not fine. It has two issues after it was pushed live, when I could no longer edit it.

  • (more important) User:Legoktm tagged it with COI and POV tags. When I asked what the issues were, so I could deal with them, he said that the specific issues weren't what mattered: I had a COI, so it had a POV, and needed the tags because it still needed review by an uninvolved person. I'm not sure why he doesn't consider the uninvolved reviewer who pushed it to mainspace and says it's fine to qualify, but he keeps repeating that it still needs another review. Could one of you be that person? If you do and find issues, I'd love to fix them until you do approve.
  •  Done(less important) User:Nemo bis deleted half the lead section saying it was uncited. I responded, saying that section was a summary of the body, so usually wouldn't need a copy of the specific citations in the body (WP:MOSLEADCITE), but just in case provided the citations. Nemo didn't accept that either, and hasn't responded in over a month now. I hope my explanation there suffices and the lead can be restored (with or without inline citations, as you prefer), but since I do have that COI, I can't do it myself, I again need an uninvolved editor.

I had asked an admin that I thought would help, but she said she didn't have the time or the military interest to look over the article (it's not short! but, I hope it is interesting!), and suggested this project. Again, I'm very willing to work with a reviewer to deal with any issues; eager, even. Thank you very much for your help. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

G'day GRuban. At first glance, the article is stuffed full of promotional images. So not just WP:COI at play (Quote: "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly") but WP:PROMO as well. Given its size, in the first instance I would be looking to trim the images to one per section, sticking to an image that is especially relevant to that section. Personally, I don't review articles written by COI editors, because policy says you are strongly discouraged from editing directly (because conscious or unconscious bias is hard to avoid), and I support the policy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, Peacemaker, I don't understand; are you saying that if I remove the images as you propose, you will review it further, and will eventually accept it if I meet your standards? In which case, I'll be very glad to work with you to meet you halfway. Or are you saying basically what Legoktm said, that you personally won't accept it no matter what I do? In which case, er ... --GRuban (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm saying that the article currently has two major issues, first, it comes across as heavily promotional (the number and type of photographs jumps out immediately, but the tone is consistent with that as well, it reads as an advertisement - not an encyclopaedia article), and secondly you have an admitted COI and you have written 99.5% of the article. For example, the survey and interviews conducted by Kenner are given lip service in one sentence of the Reactions section, whereas the way I read it, these were serious concerns about the project from people with important perspectives such as "software and systems engineers, an operations floor veteran, an intelligence directorate trainer, an experienced senior operations duty officer, a command and control squadron commander, AFCENT’s highest ranking civilian analyst, an AOC training chief, an intelligence division chief and a Kessel Run project manager". I have not doubt there are other criticisms of the project if one was to dig around, and their inclusion (with appropriate weight, including in the lead as appropriate) would be necessary for the POV tag to be removed, IMHO. I don't review articles where the main editor has a COI (mostly because they are usually very hard work because you are dealing with conscious and unconscious bias, and life is too short), but taking action regarding the above would be a step in the right direction. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually I tried quite hard to find any criticism from reliable sources, and put in what little I found (even the reliability of the sources for what little criticism I found is borderline at best). I don't want to write a promotional piece, but the best article we can. But if you're sure you can find more, please do so; I simply couldn't. And article images are sort of my thing, as I mentioned above. Thanks for the suggestions, and I'm sure they'll be incorporated in any eventual review. But I do need a full reviewer, just suggestions without that won't suffice. --GRuban (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

So, folks, we've got part of this done, but the main part still needs doing. User:Gog the Mild was kind enough to restore the deleted half of the lead (actually he commented that the lead needs to be even longer! Which I agree with, but the perfect is the enemy of the good, we'll get to that eventually), so that part is done, thank you Gog. User:Peacemaker67, just above, made more suggestions about what might need to be done (which may well be part of an eventual review) but said that, he, too, would not be a reviewer. So the article still needs a volunteer to be that reviewer. Please, folks. We've got an article with an ugly tag, and I'd like to work to remove it, but due to the COI, I need someone else's help to do that. If you want, I could help you with one of your tasks, I'm a pretty experienced editor, relatively experienced at finding free images. Please. --GRuban (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:USSF-52#Requested move 11 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:USSF-52#Requested move 11 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Ernest Shackleton

I have nominated Ernest Shackleton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of the Swiss Air Force

History of the Swiss Air Force 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Aror

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Battle of Aror#So called modern estimates about differing reports of the strength of the combatants. Some addition perspectives would be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV problems with Volkssturm

There are some very significant POV/unencyclopedic/undue weight issues with Volkssturm. I don't edit in this topic area at all, but someone offwiki brought this to my attention and I figured the people here would be able to deal with it effectively. Thanks! - sawyer / talk 18:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The first step would probably be to tag the article or offending section with {{POV}}, then summarize your problems with it on Talk:Volkssturm. Schierbecker (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
When i posted the note, there was a POV tag on it, but it seems the issue has been largely resolved because someone already edited it. sawyer / talk 20:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we using the incorrect Brazilian Navy ship ensign/flag?

Please see WT:BRAZIL#Brazilian Navy - flag/ensign templates. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Please provide feedback.

I found this article on the EADS Barracuda, that has not been updated since 2010, or maybe earlier because the banner said it was out of date and it was added way back in 2010. So I've tried to bring it a bit more up-to-date, but as I am not a military specialist, I can't tell if my tone is proper. Please give me your feedback!

Mosstar (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph Book of Military Obituaries (2005)

Hello all. Does anyone have a copy of the above titled book (ISBN: 9781904943273)? If so, I am after an obituary for Henry Basil Melvin Groves MC. Cheers in advance! StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I do. I won't be able to get to it til Saturday though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Ah excellent! No rush on getting it, I won't be back on here until Sunday! Cheers, StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
BTW, the 2003 edition is viewable at archive.org which doesn't help in this case but may be useful for other biographies. Alansplodge (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Most of my books are in storage at the moment. I did have a rummage but wasn't able to find this one and in hindsight I'm not actually sure which edition I have. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for having a look nonetheless :) StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I've got the 2007 reprint of the 2003 edition which has Groves in it. Is that any good to you? Nthep (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Oooooh yes please! Are you able to send me his obit from the 2007 reprint please? StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox

Please contribute to the subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Curtiss Falcon - Finland?

There is a discussion on the talk page for Curtiss Falcon about whether Finland ever operated these aircraft. More opinions are welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Army general article, long overdue to be edited.

Hello All, the Army general is currently in the category for one of the oldest unreferenced articles on the site. Would anyone be able to take a look at it and either provide sources or clean up the article? Much appreicated. Tooncool64 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC that may be of interest

In the talk page of the article referenced above https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#RfC_on_sexual_violence_in_lead_section

Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorist

There's a Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorist over at Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor#Good or featured article, and recommended semi protection. I've reverted them a few times on the article and the talk page, so I'm now involved, but if there's any admins open to issuing a warning/blocking for the self-admitted sockpuppetry, I'd be thankful. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done and merry Christmas! Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria

Hello! I recently splitted List of Germans relocated to the US via the Operation Paperclip and List of Germans transported to the USSR via the Operation Osoaviakhim from the main articles. Several thousands of Germans were involved in both programs, and certainly not everybody is notable enough to be included here. Currently, both lists include (1) people about whom we have articles, (2) people about whom there are articles in other languages (mainly in German), (3) red links and probably not really notable people mostly sourced with astronautix.com, where usual entry is just

German engineer in WW2, member of the Rocket Team in the United States thereafter. Worked in aerodynamics, later returned to Germany.

Born: 1912-10-19. Birth Place: Munich.

German expert in guided missiles during World War II. Member of the German rocket team, arrived in America under Project Paperclip on 16 November 1945 aboard the Argentina from La Havre. As of January 1947, working at Fort Bliss, Texas. Living in Grunewald, Germany in 2004.

Country: Germany, USA. Bibliography: 1980.[6]

As we definitely don't want to have a list of 1000+ names, should (3) be removed? What do you think? Artem.G (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Support removal of three, per WP:Listcruft Annwfwn (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed on removing the redlinks. That is a strategy other lists have taken, like List of satirical news websites. For this topic, I would just be sure to clarify somewhere in the text that it's a list of notable people that were relocated, and is not purporting to be a list of everyone. That could be modeled off Deaths in 2023. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Royal Canadian Air Cadets

Royal Canadian Air Cadets 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Samuel Colt GA reassessment

A GAR has been started for Samuel Colt at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Samuel Colt/1. From a brief look, I believe the article may be salvageable with a bit of work. If anyone at MILHIST is interested, please head over to the GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for McCarthyism

McCarthyism 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo

Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo 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. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fort Pasir Panjang

Fort Pasir Panjang 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.

Good article reassessment for Morea expedition

Morea expedition 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. Onegreatjoke (talk)

Submission for contest

Hello, new to this project but not Wikipedia. I have made significant contributions to RIM-24 Tartar as it was lacking citations and am wondering if this is eligible for the contest? skarz (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Its not a contest, but read wp:rs, sources have to be reputable, have a reputation for fact-checking and be wp:verifiable. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I was referring to WP:MHCON - I meant are my entries eligible for that? skarz (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The article was still rated start class. It needed to be reassessed at a higher class to be eligible for the contest. The MilHistBot does periodic sweeps for B class articles automatically but would not have found this article eligible for B class. So a self-assessment at C or a reviewer reassessment for C or higher class would be needed. For the contest, the reviewer will check the assessment before confirming an entry on the contest entry page. (Occasionally coordinators will downgrade a bot B class assessment when the bot finds all criteria met and the coordinator finds that one of them has not been met.)
In this case, I have reassessed the article as C class. It would be worth two points in the contest. To get it to B class, many additional citations are needed. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ: "Policy is to cite anything that is likely to be challenged but, again, this is B-Class not a FAC so some latitude is permitted. As a rule of thumb, the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation and all direct quotes should be attributed to a source." Reassessments can be requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. The requests on this page are for B class review. If not assessed B, reasons are given and an intermediate class (start or C) may be given to the article. When all the B class criteria are satisfied, a further assessment can be requested (or the bot may see it but you would need to keep an eye on it to be sure.). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class and the linked B class FAQ page.
You can enter this article in the contest at C class if you wish. Please be sure to read all the contest rules. If you do not enter the article this month, but raise it to B later, it will be considered an increase from C to B, not from start to B due to the current reassessment making it eligible for a C class entry this month. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries. If you have further questions, please ask. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Question about minor naval battle

Any ideas if these two sources (1, 2) are referring to the same event? I think this has sometimes been confused with a later action involving a different ship, HMS Kingfisher (1675). See also (3, 4). Any input appreciated, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, both sources are referring to the same event. The key elements that confirm this are:
  1. The ship "Mary Rose" is central to both accounts.
  2. In both descriptions, the Mary Rose is involved in an encounter with seven Barbary pirates.
  3. The time frame and context (the Royal Navy's actions against Barbary Corsairs under Charles II) align in both descriptions.
  4. The involvement of the artists Van de Velde (father and son) in documenting these events is mentioned in both passages.
  5. Specific details such as the convoy duty, the Mediterranean setting, and the successful repulsion of the Algerine corsairs are consistent across both accounts.
The first source focuses more on the historical context and the commissioning of artworks by James II, while the second source provides a more detailed analysis of the artistic depiction of the event. Despite their different emphases, both sources clearly describe the same historical incident involving the Mary Rose and the Barbary pirates.
skarz (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I wonder where the confusion over the date came from. "8-18 December" is a pretty broad range, whereas the two print sources each say this happened on the night of 28 and continued into the next day. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Hamas denial in lead of article

See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_7_October_attack_on_Israel#RfC_on_Hamas_denial_in_lead_section. This presents a possible NPOV issue, one way or the other. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

AFD Alexander Zeitlin

AFD Alexander Zeitlin - alleged Russian-American military leader - does not have a project banner for Project Military history. It has been suggested that this article is a hoax. It might be of interest of this project. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Formal name of armed forces of the United States

At Template talk:United States Armed Forces informal discussions are taking place about whether the main article title, United States Armed Forces, is the best place to have the article. I initially raised these concerns when I noticed that the style "United States Armed Forces" is not referred to in United States Code, Annotated. The nearest thing in U.S. Code is "the armed forces."

All are encouraged and welcome to put their views at the bottom of that talkpage Template talk:United States Armed Forces#In Code / Article Rename?; these discussions may be formalized into a WP:RfC at some point. Kind regards to all, Happy New Year. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2023 are open!

Voting has ended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military history newcomer of the year 2023
  • First place
    First place
  • Runners up
    Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (UTC) on 9 December 2023 and last until 23:59 (UTC) on 20 December 2023. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period will commence on 00:01 21 December 2023 during which editors will be able to cast their approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 30 December 2023, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2023. Please keep nomination statements concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self-nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2023.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A.D.Hope

  1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Hog Farm Talk 18:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Boo Boo (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Ahendra (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. Zawed (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

JumbledPasta

  1. V.B.Speranza (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Their work on the Continuation War article is very impressive. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Teknologi Exprt

  1. Schierbecker (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist

  1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Catlemur (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Hog Farm Talk 18:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  8. Donner60 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  9. SEKDIS (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  10. --Obenritter (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  11. Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  12. Kierzek (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  13. FlaLibrarian (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  14. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  15. Zawed (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

For next year's nominations—it would help to have more detailed nominating rationales. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2023 are open!

Voting has ended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military historian of the year 2023
  • First place
    First place
  • Second place
    Second place
  • Third place
    Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months.

The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (UCT) on 9 December 2023 and last until 23:59 (UCT) on 20 December 2023. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of will commence on 00:01 21 December 2023 during which editors will be able to cast their approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 30 December 2023, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2023. Please keep nomination statements concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2023.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

BilCat

  1. Schierbecker (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Bill has made enormous contributions to Wikipedia over the years, including its coverage of military aviation topics. Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. BusterD (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Donner60

  1. Hog Farm Talk 23:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. TwoScars (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

  1. Hog Farm Talk 23:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Catlemur (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. Ian Rose (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  8. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  9. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  10. Imperial[AFCND] 11:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  11. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  12. Zawed (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm

  1. Schierbecker (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Boo Boo (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Donner60 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  8. Catlemur (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  9. TwoScars (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  10. Ian Rose (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  11. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  12. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  13. Imperial[AFCND] 11:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  14. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  15. Zawed (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  16. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

  1. Hog Farm Talk 23:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Donner60 (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. SEKDIS (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  8. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  9. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  10. Zawed (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  11. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66

  1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Schierbecker (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. SEKDIS (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  8. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Zawed

  1. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. V.B.Speranza (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Donner60 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Catlemur (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. --Obenritter (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  8. Ian Rose (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  9. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  10. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  11. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featured Article status of Military History articles

At Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Featured Article status of Military History articles there is a discussion on whether WikiProject Military history articles are eligible for Featured Article status. All are encouraged and welcome to put their views. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this was an unintentional change that is going to be corrected. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war

This article has virtually nothing on the military aspects of the conflict. Experienced editors, especially those acquainted with counterinsurgency warfare, would be welcome to lend their expertise. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I urge editors not to weigh in until the dust has settled. Also, I would not have considered the war to be an insurgency but a conventional conflict like the war between Russia and Ukraine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
It may take quite a while for the dust to settle, or if it ever settles, and meanwhile the article can use outside editors, especially those with military knowledge. Yes it can be a difficult talk page environment, but if necessary one can just WP:WALKAWAY. Coretheapple (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Really, Hawkeye? Keith-264 (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Battle of Thane

There is a deletion discussion going on here. Please vote. Imperial[AFCND] 18:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Operation Pike

Tidied up some banners here. No idea what was happening with the task forces, so someone might want to review it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorted it, was all in the page history. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muslim conquest of Spain#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim conquest of Spain#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge at Talk:Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

There is a proposed merge discussion at Talk:Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JM (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Potential rewrite for the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group article

I think the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group article can use a rewrite. Already considering to move some details under a proposed article for Iraq Reconstruction Support Air Wing. Ominae (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Lot Smith Cavalry Company

Is a 3-month company a relevant unit for an article, as in Lot Smith Cavalry Company? And is CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed a valid license to copy most of the article here? The Banner talk 11:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd have initially thought not, but there seems to be a fair bit of information here, here, and here, all from university presses - and that was just a quick Google Books search, no doubt there are more references out there.
Wikipedia is also licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (and GDFL), so I'd assume copying between one and the other is acceptable, so long as attribution is provided it should be fine (but I went to law school on the internet, so take that for what it is). Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. This story is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed. I am not sure what the difference is but I have learned that caution is always good. The Banner talk 13:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the link you provided above (CC BY-SA 4.0) you will see it is exactly the same, the title at the top says "Creative Commons Deed". So yes, copying from there is fine from a copyright point of view. However, www.familysearch.org clearly doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, so that is the issue here. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In fact, note FamilySearch's entry on WP:RS/P: "FamilySearch operates a genealogy site that incorporates a large amount of user-generated content. Editors see no evidence that FamilySearch performs fact-checking, and believe that the site has a questionable reputation for accuracy. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research." Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. The Banner talk 13:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In this case the warning about Family Search being unreliable doesn't apply. The specific Family Search article linked here includes a list of print sources and has some of the text supported by specific citations. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with that assessment, we're still relying on user-generated content without fact-checking oversight: just because there are references provided does not mean they adequately source the information provided. Much as Wikipedia can't cite Wikipedia, even if sources are provided. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
What "assessment" are you disagreeing with? All I said was that the general note about Family Search's reliability doesn't appear to apply in this specific case. This one linked page appears to go well beyond their normal quality of material. Would I trust the information at face value without reviewing the sources? No. Is the generic warning about Family Search use of primary material relevant in this context? It doesn't appear to be. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
That's exactly what I disagree with. I think the generic warning applies here as much as anywhere else. The edit history of the source in question shows it is clearly "user-generated content", and there is "no evidence" of any "fact-checking" or editorial oversight of the page. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I pointed out that the page mentions some potentially useful source material and the generic note about the site's use of primary material (which is a significant issue for most of their content) is not correct in this instance. Nowhere have I called it a reliable source (and never in my history at Wikimedia have I used a wiki page as a reference). I'd considered including a line in my original comment to suggest editors might want to check the references I pointed out, but I thought that would be an obvious conclusion to reach and left it out. Perhaps if I had included that note, we wouldn't be arguing semantics while agreeing that the page is not reliable. I don't see much value in continuing this - our disagreement is phrasing rather than substance. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Editors should use the sources cited by that unreliable source, rather than the unreliable source itself. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, us the RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Well so far I am not impressed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I just looked a bit further now and noticed that the author had assigned the company "limited action". In war time, that suggest "limited combat". In fact they were only on guard duties. The Banner talk 10:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Multiple integrated laser engagement system#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Multiple integrated laser engagement system#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bombardment of Yeonpyeong#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bombardment of Yeonpyeong#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Sad news

I'm sad to report that Anthony Bradbury, a member of this project, has passed away. Condolence messages can be sent to his talk page and his Wikipedia obituary is here. Graham87 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Jane's Xxxx Nnnn -> Janes Xxxx Nnnn?

Good afternoon all,

According to their website, the the various publications of Janes Information Services have been titled without the apostrophe since 2020, and over at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion there's currently (1:30 am 6 Jan 2024 UTC) a request to change "Jane's Fighting Ships" to "Janes Fighting Ships".

I guess this would mean that pre-2020 references should refer to the title with the apostrophe, and post-2020 references should refer to the title without the apostrophe... ?

Just thought I'd kick off a discussion. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 01:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty trivial and I'm not inclined to bother with anything that would cause more work. So all references using the pre-2020 spelling remain the same and everything else can use the apostrophe. As for cats and the like, I'd leave them all alone, which I'd imagine means retaining the apostrophe. Title that began post 2020 can use the apostrophe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If WP:MILHIST says it's trivial, then that's all fine with me.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah but I mean Category:Janes Information Services is kind of a dog's breakfast now, with half the titles for the various publications having the apostrophe and half not. The books all have dropped the comma I am almost sure (probably starting in 2020, anyway the Fighting Ships did).
To my mind this is not All Sir Garnet (or shipshape and Bristol fashion if you prefer). Maybe it doesn't matter, but if you let the men stop shining the brass to a gleam, next they're not stowing the ropes properly, and then... well, you know. It just looks kind of amateurish, and we're not... wait... Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2022–2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022–2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:China's peace plan#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China's peace plan#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Murugesvaran Subramaniam

The article Murugesvaran Subramaniam, who serves as Warrant Officer of the Royal Air Force has been nominated for deletion. I am not an editor of the article (beyond one minor ce), but I did pass the draft by @J.Weir3 via AfC. Perhaps people in this project would like to comment, and or improve the article. Maybe the highest non-commissioned officer is not a notable position. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Now listed as keep after I listed some additional sources. Thanks to you and the user who originally listed the article for closing the AfD as keep. Donner60 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

An assessment curiosity

I was looking at the MILHIST assessment at Talk:Military strategy, which I felt misassessed the article as B class. When I unpacked the assessment, the criteria were checked correctly, with B1 not met. This should have auto-assessed at C-class, I believe. Anyone know why? Or am I missing something? Monstrelet (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The rating shows blank with a light blue B with magnifying glass now. With all the fields marked as yes the template shows a dark blue B for the rating with a light blue B and magnifying glass below that. C should be the proper rating for the checklist with all y except 1 question. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Quality ratings are ordinarily only shown in the Template:WikiProject banner shell banner shell due to a recent change. The military history project has assessment guidelines that differ from Wikipedia:Content assessment. My understanding is that the milhist quality assessment will only show when it differs from the banner shell assessment. In this case the banner shell is correctly showing "C class" because there it currently only falls under one WikiProject (ours). Schierbecker (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
That B with the magnifying glass doesn't mean it had been rated B, the graphic just signifies that it has been rated against B-class criteria and is shown in every rated banner. The graphic for the actual rating, just like the rating itself, is usually shown directly above that and was correctly there until the whole thing was imbedded into the banner shell a day ago. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present)#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present)#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1400)#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1400)#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Units in infoboxes for campaign and battle articles

Hi, you may be interested in participating in the subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Holit massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Holit massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nir Yitzhak massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nir Yitzhak massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zikim Naval Operation#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zikim Naval Operation#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Franco-Siamese War#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Franco-Siamese War#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Internal Troops#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Internal Troops#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS/N discussion re:Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Airforce Technology/Naval Technology

A discussion has opened regarding the reliability of Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Airforce Technology and Naval Technology as a source. Schierbecker (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_171&oldid=1232601945"