Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 172

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST reliable source database

Hey, on a quick skim of the project I didn't see if MILHIST has any list of discussed sources in regards to meeting WP:RS, akin to the Video Games Wikiproject's WP:VG/S. I've seen some discussion on WP:RSN but the search feature on wiki isn't great and if there was a centralized discussion place that would be a good place to start. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the tens or hundreds of thousands of potential RS in a project this wide, this seems a bit of a non-starter. Defining specific non-RS sources might be more do-able. Or perhaps within more limited parameters, like RS websites? Monstrelet (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Indeed; a Civil War historian I knew years ago told me there were something like 4-5,000 books on the Battle of Gettysburg alone (if I'm correctly remembering the absolutely absurd number he told me!) Agree that it may be feasible to put together a very high level list of reliable websites, but even that would be a tall order if you want to attempt to cover the last 6,000 or so years of recorded history. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
While I agree that a broad database might not be possible, putting together a resource like WP:RSP for Milhist-specific sources could be useful. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Despite being in an argument with Ed on another page I heartily agree with them here, Milhist is such a prolific and controversial topic that a specific resource list would be extremely helpful (if only to weed out the various hobbyist websites and direct people towards higher tier sources). As for Parsecboy concerns they are totally valid, but I think they're universal... They apply to every attempt at creating a whitelist or a blacklist, this topic area is not particularly difficult. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
As Monstrelet says, it may be easier to provide a list of unreliable sources per topic, attempting to highlight the most common pitfalls of newer editors. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thats fair, but I think its more helpful to tell new editors the sources they're more or less safe using than the ones they can't... less guesswork unbolted that way. We don't want to be putting people in a situation where they think that any source which isn't on a blacklist is OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Another difference to think of between us and the video gaming project is that while the video game sources are going to be largely magazines or web sources, MILHIST sourcing also heavily uses print books. Things like university presses are going to be obviously OK, but it wouldn't hurt to keep in mind notes for publishers such as a caution on Schiffer's WWII eastern front materials. Hog Farm Talk 20:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Also the scale time wise... Many of these MILHIST books were written before video games were even a thing... MILHIST is a field in which 50 year old research can still be relevant. There certainly are similarities though, for instance the large number of hobbyist publications which look more or less legit to the inexperienced but can only be used if the author is a SME and not some random dude in their mom's basement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
How about a digest of high-quality newly published books? On top of a relatively short list of genuine classics, just the handful of must-reads for each subtopic.  —Michael Z. 21:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I seem to remember not too long ago a list was started (for mostly coords) to add sources they found to be of particularly high quality. I've no idea where this is; was it a Bugle thing? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Possibly this or that. Schierbecker (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle published coords' reading lists in December 2021 and December 2022 (I'm afraid we didn't get round to one last month but we could look into it for the next issue if people would like to contribute). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Would be happy to participate in one for January, or February if the coords would prefer more time to think? Referring to Mzajac's comment, I assume that a list of the "go-to" works for each subject would be feasible. The question becomes how the list would be organised; it could be done in correlation with the various MILHIST task forces, or something completely different. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Task forces are a good starting point or perennial goal. But personal initiative should be welcome. I would consider starting a list of sources about the Russo-Ukrainian War.  —Michael Z. 23:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The idea of start points for beginners might be doable on task force pages - I seem to recall this was done on some in the past. Dos and Don'ts perhaps. Monstrelet (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that the number of reasonably good military history books across all wars and topics concerning war would number in the hundreds of thousands. Some task force topics include many wars over long periods of time. The number of books on the American Civil War as a general topic is at least 60,000. That is a conservative extrapolation from the 50,000 number used about 15 years ago, which perhaps was a rough guess itself. I would not doubt that by now the number of books on World War II exceeds the number of American Civil War books. Glancing back at Hog Farm's comment, there are magazines solely devoted to the American Civil War with many articles by noted academic and independent historians. There are articles from many magazines as a search on JSTOR shows (159,000 results if one uses American Civil War as the search term).
Some of the early American Civil War books are excellent. General Humphreys's book: Humphreys, Andrew A. (1885). The Virginia Campaign of '64 and '65. New York City: Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 978-1582185385 is among them. There is no cutoff date earlier than which no reliable books were written. I have seen modern historians cite Humphreys and even plagiarize or closely paraphrase it.
See for example Bibliography of the American Civil War and the various topical bibliographies for broad topics which have been spun off from it for a sample of the number of books on the American Civil War already listed in one form on Wikipedia. There are many good ones and at least a few that are not so good on that list. It has additions from many Wikipedia users, some not so critical apparently. There are also some omissions.
The American Civil War bibliography article notes "the largest guide to books is more than 50 years old and lists over 6,000 of the most valuable titles as evaluated by three leading scholars." I have a copy of Eicher, David J. The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibliography. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-252-02273-9. There are 1,100 entries in that book. Scheduled for publication in April is Books on the American Civil War Era: A Critical Bibliography by Walter Westcote. The Amazon description includes "Walter Westcote’s Books on the American Civil War Era: A Critical Bibliography includes nearly 3,000 books, most of which have been published since the appearance of Eicher’s groundbreaking 1997 study."
Considering that Frederick Dyer in the early 1900s classified 76 of the 10,500 military engagements as "major" and that there are multiple books on those battles and related campaigns, a short list even on battles and campaigns would not be short. As noted above, there are thousands of books on Gettysburg alone.
Maybe a list of several dozen general history and reference books as starters could be compiled but many more would be needed for any sort of comprehensive treatment of all the topics that are included under the military history of the American Civil War, including biographies.
If the question is are there reliable sources on the American Civil War, the answer is yes, thousands on all the topics that category would include. If limited to general overviews of the entire war or large topics and reference books, perhaps fewer than 100, or perhaps a few hundred, might be a start.
As information, for what it's worth. Donner60 (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
For a topic like that it might be easier to make a blacklist than a whitelist... For example a list of books which promote the racist and ahistorical Lost Cause ideology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that would be more difficult. How would one compile a list of unreliable books? I know of many good ones but I have no list of bad ones. Better to simply get those sources and obvious errors reverted if they appear. This type of addition would often be opinion, not fact, and could probably be excluded on that ground. I can imagine a great uproar over any attempt to compile such a list. The problem the list would cause would likely be greater than the problem of getting Lost Cause opinion out of articles. Possibly even better to allow a brief reference (not racist) and refute the entry as only an opinion but reference to facts from neutral and unbiased reliable sources show it is bogus. (Example: Jubal Early's gross underestimate of the size of Confederate forces which no modern reliable historian supports.) Racist comments can be immediately reverted. I am sure any administrator would support such reversion and administrators would no doubt block users who repeatedly tried to insert them. Donner60 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
For the American Civil War, I kinda suspect that lists of the leading works on certain topics might be better, with cautions for sources likely to come up that are bad. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I doubt there are many leading works, even old ones, that are bad. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A question

Directly related to the subject at hand, I notice that y'all's articles frequently use uboat.net as a source. And yet I find little to consider it a reliable source and nothing more than a hobbyist website, so not even a WP:EXPERTSPS. The main editor is a "Business process (BPM) expert", not anything to do with history or the military. The other "Crew" members listed on the site don't appear to have any form of expertise either. So why is this any form of reliable source? SilverserenC 19:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There have been a few past discussions on this talk page and at User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability and at RSN (ie Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#uboat.net). Not sure how much of a consensus there in those discussions. Seems like editors who use it think it's reliable, primarily because it's cited in other reliable sources. Others disagree, because the authors seem to have no qualifications. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

related question

Merriam Press/Ray Merriam - prolific output over the years but where does it stand on reliability. I tried looking at a couple of titles through various previews but can't see if they give referencing. Thoughts? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's a low-quality RS and should be replaced if at all possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Charles X Gustav of Sweden#Requested move 14 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Charles X Gustav of Sweden#Requested move 14 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Boeing 737 AEW&C#Requested move 15 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boeing 737 AEW&C#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard 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!) 12:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Weapon dance

Weapon dance 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. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Air Force Technology/Naval Technology

There is a discussion regarding the reliability of Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Air Force Technology/Naval Technology here. Schierbecker (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

File:NATO Command Structure as at 3 June 2021.pdf

This is the latest official depiction of the NATO Command Structure, but as an official NATO image I can only upload it on WP as Fair Use and not put it on Commons. Can somebody point me to the conversion process people who help produce acceptable copies that can be uploaded on Commons? Many thanks!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Zikim#Requested move 16 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Zikim#Requested move 16 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Harold Alfred Denham's promotions

Hello all. Just expanding this cricketers article. He served in the King's (Liverpool Regiment) for a number of years, including in WWI. I appear to lose track of him in the London Gazette in October 1914, with him resurfacing in 1919, when he gains the full rank of lieutenant colonel. I am wondering if anyone can find his promotions to major and temporary lieutenant colonel during the war? Cheers in advance, StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's some confusion here; did he serve in the Royal Garrison Artillery? An "H A Denham" was seconded to the RGA in 1916; if this is him, he was promoted to temporary major on 5 September 1916. I'm not totally sure on this one, as an RGA "Major H A Denham" is later reported in some sources as receiving the DSO, which (if true) means this could be a different man. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The artilleryman is definitely a different man, a Major Harold Arthur Denham DSO ([[1], [2]). Many promotions were missed in the LG during WWI. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Next Bugle

Might want to do a bit of a push on FAs, A-class and FLs for this month: At an estimate, and making a couple presumptions on what's likely to pass, next month's Bugle is going to be absolutely stuffed with featured pictures. I'm estimating at least 7. So far, there's been a single FA, and 2 A-class.

(Of course, I'm mainly just saying this to spur people on). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 10:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Battles at disambiguated titles with red-linked base page names

The redirect project has found the following articles on battles that are at disambiguated titles (i.e., with a date in the title) with red-linked base page names.

Is there any reason that any of these need to be disambiguated? If not, the articles can be moved to their base page names. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

At least some of these have other articles that need to be created. There were two other battles of Évora during the Portuguese Restoration War, for example, neither of which currently have an article. There was an earlier battle of Vitebsk during the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667), which also does not have an article. The Timeline of Dijon references another battle in 500.
As far as I can tell, the rest don’t need to be disambiguated. Battle of Bascara was deleted as a creation of a sock, and I’m on my mobile account right now so I can’t look at the deleted article to tell whether it was on the same event as the 1945 battle or not. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The deleted Battle of Bascara said, in full:
The battle of Bascara was fought in May 1794 between a French and Spanish/Portuguese army in France and Spain. the battle was the last battle of the war of the Pyrenees. the French were attacked by the Spanish and Portuguese at Bascara. the French were defeated with 1,000 dead and 4,000 wounded out of 17,000 men. the Spanish and Portuguese lost 1,000 men dead and 3,000 wounded out of 20,000.
This may be a different battle, as the numbers are different, but there were no sources provided either. BD2412 T 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I am going to go ahead and move those pages not mentioned above to their undisambiguated titles. If new articles are created for ambiguous meanings, they can be moved back. BD2412 T 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

I would tend to assume that there will only ever be one "First Battle of..." or "Second Battle of..." something. BD2412 T 00:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the belief that Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) should remain at its current title, as there were multiple battles of Messines that this title could be referring to. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Any of the others? BD2412 T 01:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd say to move Powder River Battles back to the disambiguated title to avoid ambiguity with Battle of Powder River (which maybe should be disambiguated in the title, too). Battle of Prairie Dog Creek from above should also be moved back; there was a Battle of Prairie Dog Creek in 1867 as well. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I have moved Powder River Battles back, but I would question whether the missing Battle of Prairie Dog Creek can challenge the current article for primacy. BD2412 T 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I would tend to think the 1867 battle should take primacy. It's listed in Michno's "Encyclopedia of the Indian Wars," while the 1876 skirmish isn't. The 1876 incident is mentioned in Hedren's "Great Sioux War Orders of Battle" (p. 52) but is associated with the Tongue River and is referred to as a "demonstration" instead of a "battle." Intothatdarkness 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Piping of France to "French Third Republic" etc

I have started a discussion at Talk:Jean de Lattre de Tassigny#Piping of France to "French Third Republic" etc over the piping of "France" to "French Third Republic" and "French Fourth Republic" in the infobox. If anyone would like to provide an opinion, it would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tang campaign against Kucha

Tang campaign against Kucha has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Audie Murphy articles

Audie Murphy is both a Featured Article and a Featured Topic. Requesting feedback here, and posting in response to the article's talk questions from Coretheapple regarding edits I reverted today. Penlite made edits on Audie Murphy that, to me, were more tabloid wording than FA wording. Specifically, he added "AUDIE MURPHY, KILLER HERO" to an existing source, and "ref name="killer_hero_wapo" and also "He was noted for a quick, fierce temper, and was involved in various violent altercations during his adult life." I would appreciate other eyes looking at both Penlite's edits and my reverts. If anyone here thinks the Audie Murphy article is better with Penlite's edits, I'll revert myself. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post source is indeed titled "Audie Murphy, Killer Hero", so I see nothing wrong with that, although adding citations in the lede was unnecessary. I can only access p. 115 of the source cited for the added sentence on his temper, but it seems to be a very paraphrased version of an opinion quote. I would look for a more direct source there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Maile, my concern was that the edit was marked as "vandalism" in the edit summary and described by you as tendentious. I didn't see it as vandalism, certainly, but there may be a reason to revert on some other basis that did not seem immediately obvious. I note that the Graham book is already used as a source, and that editor used not the book but a review of the book, and indeed he correctly summarized what was in the review. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
As the editor whose work apparently sparked this debate, I'm coming late to the table (many other duties), and just seeing this now. Let me be clear: there was NO malicious intent in my edit, and certainly it was not meant as any form of "vandalism." In fact, I respect Murphy's wartime and postwar achievements, though I'm not a starry-eyed fan.
The notation about his legendary temper wasn't just "tabloid" trivia, but something noted in almost every detailed biographical coverage of him I encountered -- an issue had no idea of until reading this Wikipedia article (see the text following my edit). When searching for other information about him online, to document other edits, it just kept coming up -- suggesting this was an significant, important, recurring characteristic of the man -- often paired with his alleged postwar PTSD. I should have cited more of the sources that reported it, and if/when I have time (very difficult), I will. Other editors, please help.
I was very uncomfortable with the Washington Post review which I cited (another editor had made the first ref citation of it), and its very negative-sounding ALL CAPS title. But it's not my place to correct (except, as I recall, I did tone it down, from "ALL CAPS" to "Normal Title Case")
As i recall, so I could cite in multiple places, approprirately, I just added a ref name to it: "ref name="killer_hero_wapo" -- which sounds awful, but was the most concise ref name I could imagine, which would clearly, unambigously identify the ref source. "killer_hero" was half the source title; "wapo" is the globally common abbreviation/nickname for "Washington Post," even used by its own staff. Brevity in ref names is being hammered upon me, relentlessly, by some senior editor, so I couldn't do better.
Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Penlite Everything is fine now. Thank you for your diligence. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by saying everything is fine now. Pelite's perfectly good edit was reverted by you with an incorrect and rather inflammatory edit summary and it was not restored. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audie_Murphy&diff=1194236748&oldid=1194144678 The sentence he added, which you removed, is "He was noted for a quick, fierce temper, and was involved in various violent altercations during his adult life." This is true, it is not "tabloid," there is no valid reason to remove it, and it should be reinstated. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you meant this diff.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
That's correct, and my link showed that the text was not restored. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Maile66, Coretheapple: While I see that my text is restored (thank you), I see that my refname, "<ref name="killer_hero_wapo">," and its various placements, have not been restored, yet. Do I need to do this myself?
The places I cited it merit more thorough documentation than without the citation (particularly the notation about his temper and altercations).
~ Penlite (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why that was not restored. However, more to the point, perhaps the Graham book itself should be the source rather than the review thereof. I imagine editors have this book. I just got hold of a copy. Murphy is a fascinating figure in history and we don't want to be one-dimensional, particularly when good sourcing is available. Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Some help at Sino-Soviet border conflict

Hello! I hope this is the right place to ask for some neutral, knowledgeable eyes for some help at the Sino-Soviet border conflict and Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict. I'm currently dealing with a somewhat belligerent IP editor here who's changed the results without consensus or discussion on the talk page.

Would anyone be able to help provide a consensus, or just an extra pair of eyes, as to whether or not this would be considered a Chinese or Soviet victory (or something more nuanced)? Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Archive org treasure trove

[3] just found all these pdfs by mistake [4]. Enjoy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent news! I've checked against History of the Second World War and I think two are newly posted since I last went over it - both in the civil series, which is now complete. There was also a broken link for one of the RAF volumes, now fixed.
We now have everything for the WWII official history freely available on archive.org except for:
  • Mediterranean & Middle East vol VI part 3 (1944-45)
  • Foreign Policy abridged vol (probably superfluous if we have the full ones)
  • All volumes of Intelligence except SOE in France
  • All the various "related volumes" from non-HMSO publishers
Given that the Intelligence volumes have much later publication dates, and the "related" ones will have complicated copyright issues, that feels like a pretty good result! All we're missing from the ones I'd expect to see is that one Mediterranean volume. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I've also had a look at History of the Great War to bring it up to date. Good news there as well - the recent uploads have included Vol 7 of War in the Air (now complete) and Order of Battle of Divisions vol 3B (ditto). Of the main series, we are now still missing Egypt & Palestime (all 3 vols), plus France and Belgium 1918 vol 3. The rest are either freely available or are modern publications only (eg the Occupation volumes). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Nicely done. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this article ready for FA?

I'd like some opinions about how close M8 Armored Gun System is to Featured Article status. Here are the changes I've made since the A-class review last April. This would be my first FA nomination. User:Hawkeye7, User:Hog Farm, User:Gog the Mild, User:CPA-5. Schierbecker (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

On the face of it, I think it is ready. You might have to round up some reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Hawkeye7, I'm wondering if you might agree (or disagree) with some of Gog the Mild's comments at Talk:M8 Armored Gun System#Ready for FAC?. Schierbecker (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Military history articles needing attention to tagging

The MilHistBot and I have been cleaning up Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging. Only two anomalies remain:

Both are Featured Articles, but I am unable to verify their claim to have passed an A-Class review. I cannot find their A-Class reviews. Hence their categorisation.

Pinging @Acdixon: and @Cassianto:. Anybody know anything about these articles? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 - from what I can tell, Buckner hasn't. It received the project-specific peer review back in 2009, which led to Ian Rose assessing it as b-class. The idea that it passed A-Class seems to originate with this edit by Adamdaley in 2022. Hog Farm Talk 00:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Stanley Holloway's A-Class status appears to be another Adamdaley misunderstanding of the peer review; in this case the peer review wasn't even a project-specific one. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I have corrected Simon Bolivar Buckner and removed Stanley Holloway as out of scope. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I authored the Stanley Holloway article and helped secure it its FA status. Is this sorted now? If not, how can I help? CassiantoTalk 07:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. All sorted now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Battleships

Portal:Battleships, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Battleships and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Battleships during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Title convention for the sake of page move: Counterintelligence Corps

I posted on the article's talk page, but I want to preface this by saying that I don't expect you to read all of the references and notes I've included there re: "Counterintelligence Corps" vs. Counter Intelligence Corps"! The gist is that I think the page should be moved to the latter.

I post primarily to ask about convention regarding whether, in the move, I should add "Army" and/or "United States" in the title. Perhaps it's a moot point when the article is about a unit that no longer exists, but given United States Army Signal Corps, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Army Acquisition Corps, etc. it seems that there is a convention. I notice Cyber Corps (United States Army) deviates somewhat from the pattern, perhaps to allow for the pipe trick, but the info is still there. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I answered in part on the article talk page. I would not add "United States." The examples you cited are for Army branches; for example, I would guess that most of the personnel assigned to the Military Intelligence Corps (United States Army) are members of the Military Intelligence Branch. I've been retired for 36 years and I may very well be behind on terminology.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Identifying planes on HMS Victorious in 1964

I've uploaded some pictures of HMS Victorious (R38) in Singapore in 1964, and was hoping someone here could identify the planes visible here, here, and here so I can put them in the right categories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Images two and three are probably de Havilland Sea Vixens. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
One of the images shows a number matching the one in this accident report.[5] From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Another accident report for the plane in the foreground of image 3.[6] From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Image 1 may be the Fairey Gannet, which was in operation at the time and had the same folding wing, as seen here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
2 and 3 are definitely Sea Vixens belonging to 893 Naval Air Squadron. Both were lost in accidents in 1965. The other is a Gannet, most likely of 849 Naval Air Squadron. Nthep (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Image 1 is a Gannet. Close look shows this carries a radome (clearer in the aircraft behind) which I believe makes it an AEW3 variant.Monstrelet (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to this, the air wing of Victorious in the 1963-64 deployment to the Far East was:
Concur that the first shows a Gannet (I believe that the double-folding wing was unique) and the others show Sea Vixens. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all. I've added the Fairey Gannet category to the relevant picture. I don't see a Commons category suitable for the Sea Vixens. Am I missing it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Have added. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Zenas Bliss

Zenas Bliss 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) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Battleships and Portal:World War II

The portals Portal:Battleships and Portal:World War II have been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion pages are Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Battleships and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:World War II .

Just to restate what is not always obvious, this does not mean that the articles are being nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Invite to join the February 2024 Unreferenced Backlog Drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive

There are 13622 out of ~130000 unsourced articles on Wikipedia that belongs to Category:Military history, according to WP:PetScan. The purpose of this drive is to add sources to military history and other articles and make a meaningful impact towards improving Wikipedia as a whole.

  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
  • Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In the BamBot cleanup list, there are 2940 articles. I think this is the more accurate figure for the number of unreferenced articles in Milhist. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ref for fighters being one-person crew?

I'm working on getting Dorothy Olsen into shape for FAC. There's a statement to the effect that "WW-II fighter planes were mostly one-person crews and bombers were mostly mutli-person crews". Can anybody think of a WP:RS which supports that general statement? RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If nobody can find one, have a look at Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue which perhaps applies here. Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I actually think my reviewer has a valid point. Anybody who knows anything about military aviation will think it's obvious, but I'm trying to write for a more general audience, who may know nothing about airplanes. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It's also not completely obvious, especially if one considers that there are a large amount of planes that at least someone not generally interested in military aviation would, based on their looks, consider "fighters" rather than "bombers" (e.g. torpedo bombers, dive bombers, etc.) that have two-person crews. Ljleppan (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
You could always say something like "she preferred flying single-seat aircraft" without adding in the fighter/bomber distinction. Intothatdarkness 16:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I presume the sentence we are considering is

" Debbie Jennings, a historian with the Seattle Museum of Flight,[11] said Olsen disliked flying bombers because in fighters, "she was by herself and could do whatever she wanted". " So, while she preferred single-seat seems the obvious meaning, the source seems focussed on a dislike of bombers so checking what Ms Jennings actually said would be useful. But the single seat preference seems the more elegant solution without twisting around too much chasing around RS sources looking for a comment which may be, for many authors, stating the obvious. Monstrelet (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Firearm production number to include or not to include variants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_38_rifle Should the production number of variants be included in the total production number? The page says 3,579,200 Type 38s were built. The source I'm using says 3,519,000 Type 38 rifles and carbines were produced. The Type 38 has many variants, such as the Mexican Model 1913, Type 97 sniper rifle, and the Chinese 6/5 Infantry rifle. The Mexican Model 1913 was made in Japan for Mexico, the Type 97 is a Type 38 with a scope and a few other small modifications, and the Chinese 6/5 is a copy. Should I include copies? Should I just include firearms made for Japan by Japan, or include made by Japan for another country? Should I only include firearms designated Type 38? There's the Type 44 carbine too, which is basically a Type 38 carbine with a new stock and folding bayonet. If all the variants were included, the total production number would be approximately 3,922,000. Thanks Rebel1945 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd give the number for the base model, and then variants seperately (possibly listing major variants, then "other variants" as a catch-all), as that should make it a bit clearer. Should probably be a redirect from Type 44 rifle to this page, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#Requested move 26 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#Requested move 26 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Italian convoys to Libya 1940-1943 question

Does anyone know of a publication that lists them? Ta. Keith-264 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Insurgency in Macedonia

Can y'all weigh in on Talk:2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia#Infobox_"Result"? This page is plagued with edit warring, especially in the results section. I know sometimes when there is a consensus, we do put something other than the standard x victory or inconclusive in the box. Right now there's a whole list of "Results" that get changed several times a day. I'd just love to hear from some folks more knowledgeable than me. Annwfwn (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Roberto Vannacci

The creator of Draft:Roberto Vannacci (subject born 1968; Italian soldier, commander of Task Force 45 in Afghanistan) has said they do not intend to work on it further. Does anyone want to complete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Free access to Royal United Services Institute publications

Would you like to have free access to the full set of Royal United Services Institute publications, though the Wikipedia Library? If you are eligible for a Wikipedia Library account, please upvote this request.

Even if you already have access through some other means, your upvote will help to secure free access for other Wikimedia volunteers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Umm, how do I support? It's not at all clear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You need to be logged in. Then, on the right-hand edge of the page (on desktop), you will see "upvote" buttons, one for each suggestion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
This is an excellent proposal. The RUSI is an expert body with high standards, and their publications would be very useful. Note though that many are essentially opinion articles, but as they're the opinions of experts they can be used in Wikipedia articles as long as the material is presented correctly. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Helmets_Limited

Good Morning/Afternoon all,

Looking for any info for this, specifically in the 'Military' section. I know that they have definitely produced a bunch of military helmets but I don't know what or when etc etc.

Feel free to add on (With sources).

The page is quite early on in writing and any other contributions to other sections would help.

Many thanks, FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 10th Mountain Division

10th Mountain Division 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. Schierbecker (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 21st Regiment of (Light) Dragoons into 21st Lancers

Interested editors can find the discussion here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Infobox montage

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

ACR for Crusading movement

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Crusading movement has two supports and a successful image review, needs another content review to get it over the line. Good length article, but Hawkeye and I have gone over it in some considerable detail already, so hopefully we haven't missed much. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Project 97 icebreaker#Requested move 30 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Project 97 icebreaker#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Frederick William IV of Prussia#Requested move 26 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Frederick William IV of Prussia#Requested move 26 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Identifying a Vietnam era US military aircraft from tail number only

I just uploaded File:Cambodian trophies from Vietnam War 1964.jpg, which was taken no later than November 1964. It was taken by my father in Phnom Penh; he worked in Intelligence for the UK DoD and he captioned this "War trophies (Vietnam) US personnel carrier and aircraft. Phnom Penh." This seems very early in the war for there to have been military trophies like this. The only identifying mark on the aircraft is the tail number, 54549, though there might be a letter or digit invisible before that. Is there any way to identify the aircraft from just that number? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Fairchild C-123 Provider 55-4549 was on a mission to drop supplies at Bu Prang Camp on 24 October 1964 when it strayed into Cambodian airspace and was shot down by anti-aircraft fire, killing the eight crew members. See this summary. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
The aircraft had flown from Nha Trang Air Base, and was part of the 315th Troop Carrier Group. Because of the secretive nature of her activities, the date of the loss was initially recorded as 13 February 1965 to disguise it. Seven of the crew members were recovered at the time of the incident. The eighth, Staff Sergeant Lawrence Woods, was recovered in an excavation of the crash site in Dak Dam, Đăk Nông province, in 2009. See [7]. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks -- that was quick! I've added the image to the Fairchild C-123 Provider article, citing the aviation-safety.net source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Neil Ritchie

While overhauling the article on Neil Ritchie, I came an unsourced claim in the article that his older brother was Brigadier Alan MacDougall Ritchie, but I could not find a source for this. Can anyone? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the DNB, Neil Ritchie was the second son of Dugald MacDougall Ritchie, so it seems likely given the similarity in names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Per Necrothesp, I couldn't find any source specifically noting a connection but the similar names make one likely. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This interview with his mother in 1941 is specific: "His brother Alan, who went right through the Abysinnian campaign with General Cunningham during which he earned the DSO, is a brigadier. He is only forty-eight and is equally modest about his achievements. In their letters to me neither of the boys writes about his successes." Andrew Gray (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! You're awesome! This was really frustrating as I was almost certain that it was true, but unable to locate a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I was pleasantly surprised to find it - I had actually been looking for either of their obituaries, but no luck. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

1964 RAF prop plane ID?

This is the third request for identifying a military plane in a photo on Commons that I've posted here; I think this is the last one, but please let me know if these questions are not appropriate for this page.

The picture is File:Don Muang airport Bangkok November 1964.jpg; it was taken at Don Muang Airport in Bangkok in November 1964. Group Captain Dicky Squires was the British Air Attaché in Bangkok at the time and this plane was placed at his disposal. I know it's an RAF plane because on other pictures from this trip I can see the RAF logo on the wing. I would like to add the plane information to the picture if anyone can identify it and perhaps add the picture to the article on the plane. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's VP977, a de Havilland Dove. Here's an image of her in 1978, and again in 1982; she finally retired in 1984 after 35 years of service. VP977 operated at Don Muang as the Air Attache's aircraft from 1961 until 1964. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again -- I've added the category to the image and updated the description. Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Bernadotte and the Battle of Friedland

Can someone take a look at Battle of Friedland? An IP editor keeps inserting Bernadotte into the infobox as a French commander of the battle. Bernadotte had been wounded a week earlier at the Battle of Guttstadt-Deppen and I am not aware of any sources that say he remained with the army while he recovered. I have already reverted the IP editor twice and I don't want to make it a third. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:HMS Marlborough (F233)#Requested move 25 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HMS Marlborough (F233)#Requested move 25 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:HMS Norfolk (F230)#Requested move 25 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HMS Norfolk (F230)#Requested move 25 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ionian Revolt

Ionian Revolt 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. Hog Farm Talk 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:HMS Grafton (F80)#Requested move 25 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HMS Grafton (F80)#Requested move 25 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Davidships (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Military of England

Hello friends, I came upon Military of England in the course of this month’s drive to address the backlog of WP entries that have no references at all. It struck me as very unusual, given the vigor of your project, that a topic like this would have no references, and I wondered if it was more likely a duplicate of some better developed page. I’m not knowledgeable enough in this area to know what other name it might have though, and so I turn to you. Any suggestions about what to make of this entry? Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The page is duplicative and unnecessary. The topic is covered by other articles. Except for mention of the Royal Navy as part of the English military before formation of the United Kingdom miliitary, the sentences are found verbatim in the in-depth article: English Army. I think that mention of the Royal Navy as part of the Englisn military along with the English Army before formation of the United Kingdom military is not a good enough reason for a separate article. The history of the English Navy in the years before the formation of the United Kingdom is covered in depth in History of the Royal Navy (before 1707). At most, Military of England should be a redirect if not just simply deleted. Perhaps mention of both the army and navy as not being standing forces until after certain dates might be added to both articles, rather than the just mention of that fact and date for each force in the separate articles. It may already be in both of these articles or in later articles about the British military. I did not read both of the cited articles thoroughly enough to be certain but did not see mentions while skimming them. Yet, I doubt the additional mention of the other force's date as a standing force is necessary in each article. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank so much. Since covered at English Army, I will redirect it there but anyone who wishes to initiate deletion should feel free as far as I’m concerned! Thanks again. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A-class articles delisted at GAR

There are currently nine articles this WikiProject classifies as A-class that have been delisted as GAs, which are theoretically lower-quality than A-class articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tks AJ. There's been a recent discussion on this situation here. The upshot is that although an A-class article losing its GA status should not automatically cause it to lose A-class status, it is a prima facie reason to conduct a formal review of the article's A-class status (for which MilHist has a process). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Black Horror on the Rhine#Requested move 5 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Black Horror on the Rhine#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Project independent quality assessments

Hello project,
Regarding Project Independent quality assessments, I see this project does not want to participate... I made this edit in order that your project have their own separate assessment on the article talk page. Does that work? If not, I'll skip and won't update articles related to your project. Cheers! The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Senussi Campaign biblio question

Gökkent Giyas Müeyyed "Journey in the Grand Sahara of Africa and through Time" 2021 Menah? location? (978-1-73712-988-2) I wonder if this is self-published and meets the adequacy criteria for a source. Any ideas? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Asim Munir (general)#Requested move 7 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asim Munir (general)#Requested move 7 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

HSwMS Thordön (1865)

The HSwMS Thordön (1865) article states that she was launched on 1 December 1865. However, the Pall Mall Gazette of 5 October 1865 states that she had just been launched. Could the correct date be 1 October 1865? Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It requires a registration to view and is behind a paywall after 3 views. There are at least 12 separate pages. I can't be sure I can access it or give a conclusion even if I can. I am pinging @Sturmvogel 66: who did much of the work on the article, although that was more than 10 years ago and there have been edits since then. Perhaps he can comment on this. Donner60 (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Bojerud is drawing on official records for the launch date, but I certainly can't exclude that he could have a typo. I'm reluctant to trust an English-language newspaper for the actual date as it could have referred to a planned date that was postponed or something. I'd much prefer to rely on a Swedish newspaper or a more modern reference than my 1986 article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
That's fair enough. One would have hoped that contemporary Swedish newspapers would have covered the launch. I've asked at WT:SWEDEN for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Peter Isotalo in case they're able to assist? Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I searched for "Thordön" in tidningar.kb.se. Several Swedish newspapers reported the launch on 1 December.
Bojerud is correct here. Peter Isotalo 16:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter. Will add that resource to WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Need review of a draft

VE23BlackKnights has created Draft:LTJG David Marion Christian. I have declined the submission, but I'd like a member of this project to take a second look. I'm not averse to having my opinion on the matter overturned. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nicholas II of Russia#Requested move 24 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nicholas II of Russia#Requested move 24 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muqrin bin Abdulaziz#Requested move 9 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muqrin bin Abdulaziz#Requested move 9 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Caucasus campaign#Scope of article and result parameter

Please see subject discussion. There is some warring over the result. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of sources for strength and loses figures in Battle of Bakhmut

There is a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that could use some extra input. The discussion is WP:RSN#Prigozhin vs Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx casualty numbers reliability for the infobox. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars#Requested move 8 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars#Requested move 8 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Imperial[AFCND] 14:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Indian campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor#Requested move 11 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Imperial[AFCND] 14:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maus#Requested move 11 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maus#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ranger tab#Requested move 10 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ranger tab#Requested move 10 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps

Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps 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) 19:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Good Article nomination for Battle of Kherson

Battle of Kherson has been nominated for a good article. If you are interested in reviewing the article for GA criteria, see WP:GAN or start the review here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Asiatic-Pacific Theater#Requested move 14 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asiatic-Pacific Theater#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Union of Donbass Volunteers

The Union of Donbass Volunteers article relies largely on cites from InformNapalm which describes itself as a volunteer organization. Is InformNapalm a reliable source regarding Union of Donbass Volunteers? Conversation is underway on the article talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Former MILHIST coordinator Vami IV passed away

Please see User talk:Vami IV#Condolences. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Sad news. He was a great contributor to the project and to other areas of Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Gröner Volume 3

Does anyone have access to Gröner's Die Deutschen Kriegschiffe 1815-1945, Band 3 U-Boote, Hilfskreuzer, Minenschiffe, Netzleger, Sperrbrecher? I want to write an article on Schürbek, which saw service as Sperrbrecher 18 and is covered on p257-59. If any editor has this source, I can start the article in my space and move it when ready. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Immediate panic over, her fate is covered in Jordan's World's Merchant Fleets. Article created, but if anyone can expand from that source it would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I've added a bit on her involvement in the sinking of HMS Tarpon (N17) and her torpedoing by HMS Sunfish (81S). The cites may need tweaking as sfn doesn't play well with quotes , which are probably needed for citing two bits of the same chapter in an e:book (with no page numbering).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish: those sfn references are working just fine. Thanks for the addition. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Requested move 15 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Requested move 15 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of invasions#Inclusion criteria

Please see subject discussion. The inclusion criteria used appear to be more one of editor opinion (WP:OR) rather than source based? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of British RAF Service Record (1920s-1960s)

I received via an FOI request the service record of Henry Biard from the RAF. There's nothing earth-shattering in there that hasn't already been picked up in secondary sources, but there are a few details and specifics which could be useful.

Would be grateful if anyone who knows about these things could chip in on any of the following:

1. First and most importantly, can we even cite this, and if so, how? It's not technically published in the conventional sense, though it is freely available to anyone who asks for it, which I think is pretty much how the Wikipedia definition understands that term.

2. He's listed on Reserve of Air Force Officers throughout the 1920s (after his first demobilisation from the RAF in 1919), during which time he was quite busy with his civilian piloting career. Was this simply a formality that happened to all ex-RAF officers, or would being in the RAFO involved any choice or obligations for him?

3. He was posted for ten months in 1943 to the School of Flying Control as a pilot. The area is marked as "B'north", which doesn't immediately register with me. The article on the school seems to suggest that it was an ATC centre: any idea what they would be doing with a pilot?

4. The email from the RAF mentioned that parts of the file were redacted as told in confidence. Some of these are medical (it's known that he relinquished his commission on the grounds of ill health, and there is a suitable black box on the form over the medical info and his reason for leaving). However, they've also redacted his civilian occupation: is there any good reason why they would have done that? He was a test pilot for most of his career: I wondered if he might have been unemployed when the form was written and they marked that as confidential to spare his blushes?

I'm not sure what the formalities with uploading the file would be, but I'm very happy to send it by Wikimail if anyone would be interested in casting an eye over it and giving me a hand. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

B'north is RAF Bridgnorth. Nthep (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Nthep: Ah, of course -- thank you. I wonder if this means he had some sort of training role -- which would fit well with his previous experience and civilian work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the RAFO was just the RAF's regular reserve. All former officers got transferred to it. Just meant they could be rapidly called back to service if necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Re. point 1, I've often used service records to buttress my bios of Australian service people. Obviously they're primary sources so are no use for anything interpretive but they're helpful for more precise dates than you sometimes find in secondary sources, and can also help resolve contradictions in secondary sources. A recent example you could check is Wilfred Arthur, which cites his personal service record, as well as two unit operations books and an interview with the subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
As a primary source we can use it for (attributed) bare facts, we can't speculate. Nut there is also undue to consider, is RS do not consider any if this note worthy, why should we? 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
  • Ian -- thank you - it seems a bit clearer with the Wilfred Arthur article, because those resources are already online, whereas this one isn't. I suppose it wouldn't be ridiculous to upload it via "Upload File" as somehow being fair use? I would have to think on exactly how to craft that, but the basic concept seems sound.
  • Well it might be academic if Simon's found his records online but I also have a precedent/example for citing an offline archive source -- search for "unpublished monograph" in North-Eastern Area Command; Nick-D was kind enough to view the item at the Australian War Memorial and send me a copy to reference. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Slatersteven: a very fair point -- in this case, there are vanishingly few secondary sources that have Biard as their primary subject (as opposed to the races, aircraft and people with whom he was associated), and so I think the easy explanation is that they didn't or couldn't get hold of the records. There's also another angle, which is that his main period of fame was in the 1920s, whereas the records are mostly good for the dark patch of the Second World War: he published his memoirs in the 1930s, and most people who have tried to do his biography seem to have used them as the main source, which of course leaves everytbing after that pretty murky. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to make life more difficult, but his R.N.A.S. and R.A.F. service records are available from The National Archives, the former here (ADM 273/24/2) and the latter here (AIR 76/38/4) and provide a little more insight into his First World War service. —Simon Harley (Talk). 18:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That may make life considerably easier - thank you! UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Belarusian and Russian partisan movement (2022–present)#Requested move 28 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Belarusian and Russian partisan movement (2022–present)#Requested move 28 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Two article for poss B class

Hi there

Your project recently reviewed Sexual harassment in the military and Suicide in the military for B class status but rejected them both on the grounds that the referencing isn't up to scratch. Both articles look well referenced to me, but I must be missing something. Can you advise me on how to brush up the refs, please?

Thanks!

Fugitivedave (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  • For the Sexual harassment article, the other projects banners are rated at Start, which is lower than C. All the projects are rated C for the Suicide article. Both maybe should be B class if they are not missing critical info. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Sexual harassment in the military: several unreferenced paragraphs including the first two in "Behaviour", the first in "Intimate partners" and the last one in "France"
  • Suicide in the military: several unreferenced paragraphs including the first in "Incidence", first two in "Young personnel and veterans" and "Protective factors" and the first in "Deployment" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

FA review

I have nominated Edward I of England 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. Jim Killock (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Auxiliary naval vessels

It is generally held at auxiliary naval vessels are notable enough to sustain articles, isn't it? Fram (talk · contribs) has tagged German trawler V 603 Carsten as not being notable enough to sustain an article. It is one of a series on vorpostenboot in World War II. As with any large grouping of ships, some vessels have more material available than others. A few, such as V 215 Hela have proved not to be able to meet GNG, but in the case of Carsten I believe GNG is met. Opinions please. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Which sources are used to determine that WP:GNG is met? Lloyds is minimal, routine coverage, so Gröner is just one source (I can't access it so can't comment on how significant it is or whether it is routine, database-like coverage). Fram (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Gröner is an author of many books on Kriegsmarine ships. His notability is not in question. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I didn't question his notability. Fram (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the general view is that auxiliary naval vessels have to demonstrate notability. There was some debate about "are all military ships notable" some time ago which mostly rejected that notion. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Auxiliaries can range from huge ocean going ships with large crews to uncrewed barges; the former will almost always be notable and the later will very rarely be. There's a general presumption that commissioned warships are notable given the sourcing they attract, but my understanding is this isn't considered automatic notability any more. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:USS Stark incident#Requested move 12 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:USS Stark incident#Requested move 12 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:A7 Medium Tank#Requested move 22 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:A7 Medium Tank#Requested move 22 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Censorship at Boeing E-6 Mercury

A new user is removing facts from the Boeing E-6 Mercury article for purposes of "national security". I could use some help in sorting out the proper aircraft specifications to show the reader with regard to the best available sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor involved there may want to read about the Streisand effect. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Should Trebizond Campaign and Capture of Trabzon (1918) be merged? Neither seems to really make sense without the other. Thoughts? Annwfwn (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The first is a Russian operation in 1916. The second is a Turkish operation to recapture in 1918 the territory the Russians had occupied (Armenia, which had been previously occupied by Turkey). They seem to me to be separate enough operations, and topics, to be two articles. I do agree that the first article should have at least a brief aftermath or later events section and the second should have a preliminary section about the previous status and the Russian invasion. "See also", which is not present in either article now, might not be enough to give proper context. The additional sections could be brief and would avoid any possible need for one or more redirects. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

missile base

We are missing this important topic. Could redirect to missile launch facility but that seems conceptually more limited as it seems to be about missile silos, not entire bases. Perhaps someone feels like stubbing this if not more? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My advise would be to start with a section at Military base. Once over 30-60 kb or so (see WP:SIZERULE) it can be split. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC at Battle of Haldighati

There is an ongoing RFC discussion on the Talk:Battle of Haldighati page regarding the outcome of the battle. Please share your views in the comments section. Imperial[AFCND] 16:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

British naval forces subordinated to USN in Western Atlantic, World War II

Dear Aodhdubh, you have again reinstated a claim in North America and West Indies Station that "The senior British officer was subordinated to his United States Navy counterpart as the Allied command in the North Atlantic was divided, with the United States taking command in the West and the United Kingdom in the East" during World War II.

You appear to have inferred this from the title change from Commander-in-Chief, America and West Indies, to Senior British Naval Officer, Western Atlantic, in the 1942-1945 period.

I raised this matter with you previously at User talk:Aodhdubh#United States Fleet Forces Command in February 2021. I received no reply.

Can you explain why you believe that SBNO Western Atlantic was placed under United States Navy control, rather than that of the First Sea Lord? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I note how the position is described in the RCN's operational history:

Ernest J. King's sensitivity on [British naval control of a US sphere of influence] explains the initiative he took in the negotiations with the Canadians and British over the protection of the Caribbean oil trade in the spring of 1942 to ensure that when diversion authority over Commonwealth shipping in the US sphere passed to the Navy Department on 1 July, US control would be complete. King made his concerns clear when Admiral Pound suggested that a senior British officer, of vice-admiral rank, was still needed at Bermuda to administer British warships operating under US control, and oversee the work of RN offices and establishments "in Central and South America as well as in Bermuda and British West Indian possessions," all subject to the agreements for overall US direction. Pound suggested the neutral title Senior British Naval Officer Western Atlantic for the flag appointment in Bermuda. King minuted "OK but 'SBNOWA' should not be operational!

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Nb. page 417-418 of "No Higher Purpose," PDF accessible via this link. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC))

Super many thanks Pickersgill-Cunliffe!! Great to have this hard data!! So naval shipping control in the Western Atlantic passed to the Navy Department and thus I assume CINCLANTFLT and the Sea Frontiers, on 1 July 1942. From this date British warships could be given operational instructions by CINCLANTFLT while west of some line down the mid-Atlantic, am I understanding you correctly?
After that date, SBNO Western Atlantic's responsibilites were limited to administration, promotions, postings, etc, and maybe not even logistics, given that most of the fuel would be provided by U.S. sources (and located mostly along the east coast of the U.S.). Am I understanding you correctly here?
Just realised Tenth Fleet turned up here at some point, so it would not have been all CINCLANTFLT.
Many thanks for your help. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Dormskirk maybe both of us are wrong!! Buckshot06 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
OK. Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Military Badge articles

Hi, I'm trying to understand the Notability criteria being applied to many short articles such as Military Horseman Identification Badge, Career Counselor Badge, or indeed many of the articles linked off pages such as Badges of the United States Army. These articles tend to have a lead, a "criteria" section and possibly a history section. Typically, the vast majority of references are to an army.mil site ("Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia, Chapter 22" is a popular one). The better cited articles might grace you with an article on military.com, Army Times or even a Regimental/Corp Association. The first two being technically private/independent publications but remain in a bit of a grey area as "closely affiliated sources", being highly specialised and relying on good relations with the DoD to maintain access for their writing, which is primarily for service personnel, rather than a wider audience (c.f. say, the NYTimes or "general" news/reportage). Not that specialist sources are bad (e.g. academic journals), but it's a stretch to deem them "significant, independent coverage".

It's maybe a bit of a fait accompli at this point, but this sprawl of - often tiny - articles do not appear to meet WP:GNG, and I would judge as falling into WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any badge that is issued simply for passing a course (even with distinction) seems unlikely to be Notable. Notable medals are likely to be discretionary honours & awards for valour or unusual service. In many cases, these articles are largely reproducing a couple of Army regulations on eligibility criteria or uniform standards, nothing more. A significant chunk of Parachutist Badge (United States) is listing out the relevant portion of "U.S. Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards".

In some cases there also seems to be a sprawl of articles that should be (at most) one article. For instance, Marksmanship ribbon is the same subject as Marksmanship badges (United States). The fact that the Army and Marine Corp award badges, whilst the Air Force, Navy, Space Force and CoastGuard issue ribbons is neither here nor there. They're all just one subject - awards given to service personnel who have passed their weapon handling qualification with merit/distinction. Service-specific conventions on ribbons/badges/medals do not justify entirely separate articles! Admittedly, Marksmanship badges (United States) also can't decide what it wants to be, since it also covers badges for civilians including Police and NRAoA competition shooter badges. Arguably, the following four articles should really be one article "Marksmanship awards (US Military)".

Potentially Police and NRA badges are then farmed out into a separate article.

Have I completely missed a policy here, or is there starting to be a need to merge some of these articles or keep a cap on the sprawl? Many Thanks! Hemmers (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think some of them are definitely falling into the "too much detail", and looking I fell into Recruiting Service Ribbon which "...recognizes those military service members who have completed a successful tour as a military recruiter in one of the United States Military Recruiting Commands" and that in case of US Army "All Army personnel... who make a qualified referral that results in enlistment and shipping out to Basic Combat Training will be eligible for the ribbon" which does make it sound more like an MLM reward unfortunately. Badges of the United States Army sounds like it ought to be a descriptive article about history of the process and summaries of the badges but is just a list article with pictures. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there one for tying your bootlaces? ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation of battles

An editor, Edgenut (talk · contribs), is insisting that the Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC) be renamed to First Battle of Nicopolis because there was a second battle near the same location in AD 1798: Battle of Nicopolis (1798). Is this consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions for such battles? Ifly6 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the First Battle of Nicopolis sounds a lot better than the Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC). Edgenut (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This ought to be easy to hash out—are there sources out there that refer to these battles as first and second? If not, we won't either. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
No. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22First+Battle+of+Nicopolis%22&btnG=. Ifly6 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22First+Battle+of+Nicopolis+%2848+BC%29%22&btnG= Edgenut (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
An even more restrictive search query version of your title has no results? I'm unsurprised. The existing title has results though. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Battle+of+Nicopolis%22+%2248+bc%22&btnG=. Ifly6 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
"First Battle", "Second Battle" make sense in the context of a single campaign or war, eg El Alamein, Bull Run, Ypres. Not when separated by centuries, and intervening incidents that could be called battles might turn up.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. In a case like this it's better to use the years given the gap between the two. Intothatdarkness 13:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
While in general agreement, I think it is always important to be aware what RS may call battles. For example, the Second Battle of Lincoln in 1217 is known as such, even though it is decades after the first battle and part of a different conflict (though note wiki calls it Battle of Lincoln (1217)) . By and large, the date disambiguation approach has more clarity. I noticed a review of a recent book on the battles of Thermopylae, which noted there were 27 of them. A user wishing to look one up on wiki (which has five of them) just needs to know the date, not the sequence in which they occurred.Monstrelet (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, thanks, this is what I told the editor at the time. He has since regardless been blocked, putting a stop of this whole affair. Ifly6 (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Action of 27 February 1941 question

Having acquired a copy of Jordan, Roger W. (2006) [1999]. The World's Merchant Fleets 1939: The Particulars and Wartime Fates of 6,000 Ships (2nd ed.). London: Chatham/Lionel Leventhal. ISBN 978-1-86176-293-1 I added more data about Ramb 1 but am not sure about rendering feet and inches using the {{cvt| formula. I put feet and inches in like this {{cvt|383.2|ft}} as every other way I tried didn't work but i have some doubts. Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the way you have presented it i.e. {{cvt|383.2|ft}} is fine. It is the way I would have done it and I know of no better way. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope that it's as sunny where you are as it is here. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The answer is not to use cvt but {{convert}} which is what cvt relies on for its function. Effectively {{cvt|100|ft}} is a shortcut for {{convert|100|ft|abbr=on}} To render my height with the convert template you'd use {{convert|6|ft|2|in|abbr=on}} to deliver 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m). GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Umm:
6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) ← {{cvt|6|ft|2|in}}
6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) ← {{convert|6|ft|2|in|abbr=on}}
Using {{cvt}} for feet and inches is perfectly acceptable.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ta. Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Greco-Persian Wars#Requested move 28 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Greco-Persian Wars#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Protection request

Can I get the LTG FD 1 protected? Some SPA is replacing it entirely with BS about some new miracle energy source Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Article semi-protected and socks blocked - let me know if more is needed. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Michael the Brave

Michael the Brave 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) 01:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Article title debate

Western Allied spring 1945 campaign in Germany has gotten moved by a well meaning editor, per my own suggestion years ago—see the talk page. However, I just realized that we usually avoid "spring", per MOS:SEASONS. Can anyone else think of a better article title to unambiguously refer to this campaign? (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  • That article lists it as starting in March. So use "March 1945" in title. Or use some of both names like "Western Allied 1945 Central Europe campaign". Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The United States refers to the campaign as "Central Europe".[8] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks—I've now opened a move request accordingly. (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Western Allied spring 1945 campaign in Germany#Requested move 1 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Allied spring 1945 campaign in Germany#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2

This is a featured article review that has become stalled out - could use review re if it needs further work to meet the FA criteria, particularly in the matter of DANFS copying. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Internment of Japanese Americans - Article name and terminology used in article text

Despite the consensus seeming to be in favour of keeping "internment" as the title of Internment of Japanese Americans, the article's text now solely uses the term "incarceration". Consistency between the two would be preferred, especially since the change to the article's text seems to have been made recently without discussion. Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Malta convoys

I've put three tables into the article Malta convoys 1940/41/42 but can't find why the second column (from) isn't centring. I checked the formula and am confused by whether I should be using apostrophes '' or quote marks " in |align="left"| etc? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed by Pickersgill-Cunliffe. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I've thanked him. I checked the tables on Convoy PQ 8 which I used as a template and realised that some of them were mixtures of quote marks and apostrophes too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front#Requested move 3 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front#Requested move 3 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Charles IX of France#Requested move 4 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Charles IX of France#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:152 mm towed gun-howitzer M1955 (D-20)#Requested move 23 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:152 mm towed gun-howitzer M1955 (D-20)#Requested move 23 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Military operations in North Africa during World War I

Could someone with more infobox mojo than me have a look at the infobox please? I tried to get rid of the bullet points against the names of participants by copying the collapsible list formula already in the box but couldn't get it right. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Loafiewa: Thanks babe. Keith-264 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of David Irving as a source

I've started a discussion on the use of David Irving's The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe in the Dornier Do 19 and Junkers Ju 89 articles at WP:RSN - here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely only appropriate in articles on Holocaust denial, as examples. Outside of, say, something like explaining the Children's Crusade, we shouldn't use discredited historians where reputable ones are available. (And I think that covering notable, popular folk histories is very different from using modern cranks. He's no Herodotus or Sébastien Mamerot and never will be, even if those very old writers also blend accurate and false material.) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
He's a writer, not a historian, per the verdict of the Lipstadt trial, I agree with Adam. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Junkers J1

Wagner, Ray; Nowarra, Heinz (1971). German Combat Planes: A Comprehensive Survey and History of the Development of German Military Aircraft from 1914 to 1945. New York: Doubleday. OCLC 161860. Does anyone have a copy of this? We need a page number for the Specifications section. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not, but interestingly German Aircraft of the First World War (Gray and Thetford, Putnam, 1962) gives different dimensions for the aircraft on p 436. Intothatdarkness 17:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Major naval topic not even stubbed

See Talk:Submarine#Article_on_military_submarine_is_needed. TL;DR we do not have article on the topic of militar submarines, there's the gap between article on submarine which covers both military and civilian uses, and various subtypes of military subs such as attack submarine. 20 years of Wikipedia, with milhist and naval projects generally seen as our most active... and yet this is still a gap? Huh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

In the 20 years of Wikipedia, we have had the concept of merging short articles and splitting long articles. The key issue is coverage, not whether information in hundreds of articles is split into thousands of smaller articles. If current consensus is to create a new split, then that is fine. I don't see the need to belittle the judgement of previous editors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

FAR for unification of Germany

User:Buidhe has nominated Unification of Germany 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) 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Castilian occupation of London

Some views on this somewhat provocative new page would be apprecitated at Talk:Castilian occupation of London, from someone familiarity with 14th century London. Klbrain (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chandighat (1771)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chandighat (1771), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Imperial[AFCND] 13:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Polish-Ukrainian conflict in 1940s

Hi, need your help. There's discussion regarding what to call result in Polish-Ukrainian conflict in 1940s. Partially discussion took place here as well. Dƶoxar (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge discussion Battle of Siversk to Battle of Donbas (2022)

Please see discussion at Talk:Battle of Siversk#Merge. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Battle of La Haye-du-Puits

If anyone can suggest a DYK hook for this article, I would be most grateful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Something about two of the 8th Infantry Division's regimental commanders and then the divisional commander being sacked, perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The 90th Infantry Division did even better: two of its division commanders were sacked, along with the assistant division commander. Alas, outside the time frame of the battle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
That division had a fascinating, if horrific, history. From coming close to being disbanded due to poor performance in Normandy to one of the better divisions in the ETO. Thomas E. Ricks' book on US generals in World War II might be worth consulting for this article given he discusses (approvingly) the high rate at which US Army commanders were sacked during this period of the war. Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I read Colby's history of the 90th not long after it came out and I was appalled at how little time some of the relieving commanders had rectify the problems created by their predecessors before they were relieved in their turn. There was some of that during during the Battle of Hürtgen Forest as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
"Did you know on 8 July 1944, the American Confederate Flag was raised over the French town of La Haye-du-Puits?" From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I will go with the Confederate flag. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zog I of Albania#Requested move 14 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zog I of Albania#Requested move 14 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zog I of Albania#Requested move 14 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zog I of Albania#Requested move 14 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Van Buren#Requested move 14 March 2024

An editor has requested that Battle of Van Buren be moved to Van Buren Raid, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ship Submersible Guided Missile Nuclear/SSGMN

This has an article on pl wiki pl:Ship Submersible Guided Missile Nuclear but not even a redirect here. Interestingly, pl wiki has a bunch of similar articles at pl:Kategoria:Rodzaje okrętów podwodnych w klasyfikacji NATO, most again have no redirects even on en wiki. I am not sure if those topics meet WP:GNG, but I am surprised we don't even have redirects? Ship Submersible, Conventional Attack Submarine, Ship Submersible Ballistic (just a redirect but the term is not mentioned in the target article on Ballistic missile submarine), Ship Submersible Ballistic Nuclear/SSBN (the latter is again just a redirect to the same article as the one before), Ship Submersible Guided Missile/SSGM, Submersible Ship Independent, Ship Submersible Radar Nuclear/SSRN (redirects to a non-military topic), Submersible Ship Nuclear... Some of those acronyms are mentioned in Submarines in the United States Navy. Pl wiki category suggests they are NATO classication, but maybe it's more a US Navy thing? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Piotr, the acronyms you are mostly mentioning have no factual basis, though may be widely repeated. The original USN hull code was "S" for submarine. Then they doubled it, to "SS", like "BB" for battleship.
"for basic types the symbol is the first letter of the type name, doubled, except for aircraft carriers." (since 1920, extract from Hull code.)
SS does not *mean* anything but submarine. Suffixes were then added, B yes for ballistic missile, and N yes for nuclear. But it is not an acronym. It's just a Hull code, and more referenced details can always be added there. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The code for nuclear powered guided missile submarine in US Navy coding is SSGN, covered at Guided-missile submarine (both nuclear and conventional powered). "Guided missile" is codifed by "G", not "GM", just like ballistic missile is "B" not "BM". So SSG/SSGN and SSB/SSBN. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Order of battle articles

What are the guidelines on on “order of battle”-type articles and their notability.? I ask because of Template:Campaignbox Forty Years' War, which seems a bit excessive to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think just regular GNG... I would agree that those topics don't appear notable. Even something about a much more major and covered war like Order of battle of the Gulf War ground campaign doesn't actually appear to be notable, I think they only exist because of inertia, it became a style when it shouldn't have and people have made the assumption that because the others exist making more is ok... Nobody has gotten around to deleting them even though they clearly shouldn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
They exist because of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which is an editing policy. On the one hand, people complain about articles being too long; on the other, when articles are split off they complain that the subarticle is not notable in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 articles on national armed forces - armies and navies - are sometimes very long. So first the history sections then the structures at various time periods get split off in the same way. Would you agree that these historical structures also fall under SUMMARYSTYLE? Seems to me they would, though there has been some disagreement in the past. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Air defence vs anti-aircraft warfare

Currently both have wikidata articles; one is a redirect here (on en wiki), which results in most interwikis being hidden. Can someone fix this? Merge on wikidata is hard since some wikis have articles on both, sigh. Or perhaps those topics are not identical and we need an article on the first topic? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q843941 , https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q86739852 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents and support in South African Border War

Hi all.

The article South African Border War has always had a list of belligerents, along with accompanying "support" section for those countries which supplied military advisers. The support section has been repeatedly deleted in the past week, citing this this discussion here. However, this has resulted in the removal of any references to actors which played a massive role in the conflict (through significant numbers of advisers) being omitted from the infobox altogether. Examples include the Soviet Union, which is referenced 135 times in the article, and had up to 2,000 military advisers present during this conflict, but was not an official belligerent as its personnel seem to have been for the most part prohibited from taking part in combat actions.

With the wholesale removal of the "support section" on principle, we have lost all references to actors which were an active party to hostilities but not belligerents in the sense that they did not take part in combat. I'd appreciate input because I'm at a loss as to what to do here. Perhaps rewording the "support" section to "military advisers" would suffice? Katangais (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  • This Material support list in the Infobox is long but collapsed. This info might be better covered in a section in body of the article instead with proper weight and context, in my opinon. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
We can agree that material support is covered well in the body of the article as is. What I'm concerned about are those nations which contributed more than material support but were not active belligerents. --Katangais (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This is why we do not have it, its too subjective. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
So countries which contributed large numbers of military advisers to a given conflict but were not officially belligerents in that conflict are to be omitted from all infoboxes? Or should they be listed as belligerents, with an annotation specifying they did not take part in direct hostilities? --Katangais (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
As I understand it the whole idea is deprecated, we do not list supporters, only combatants. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Can state actors which provided substantial numbers of military advisers be described as belligerents? This seems to have been the case with Vietnam War. --Katangais (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.", it has a specific meaning. Support is not covered. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The infobox is not a place for nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Nuanced, contextualized discussions about the infobox content should be encouraged. --Katangais (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
You can have as many discussions as you want about infoboxes, but they are still not the place for nuanced material about outside actors supporting one side in a conflict. That needs to be explained in context, which cannot be done in an infobox. That is what the body of the article is for. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

David Axe

This is just a general notice to keep an eye on, especially for pages on more recent military equipment and history. David Axe is a blogger, not a journalist, in the employ of Forbes magazine. As a blogger, he will just report sources he will see on telegram or elsewhere, but won't engage in any fact checking of them. Since Forbes is a legitimate publication, many mistakenly think he's a journalist, and he is publishing proper fact checked articles. His blog posts are therefore NOT reliable sources by their very nature. If you see David Axe being cited anywhere, please find new sources to replace them. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that Axe has written for lots of different outlets over his career, that's not reasonable. My understanding is that discussions at WP:RSN have generally concluded that Forbes, and especially the blogs it hosts, is not a reliable source though. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
He could have 12 Phds, it wouldn't matter, because it's blog posts with no fact checking. He sees some news or posts somewhere and writes a post. He doesn't do the next step of in-depth research and fact checking. He also isn't even an "expert", just a writer and amateur with interest. He was also one of the biggest proponents of F-35 fear mongering, just repeating critics of the F-35 that turned out to be wildly wrong. In fact, most of his blog posts amount to fear mongering or being overly optimistic. Again, he's not a good source, and you should rely upon actual published newspapers, Associated press, academic books, etc instead. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Harizotoh9: I don't know this David Axe and I can't comment on him specifically, but it looks like you missed Nick-D's point. You are both agreeing that blog posts from Forbes are seen as unreliable. However, Nick-D is pointing out that Axe has worked for multiple "outlets" (I am guessing this includes multiple "publishers") which will likely have had a range of editorial rigour, so a blanket bar against him as a source is not likely to be reasonable. For example, if we have a journalist working at the BBC at the start of his career who then moves to the Daily Mail at the end of his career, we might make two very different assessments about the reliability of his writing but not bar the entirety of his work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. I've seen articles by David Axe in perfectly reliable sources. We also don't dismiss sources because we disagree with what the articles say per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Some discussion back in 2020 concluded that Axe's website War is Boring was reliable, at least prior to him selling it, and Axe is now on Forbes' staff (i.e. he falls under WP:FORBES, not WP:FORBESCON). I might also note that someone starting as a blogger doesn't mean that a person is permanently unreliable. Although my personal sense is that his recent work has skewed pro-Ukraine and been steered into framings intended to attract wider public interest, AFAIK the information being presented hasn't been seriously challenged in other reliable sources, and frankly I don't see him doing things that are that different from other sources we allow on-wiki. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Entirely agree with Nick and Ed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:MAS-49 rifle#Requested move 16 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MAS-49 rifle#Requested move 16 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Loafiewa (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Recovery of Chittorgarh

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery of Chittorgarh (1321) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Imperial[AFCND] 11:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Battle of Bahraich

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Bahraich (1034) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Imperial[AFCND] 11:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

RATER and SI class

Hi, when using the WP:RATER tool I noticed for WikiProject Military history it doesn't seem to allow you to set SI as class - assuming that's not intentional, is that a bug in the RATER tool itself, or an issue with TemplateData or such on the WikiProject, or am I just confused (always a possibility)? Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The Milhist Project does have SI articles (Category:SIA-Class military history articles) so you should be able to. There is a problem with the Rater tool, which was reported in 2021 but is still not fixed, so you might want to post another notice. (The WikiProject banner shell isn't working either; I have raised an issue with that.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. I've started a new thread at User_talk:Evad37/rater.js#Bug_with_WikiProject_Military_history_rating. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Collages in infoboxes

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Decade overviews

I have set up Category:decade overviews as a set of categories, as well as articles, and navboxes, as part of WikiProject History Contemporary History task force, which I chair.

Please feel free to contact me any time, with any comments, ideas or questions. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreviewed military history draft articles

Many draft articles on individual battles have been created. Some are still too weak to be published as articles, but it would be helpful if members of the military history project could take a look at them. See Special:AllPages/Draft:Battle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Eastmain, Hello. I believe one of the primary reasons why articles like "Battle of X" or "Siege of X" remain unreviewed is because many of them might feature invented names by editors, rather than being explicitly mentioned as "Battle of X" in reliable sources. I've noticed some attempts to revive deleted articles in the list as well. Regards. Imperial[AFCND] 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
We do have guidance for when that happens. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to kinda change the topic at hand, but given that this process exists, how did stuff like the targeted articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Alba Longa get through? Ifly6 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed redraft of an article on a medieval castle

I've drafted an article where I have a conflict of interest to manage. The situation is outlined at Talk:Lowther Castle Stead, along with a link to the draft, and I'd welcome feedback from the community on the draft to help manage the COI. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Short- vs. long-parameter usage rates in the WikiProject template

Since Template Parameters doesn't seem to run on WikiProject templates, I went through all transclusions of {{WikiProject Military history}} to see what the usage rate was for short vs. long parameter variants (e.g. |Aviation= vs. |Aviation-task-force=) (you know...for fun). Figured I'd share the results here in case anyone else was interested. 

* 99.6% of {{WikiProject Military history}} pages use params (312,445 / 313,845):
* 83.2% use short param variants: (260,041 / 312,445) (e.g. |Aviation=)
* 16.8% use long param variants:   (52,404 / 312,445) (e.g. |Aviation-task-force=)
*  5.0% use both param variants:   (15,593 / 312,445)

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Van Buren#Requested move 14 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Van Buren#Requested move 14 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Small GA review looking for ideas

Looking for input be it a bold edit or suggestions at a GA review related to... "I think the main remaining issue here is article structure" see Talk:Canadian peacekeeping/GA1. Basically what structure will serve our readers best?. Moxy🍁 03:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm really tired so I took a very cursory skim of the references section. I think you should change Defence, National to use |author= instead of |last= and |first=. Also, you might want to rename the section "Participation" to more clearly reflect description of how many Canadians have served in peacekeeping missions. I might restructure to move the table into a subsection under "Peace operations" or something like that too; it would be more thematic than the current presentation. Ifly6 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fortress of Klis

Fortress of Klis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

HMS Duke of York (17)

Yeah, so just got a copy of Buxton's Battleship Duke of York. Check it. ——Serial Number 54129 16:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, is "check it" some sort of colloquialism or are you wanting someone to do something? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Maybe User:Serial Number... means for others to check it out the Battleship book or maybe the HMS Duke of York article linked above. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • OK, but I only suggested checking those out; buying the book is another step beyond. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, understood! ——Serial Number 54129 12:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

HMS MMS 54 / HNLMS Haren (1944)

The article on HMS MMS 54 / HNLMS Haren (1944) has been nominated for deletion. I've done my best to expand from a stub using internet sources. There are plenty of book sources listed at MMS class minesweeper#Bibliography, which might prove useful to further expand the article if anyone has them. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked my available references. It's not mentioned in Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea and gets no mention of any activities in Lenton's British and Empire Warships and van Willigenburg's Dutch Warships of World War II.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

F-117 and Operation Enduring Freedom

I have an uncited claim that F-117 was used during Operation Enduring Freedom. I feel like this is probably true but I have searched the wikimedia library and there is not much information. Any advise on finding sources? Czarking0 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that whoever added that was mistaken. B-2s took part in OEF (from memory, just the early stage), but I doubt F-117s did. It's hard to see what value they would have added given the Taliban didn't have any air defences after the first few days of the war. Osprey has published some books on F-117s and the air war in Afghanistan that might be worth checking. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe not much use as a source, but see this USAF image. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
And a brief mention at The Iraq War Encyclopedia (p. 39). Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
A quick comment on the photo - Operation Enduring Freedom was Afghanistan, but the caption says the mission was over Iraq, which would have been Operation Iraqi Freedom. I can't say which aspect of the caption is wrong, but obviously one of them is.
I checked Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter (one of the Osprey titles Nick mentioned) and I can only find one reference to Afghanistan, which was in passing and not related to operational use. So far I haven't come across any reputable sources that make the claim that the F-117 was used in Afghanistan. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I have been reading about OEF for 20 years. I have never seen any reference to use of the F-117. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Axis capture of Tobruk/3rd Siege of Tobruk

User:Infomanfromearth has changed the title of Axis capture of Tobruk to 3rd Siege of Tobruk without a talk page discussion, except an acrimonious exchange with User:Keith-264 about whether it could be described as an Axis victory (on the grounds that the Japanese weren't present). The original title was agreed in 2019 by discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 153#"Fall of Tobruk" article title before it moved into the mainspace. A quick Google search shows that nobody else calls it "3rd Siege of Tobruk". What is the correct course of action? Should it be reverted? Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Have done so. An existing LOCON is not overruled by an, as you say, acrimonious debate with one other editor. "Revert undiscussed page move" is simplest. Note left at user talk. Thanks for the notice Alansplodge. ——Serial Number 54129 14:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed they moved the other two pages to 1st and 2nd sieges, too. Also reverted. ——Serial Number 54129 14:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Oshkosh L-ATV#Requested move 28 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oshkosh L-ATV#Requested move 28 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Seton Hall reports#Requested move 28 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Seton Hall reports#Requested move 28 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Veterans cemeteries

Hello, I noticed there is no article for veterans cemeteries. Within the US, this is often referred to as a national cemetery maintained by the United States National Cemetery System, but there are many state-run ones as well (ex. Southern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery), and ones outside of the US (ex. Aldershot Military Cemetery). I believe this is different enough from a war grave and should not be merged into that article; most interments within veterans cemeteries are for service members and their qualifying family members who died long after service, not casualties from a single conflict or war as in a war grave/cemetery.

I intend to create an article within the next couple of days but wanted to open discussion here about it. Help gathering sources and examples, particularly for non-US cemeteries, would be greatly appreciated. – TCMemoire 12:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that this doesn't exist in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The example I listed of Aldershot Military Cemetery is in Hampshire. While it did start as a war grave cemetery, it continues to function as one for any service member. – TCMemoire 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There is a deletion discussion of Battle of Bandanwara at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Bandanwara that may of interest to members of this WikiProject Imperial[AFCND] 09:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There is a deletion discussion of Siege of Ontala (1599) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ontala (1599) that may of interest to members of this WikiProject. Imperial[AFCND] 09:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

the article should not be deleted
Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st
siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate
source 2:
2nd
Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned
Source 3:
3rd
The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan
Source 4 : Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)
Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men
Narook (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There is a deletion discussion of Battle of Banas (1300) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Banas (1300) that may of interest to members of this WikiProject. Imperial[AFCND] 09:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Allauddin sent the forces to defeat Hammiradeva , and the battle took place at Banas
Khilji sultans in Rajasthan
Thus Ulugh Khan marched with an army of 80,000 to plunder and lay waste the Chthamana country. When the armies, of Islam reached the river 'Varnansa' (Banas), they found it difficult to march through the pass leading to Hammira's territory. Ulugh Khan, therefore, encamped therefor some days and burnt and destroyed the villages of its neighbhbourhood. When the misdeeds of the Muslim army were brought to Hammira, was then engaged in religious rites, for he has not yet completed this 'Muniverata.'2 That Hammira at the moment was busy in the performance of some religious rites has also been stated in the Surjana Charita. So Hammira could not personally take the field and instead sent two of his generals, Bhimasimha and Dharmasiraha, to drive away the invaders. They gained a decisive victory over the Muslim hosateBanas a and large number of the Muslim soldiers were killed inction
Narook (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
We are not creating articles for each and every military conflicts in the world. And none here has the license to invent a name for a non existing "Battle of X". Imperial[AFCND] 10:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
You aren't the owner of Wikipedia to decide. It's a major battle fought between chahamanas and delhi. Narook (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Help improving

Several concerns have been raised regarding the article Battle of Cochin on its talk page. I removed citations from the article as they did not meet WP:RS. If anyone is interested in the military history of the Portuguese empire and their campaigns in India, please consider assisting in improving the article. Thanks. Imperial[AFCND] 13:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

RAF Gaza (former WW2 RAF base)

Hello, I have added a military infobox for RAF Gaza, a Second World War airfield located in the current Gaza Strip. But i'm can't seem to get a suitable map of the Gaza Strip that i can add to the infobox in which the marker shows. Any suggestions? Gavbadger (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a problem with the map as well, but your coordinates are in Algeria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I went in the page history to the November 18, 2023 version and clicked on the Coords link. The map shows the correct location in Gaza strip, but the coordinate values are unchanged since then. Very strange... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    The co-ordinates have changed. @Gavbadger's edit has a typo in it as it's set the longitude to 0 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds rather than 34 degrees, 20 minutes 00 seconds. The second issue is that the infobox uses Module:location map so |pushpin_map= needs a location map data file not an image file. The ones for Gaza are in Category:State of Palestine location map modules. Nthep (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Per this, one of the cited statements in the article seems to contradict those coordinates. DeCausa (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Why use a map of the Gaza Strip, which didn't exist then, when there's a perfectly serviceable map of the Palestinian Mandate? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for noticing an fixing my mistake, along with finding a suitable map. As per the talk page for the article, the co-ordinates have been changed. Gavbadger (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

RAF Peshawar

Can anyone confirm the location for RAF Peshawar, from reliable sources? Which airport is it today? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Haven't been able to find any reliable source to confirm, but I'm 99% sure RAF Peshawar is now PAF Base Peshawar, which is immediately to the east of Bacha Khan International Airport. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
That is what the PAF Base article says, yes. Do you have any other pieces of data? Can anyone check Jefford, C.G. (2001). RAF Squadrons, a Comprehensive record of the Movement and Equipment of all RAF Squadrons and their Antecedents since 1912? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have Jefford, but what are you expecting? He lists only a single base in Peshawar, but I have no idea which of the modern facilities it was.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how RS, but see A History of RAF Organisation - RAF Stations - Peshawar which says that the RAF station is now the PAF base. As the military and civil facilities apparently share the same runway, it seems something of a moot point. Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I checked my copy of Jefford from 1988, on pg 256 their is a map with scale guide, it seems RAF Peshawar was around 23 nautical miles from the Afghanistan/Pakistan border on a road via the Khyber Pass, so it seems the current PAF Base Peshawar is on the site of the former RAF Peshawar, so i will be adding RAF unit and squadron info to that article. Gavbadger (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks to everybody who has chimed in (and yes thanks Alansplodge RAFweb is pretty reliable). Gavbadger, was there some other piece of information that made RAF Peshawar's 23-mile distance from the Afghan-Pakistan border significant, or a proof that it is today PAF Peshawar? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There is a deletion discussion of Kesatuan Gurita at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesatuan Gurita (2nd nomination) that may of interest to members of this WikiProject. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Markos Botsaris has an RfC

Markos Botsaris, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, 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. Jtrrs0 (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Raid on Tendra Spit#Review of article

Please see subject discussion. I have reviewed and heavily parsed this version of the article that ultimately resulted in this version. There were many issues including RS, VER and SYNTH. The original editor has since reinstated what is largely the former version of the article here (see also preceding edit). Further input would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of Women and Children as an alternative to Civilians

Hello.
I was wondering if there was a formal policy/precedent regarding this, the term "Women and children" is not really the best term to use for civilians, as it is plainly sexist in several ways. I would appreciate a formal policy/guideline regarding this, as it is complicated by some organizations only reducing the first figure. I propose something like "Use the full civilians statistic if it is available, if it is not, then women and children is acceptable until a full statistic can be presented" thoughts? Geardona (talk to me?) 01:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the issue that this is being used as a term for civilians, or that this is being reported instead of full civilian stats? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Just noting, this is a in general thing, no specific article in mind. But it’s a bit of both, often the full stat can be accessed later, but it is often only reported at the time as women and children. Geardona (talk to me?) 10:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that "Women and Children" may in some circumstances not be the same as civilians - it may reflect differences between how adult males (who may be seen as potential combatants and treated as such whether or not they are civilians) are/were treated compared with women and male children too young to be considered potential combatants. Go with what the sources say.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This, yes we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Core Contest Returns!

Hi all—The Core Contest returns! Leaving this here:

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting for future generations that this project's own core article—Military history—is an obvious candidate for the contest: Level-3 vital article, but only C class... in need of some time in the TOC-H/ MASH. It should probably be a group effort; a Coalition of the Willing, or an Axis of Editors, perhaps ;) Perfect opportunity to refocus, collectively, on the basics. Anyone up for it? ——Serial Number 54129 12:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Operation White

Does anyone have a source for the return of Force H to Gibraltar? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A brief outline at The Naval War in the Mediterranean, 1940–1943 (p. 115) by Alessandro Massignani & Jack Greene. Alansplodge (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
And an even briefer mention at The Mediterranean and Middle East: The early successes against Italy (to May 1941), p. 244, Playfair
TaKeith-264 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Diesel Boats Forever/dbf

This is currently a redirect to Badges of the United States Navy, where it's not mentioned, though it's a phrase used also in the British Navy (perhaps specifically submariners). I wonder if anyone fancies throwing together a short article?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC).

Battle of Guandu

Found myself looking at this in relation to something else. I think the pageTalk:Battle_of_Guandu is a bit odd. Never seen a talk page like it and it seems in clear violation of editorial instructions. Also, I'm baffled by the aggregated quality assessment. Two projects seem to have assessed, giving it a B class and a C. Aggregate of the two is Start. How did the bot do that? Does anything need to be done about this, or should it be left in its quiet backwater? Monstrelet (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of the comments appear to have been left in 2005 and 2006, when most guidelines and policies were in their infancy. We could archive or blank the comments before the final section in 2010 - they don't appear to add anything.
In terms of the bot, there were three ratings of Start, Start (with an automatic override to C) and B. The bot then went with the "majority" and chose Start. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I've tagged the items with the {{Unsigned}} or {{Unsinged}} tags. There's not a huge amount to be gained by adding an archive, but it can be done easily enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC).

Order of Precedence Ribbon US

Andrew Donlin in Uniform

Hello

The handball player Andrew Donlin from the USA serves in the space force. This year he became the second time United States Air Force Athlete of the Year.

For the news article they uploaded a new picture of him in uniform.

Today I added his awards and decorations to the article.

My question is if all ribbons are correct? Because I used https://www.uniformribbons.com/air_force/ to check the order. But according to that website the Achievement Medal should be number two. In the photo the Medal is number four.

Did Mr. Donlin made a mistake or is the website false?

Kind regards for your help. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Attempt to insert victory

See Siege of Lohkot (1015). The result of the campaign was the retreat of the Ghaznavid forces, due to the heavy fall of snow. The creator have attempted to make it the victory of the opponent party, the Loharas. I can't see any WP:RS, citing the campaign as Lohara victory. The sources are cut and clear about the circumstances that led to the retreat of the Ghaznavid forces. How can it be the victory of a party, if the retreat was caused by the snowfall? Share your thoughts. Imperial[AFCND] 12:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"How can it be the victory of a party, if the retreat was caused by the snowfall?" I can think of many circumstances where such a retreat due to the elements is considered a victory (Napoleon's disastrous retreat from Moscow for one). However, the more pertinent issue is the treatment of the sources. If none of the sources call it a victory for either side, then neither should we. If there are some sources that call it a victory but there are doubts about reliability or proportionality, then a discussion should take place on the balance of those sources in the article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The problem is, the author of the article thinks that I have personal issue with them. So, they will never listen what I say, or what I suggests. It is evident from the talk section of Battle of Talas. Pinging the author @Sudsahab. And yeah, as reviewing the cited sources, none of them calls it for the victory of a definite party. Imperial[AFCND] 12:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
How did you come to the conclusion that I have a personal issue with you while I have been arguing in such a healthy way? Sudsahab (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. Try helping in solving the concerns raised above. As From Hill To Shore said, there were circumstances where the snowfall retreat caused victory of combatants, but have to provide sources for their "victory". Please do. Imperial[AFCND] 13:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I was compiling all the sources which take time, have patience. Sudsahab (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Here are the sources which call it a setback/retreat for Mahmud (which can be taken as Kashmiri victory)-
  • From Ancient history and civilization.But he failed to gain his objective and returned to Ghazni after suffering a great loss and untold miseries
  • From History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 05, The Struggle For Empire.The situation became worse for the Muslim army when, as winter approached, there was a heavy fall of snow. In the mean time the Kashmirians made their position stronger by fresh reinforcement of troops. In this circumstance the Sultan had no other alternative but to raise the siege and retreat towards Ghazni.
  • From Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India, Volume 2. p. 57 Mahmud laid siege to the fort Lohkot (Loharin) but the besieged garrison gave a stubborn fight and compelled the invader to raise the siege.
  • From History of India 1000 A D to 1707 A D. Between 1015 and 1021 A.D., Mahmud made two unsuccessful attempts to conquer Kashmir, but he was baffled both the times. At last he gave up the idea of enslaving that Happy Valley.
Sudsahab (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I can clearly see the main parts being cutted down into favourable parts. I believe the reader will verify this with the sources. Imperial[AFCND] 13:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Now it's nothing more than a mere excuse, anyone can verify the sources as it's accessible. Why don't you show us what I missed for highlighting? Sudsahab (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Crusading movement

Crusading movement 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. Borsoka (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

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) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about sources used in page about Ratlines

on the page about Ratlines (which were a series of escape routes used by Nazis and collaborators to flee europe) i found a concerning post in the articles talk section. according to a post made in may 2023. apparently the page uses sources from two authors named John Loftus and michael phayer. Loftus is a conspiracy theorist and one of Phayers book relies on sources from Loftus, which puts the sources from phayer used in the article into doubt regarding their reliability.

my concerns have been brought up before by other editors: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 404 - Wikipedia

fore reasons unkown to me these bits havent been removed. Bird244 (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Bird244 This website is a volunteer operation so stuff only gets done when people step up to do it. There seems to be a consensus that the source should be replaced by something better, so feel free to get started yourself! (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Pandu peer review

I posted Battle of Pandu for peer review on (09:38, 25 March 2024). I will appreciate if an editor from this project will review this article. Thanks :-) Rahim231 (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375-1378)#Requested move 9 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375-1378)#Requested move 9 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--Imperial[AFCND] 09:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus#Requested move 2 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus#Requested move 2 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Retreat=Surrender?

The article Siege of Panhala (1660) has been cited by unreliable and non-accessible sources, though it has been removed but I'm still cautious about some sources as if all are reliable or not therefore I had asked it at RSN [9] but it's not concluded yet. Most of the sources cited by the author of the article are by keyword searching, the only accessible and reliable source I found Shivaji His Life and Times. call it a retreat rather than surrender so please tell me what should be done here? Sudsahab (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'war' in article titles

It's my understanding that 'war' is usually capitalised when referring to a specific war (e.g. First Punic War, Pyrrhic War), but uncapitalised when referring to a series of wars (e.g. Roman–Gallic wars, Carnatic wars). In the first case, capitalisation is supported by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Military_terms, but that guideline doesn't specifically say anything about the second case. A fair number of article titles don't conform to the pattern though e.g. Anglo-Mysore Wars, First Anglo-Sikh war. Should the capitalisation of these titles be brought into line with usual practice? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalisation of these titles should be brought into line with whatever the consensus of reliable sources is in each individual case. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I dunno, I've recently seen a lot of usage of titles, usually noble ones, and proper names presented as king of England or battle of Hastings. That's not the grammar I was taught, back when I had to chisel my assignments onto stone tablets. Is this something taught nowadays? I'm wondering if I need to get my cane out and yell at all you kids to get off my lawn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Many academic historical presses have moved towards a minimal-capitalisation style. That's been noted at least by the Oxford Guide to Style (2002) p 77: Historians may impose minimal capitalisation – particularly in contexts where the subjects of their writing bear titles – the duke of Somerset, the duke; the king of Spain, the king... This practice, common in the discipline, avoids a profusion of capitals on the page... Ifly6 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
A profusion of capitals?! Why should anyone care? A title like king, lacking a disambiguator, should not be capitalized because it's not a proper name unlike the full title or rank. Thanks for the info, though, I had no idea that the profession had descended into such silliness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

German U-boat GAs

It looks like a few dozen German U-boat GAs written by an inactive editor rely substantially on the fan site u-boat.net. So do a handful of A-class articles and even a featured article. One of the GAs, which is a part of a good topic, was just delisted after a nomination that elicited no discussion. What is the best way to go about reassessing these without overwhelming the GAR/A-class review process?

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Schierbecker (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that u-boat.net has been deemed reliable at least up to GA-level. The most recent discussion I found was in 2019. We probably ought to start with determining whether the site is RS or not, before we get to delisting any more articles. Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Wow, it is almost hard to believe that that RSN discussion you linked took place so recently. How can a source be considered reliably only up to GA? It would be pretty tough to argue that source is reliable today IMO. We don't know the providence of the content on that website. Schierbecker (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
GA is less strict about sourcing requirements. A-class and FA require high-quality reliable sources, which is a higher bar. Maybe it's time for another trip to RSN? Would be good to get a form consensus before we start talking about delistings, and whatever the decision is should apply to all articles using that source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
We should think of GAs as potential featured articles. If a GA primarily relies on sources considered unreliable by FA reviewers, then that article is no closer to FA than a C-class article. Schierbecker (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
GA is also an area for those articles that can be brought up to quality but aren't FAC-able for various reasons though. Looking through some of my more recent GAs for instance - CSS Junaluska isn't FAC-able due to gaps in the existing sourcing, USS Glide (1862) is I believe as comprehensive as possible and there are no major gaps in the sourcing, but sending a 600-word article through the FAC process isn't a good use of the FAC system IMO, Simpson Harris Morgan is about a subject where so little is known that the gaps are too grant for FAC, First Battle of Springfield would be a difficult sell at FAC because none of the sources agree with each other on many aspects of the battle; etc. I personally think all of those examples meet the GA criteria but would not pass a FAC (with the possible except of Glide, which I don't think is worth FAC), although if you disagree I'm open to a GAR to settle the matter. I think we do well to see GA as an area for articles that can't effectively be brought up to FAC but still meet a certain level of quality. Hog Farm Talk 01:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I've long considered uboat.net to not be a reliable source. It is the definition of a fan site, acknowledged on their own about page. You can't even call it an expert based source, because those involved aren't experts. They are enthusiasts with no stated academic background in any related subject matter. The fact that the site is cited so much by other sources is more to the latter group's detriment in their own reliability, I feel. It negatively dings them all because of that. SilverserenC 22:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about U-boat articles, but I do know that some British ship articles on the site are quoting from Admiralty documents, with file numbers, so I think that those articles are RS. Plus I've got more than a few U-boat books that cite info from U-boat.net for what's worth.
I'm not willing to judge GA article sourcing by FA standards. GA maybe a stepping stone to FA, but plenty of FAs bypass GA entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There are, of course, plenty of GAs that will never go to FA for one reason or another, as Hog Farm points out above. I've written a fair few myself.
I also disagree with the idea that because some editors use GA as a stepping stone to FA, that's how we should view the process. Many GA writers never take their articles to FAC. I haven't nominated anything to either process in probably years, though I'm still writing when I have time. Going through the review process is not everybody's goal. Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The GA criteria should stand on their own. A GA has to be "good", not "outstanding". Sturm, if it's citing official documents but the authors are not recognised experts, it can be treated as a primary source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
True, but since I'm only generally using them for movement and activities of the ships in question...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User:2.49.34.117

Hello, user:2.49.34.117 is making a large number of edits on the basis of WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. User is tripping a few anti-vandalism filters and removing cited info on ocassion. I thought it would be good to get some additional eyes on the edits and make sure everything is above board. Thanks in advance! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User is correct about the limited scope of the infobox. I checked a few changes at random and they were made in line with the infobox guidlines for military conflicts. If the cited information was put in the infobox to support additional text which was contrary to the guideline, the deletion would be appropriate. If the text is necessary information for the article overall, however, it should be put in the aftermath section with the citations if not already there. A statement to check the aftermath section is included as alternative in the guideline. This alternative can used because there was in fact no victory by either side as part of the operation or event and more text is needed to explain the aftermath. A battle would be expected to have a result, although it might be "inconclusive" in some cases. This would likely be explained in the text of the article not as text in the infobox. Donner60 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The guidance on the use of infobox military conflict explicitly permits the the use of 'a link or note ... such as "See the Aftermath section"' and continues "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms". See the example infobox in the template documentation. Such notes should not be removed and the IP's standard edit summary - 'format should be solely "X victory"' - is incorrect; checking a few, they seem to be aware of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't consider they were correct in many cases, and additionally, this type of editing is very pointy and not of benefit to the reader and the encyclopaedia. They were warned by another editor and then by me, and I subsequently blocked them as they did not respond but just continued to do it with the same canned edit summary. It is singularly unhelpful to go around changing infoboxes (including on featured articles) and then edit-warring to keep your edits, in some sort of blind obedience to a a part of the MILMOS that did not result from a strong consensus. If I had the energy and time for it, I would seek to improve the way the MILMOS is worded on results, but alas (RW stuff prevails). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
To me the MOS is very clear. If the outcome is not really debatable then it should say X victory. If nuance is required a link should be given with short note. See also discussion at Pyrrhic War. The infobox is nowhere to include extraneous results such as XYZ retreats or End of the Roman Empire. It is not helpful to clutter infoboxes with digressions. From MOS:INFOBOX: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Ifly6 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, MILMOS actually discourages this kind of behavior: As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles. --Oloddin (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Oloddin, @Peacemaker67, @Gog the Mild, @Donner60. Do you think the user's edits should be reverted? Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Those edits that are factually incorrect or are definitely not an improvement - yes. Oloddin (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I do, and have where they have been on my watchlist or have come to my notice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Be advised that they're also editing as 94.200.83.10 - I've reverted some of their edits under that IP, but I may have missed some. Parsecboy (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

French ship Molène (B262)

I've just created the French ship Molène (B262) article. Can anyone expand from book on French Navy vessels / Jane's Fighting ships. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

She's in the 1953-54 Jane's, p. 217, but the entry is very brief. It just says 300 tons, Deutz diesels, 500 bhp, 9 kn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
In case you ever need it, here's a list of Janes yearbooks I found on the Internet Archive: User:Schierbecker/sandbox. Schierbecker (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Schierbecker, I've added relevant Jane's to WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375 - 1378)#Requested move 9 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375 - 1378)#Requested move 9 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

French ship Gapeau (B284)

The French ship Gapeau (B284) has been Nominated for deletion. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:USS Arizona#Requested move 13 April 2024

Your input is requested at the above discussion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Resolve the issue

There is a potential edit warring going at Prince Salim's Invasion of Mewar, and I am afraid that I might get involved. The user misunderstood the final outcome of the campaign with the intermediate outcome and reverts the edit continuously. I made citations for the final outcome, the user reverted it claiming that they provided contradiction to the outcome at the talk page, but infact it was the result of the intermediate conflicts. Please come forward to resolve the issue. Thanks Imperial[AFCND] 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--Imperial[AFCND] 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kaunas Fortress

Kaunas Fortress 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Referencing question

Hello all - I hope to solicit the group's advice on a referencing question.

I'm continuing a small series of articles I'm writing on the interwar Czechoslovak Gendarmerie with one on Jan Klán, a Gendarmerie fighter ace. After WWII, Klán worked for a specialized agency of the U.S. while holding the job description "international sales manager" for Piper Aircraft at the company's offices in South America and Europe.

This (the part about his work for the U.S.), unfortunately, is not documented in any source and, per our WP:V requirements I need to simply say he worked for Piper and leave it at that. However, I happened across an obit (it's a paid obit so is WP:SELFPUB) that obliquely says he "served the United States government in sensitive positions in Europe and South America". Do you think this line from the obit (cited to the obit instead of Wikivoice) is reasonable to just drop in a footnote as I have it here? Or should I omit it entirely? Thanks for your advice! Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I would leave it as it is. Technically, unless he wrote his own obituary, I would not consider it self-published. I think it is not an exceptional claim from a questionable source, which is also shown under this section in the guideline. I can't think of a reason why a survivor would make such a claim if it was bogus. You are not drawing any conclusions by simply citing the text. (The implication that one would presumably make is that he was a spy, but neither the source nor your citation says that outright.) I do think that putting in a footnote in the form which you used is appropriate as full disclosure. If others differ, I hope they will comment. Donner60 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Donner60 - thanks very much for this feedback. It sounds like your line of thought here is parallel to my own. It's helpful for me to get this validation to make sure I'm not cutting some corners too closely. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Bathurst-class main gun

The QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XXIII article has been edited to include Bathurst-class corvettes, specifically the museum ship HMAS Castlemaine, citing (in the edit summary) this YouTube video: HMAS Castlemaine - Wonderfully Preserved History by "Drachinifel", in which he reads a plaque on the gun identifying it as a Mk XXIII. However, our article on the Bathurst-class identifies the main gun as a QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XIX. I suspect that the plaque may be referring to the high-angle mounting, but can't find a reference to back this up. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

According to this website Castlemaine's guns were removed post war. When it later underwent a refit to become a museum ship, a new QF 4 inch gun was installed. The new QF 4 inch isn't specified, but that could be the cause of the discrepancy. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Correction - while the new gun isn't specified, the page does mention an XXIII mounting was fitted in 1943. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Splendid, many thanks. I have reverted the edit and amended the HMAS Castlemaine article accordingly. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Resolved

I think I have a prescriptive/descriptive issue - and how sources can be used

The question is over the use of a term. I could link to the particular issue but I'd like to get an abstract answer that is applicable in other articles.

If a 'thing' has an official name but it is commonly called by another name, then it seems right that if the unofficial usage is commonplace (and significantly so), then it seems right to include this in the article as its probably a term a reader will recognise (or may be looking for or expecting to see). In proving the usage of the unofficial name, official sources are unlikely to be supportive - you're not going to get the navy saying their latest warship is popularly known as the "grey shooty-shooty boat". So majority of evidence would be in the aggregate, here's a book with the term in the title, here's a book with it in the text on page 50, here's this website, that blog etc.

Having written that, the question I think I'm asking is how does one show popular usage of a term?. And how can one reference the usage concisely? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

How about "A (known as B)"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That was how I wanted to phrase it but there was objection that the term was "not official" and used by "fanboys" (the word is used in the title of one of Ray Sturtivant's books FWIW ). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Then try "A (popularly called B)" instead. Common names aren't always official, as anyone dealing with military history should know. There are any number of examples out there, honestly. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You could also try "A, named in some sources as B," and then add a reference for B. If there are objections about references in the lead section, you can mention the alternate name in the article body and cite it there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"A (sometimes called B)" Someone will object whatever you choose. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well. I've tried again with a ref to the RAF Museum that uses the term. Time will tell if it is reverted.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I just want to throw out the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark as a point for potential consideration here. "Aardvark" was only applied as the "official popular name" at the ceremony for retiring the aircraft from service. Not trying to use this example to argue for, or against. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Fair point, this is an odd or rare one. The US retired the F-111 then, in 1996 and Australia followed in 2010. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for US Dep. SecDef Kathleen Hicks

Earlier in the month I posted an edit request at Talk:Kathleen Hicks seeking an editor to improve the article's accuracy, specifically regarding her status as the highest ranking woman to have served at DoD. Although the sourcing is unambiguous, I should not make the edit myself; I have a financial COI because I am working directly with the Hicks family. I'm hopeful an editor from this wikiproject will consider implementing it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that article's talk page. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your client's request seems vain. I once knew a Lance Coolie who was just happy to be a Lance Corporal of Marines. She can (rightly or wrongly) be proud of her career accomplishments. That she's paying you to advocate for changes to an online encyclopedia just to clarify for the audience how important she is certainly makes her out of touch with all those uniformed personnel subordinate to her. I guess getting paid to edit is better than not getting paid, so I cast no stones upon those who monetized their hobby. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Oops. I just fulfilled the request; it seemed reasonable and upheld by the source. I admit I didn't read that^^^ to mean they were getting paid to edit specifically, but rather, that they had a broader connection. So it turns out: I am the fool, and a penniless one at that. ——Serial Number 54129 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for making the update, Serial. And I respect your view, Chris. What Wikipedia says matters, including to those it writes about. Perhaps it would be best if there was no need for someone in my role, but my intention is to propose only well-documented changes to content, and I always strive to make Wikipedia a better resource for its readers. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, my fees have suddenly gone up. Edits to DoD articles in return for freeing Leonard Peltier, cheap at twice the price. ¡Venceremos! ¡Por vida!"  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing against you, WWB. You were asked to propose a change and you did so. We can debate its relevance or importance but you provided reliable sources and no doubt some people will find it interesting (there wouldn't be reliable sources otherwise!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not there was money involved, Hicks was the first woman DepSecDef, and that is notable. Good point to make clearly, though just saying that she was first woman DepSecDef should have been clear years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Earlier in the week I posted another edit request on Kathleen Hicks' article, and since no one has replied yet, figured I might as well post again here. The article currently omits an important presidentially appointed position, and certain board roles are out-of-date. If anyone here is willing to review my proposed changes, I'd be grateful. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Arrow-class gunvessel and Bonetta-class sloop

Should ARA Bermejo and ARA Pilcomaijo be added to the respective articles. From The Times of 21 June 1875 ("A Formidable Gunboat". The Times. No. 28347. London. 21 June 1875. col F, p. 8.) - "The Bermejo and Pilcomaijo are of the Arrow and Bonetta class." Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added Bermejo to the Arrow-class gunvessel article. We don't appear to have an article on the Bonetta-class sloop that Pilcomaijo was a member of. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"State defense forces"

State defense forces has a hatnote for countries/states/nations, but there doesn't seem to be an article for provincial military/provincial militaries, the general topic for "state defense force" that this U.S. focused article should have as a more general wider coverage article parent. The U.S. is not the only country with "states" as subnational divisions, nor the only country where subnational divisions have their own militaries. Just look at Somaliland and Puntland, with significant militaries that are greater than that of the central government. Historically, satrapies Chinese prefectures/provinces/circuits, Roman provinces, have had major militaries. Feudal lords that were not sovereign have usually held substantial militaries under the suzerainty of the respective sovereign crowns. So this seems to be a major omission, considering there is already a U.S. focused article.

-- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I inadvertently added the s -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have access to: " Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War"

Hi, in the Caucasus campaign#Casualties is the following passage:

This gives a total of 235,733 casualties (83,083 killed, 113,570 critically wounded, 39,080 prisoners). Disease deaths (including deaths from the cold) overwhelmingly outnumbered combat deaths for Ottoman forces however, with over twice as many Ottoman troops dying of disease in the war than in combat. Assuming the same for the Caucasus, Ottoman disease deaths would number ~ 170,000, and total deaths would number ~253,000. Additionally, total woundings were x2.5 greater than critical ones overall. If this average also held true in the Caucasus, total wounded would number 284,000.[1] Altogether, total Ottoman losses would be around 576,000 (284,000 dead, 253,000 wounded, 39,000 prisoners), over a third of total Ottoman casualties in World War I.[original research?]

This has been tagged as WP:OR. Would anybody have access to this to confirm whether or not this is OR. Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  • @Cinderella157: Not precisely, no; the figures aren't exactly the same, but some are in the same ballpark. Basically, pp 237–244 are tables of figures (strength, breakdowns, casualties etc), and maybe some of the other tables hold the info. I can send it to you if you want. ——Serial Number 54129 11:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    Serial Number 54129, that would be appreciated. The potential OR would be the extrapolations - ie Assuming the same for the Caucasus ... and If this average also held true in the Caucasus ... Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yes Sent link. ——Serial Number 54129 12:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. This confirms the OR per the original tagging editor. Fixed now. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Erickson 2001, p. 241

Kentish Artillery category tree?

Is there a proper categorization scheme missing from Kentish Artillery? BD2412 T 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Operation Seat 12

the article for operation seat 12 needs extensive rewriting, as it makes claims about history that can neither be proven or disproven. is an alleged misinformation conducted by the KGB in order to smear Pope Pius XII, and that the 1963 play the Deputy, was written specifically for this purpose. the claims for its existence come from a romanian defector named Ion Mihai Pacepa, claims that are supposedly corroborated by the Mitrokhin Archives, a series of documents smuggled to the UK by an ex KGB employee, and by an counterintelligence conducted by the NSA called the Venona Project. the article keeps getting rewritten as insisting the operation is true. until i rewrote it saying not corroborated.

the article is strange{

no explanation of how Pacepa knew about this operation

no mention of Seat 12 in the page about Mitrokhin archives at all or on venona project (it lists information uncovered that is notable, therefore it would be there)

doesnt explain how the NSA discovered Seat 12


the page must be locked to avoid tampering

regarding "The Deputy", the play and what it claims have been proven to be untrue, but to insist its part of a soviet plot is absurd without evidence. Bird244 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

DIY usually works best in cases like this - jump in an improve the article if it doesn't reflect what reliable sources say (taking care to cite those sources, of course). Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Should lists of military aircraft, ships, guns, land vehicles, etc have images in them?

Please join the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Images_on_list_of_aircraft,_etc. Dream Focus 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for George Rogers Clark National Historical Park

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park 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. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at this. The Purpose and Significance section has no citations. It has this sentence: "This law (Appendix A) contains three provisions." The article has no Appendix A. This leads me to think the whole section is likely taken verbatim, or nearly so, from a single source. I spent a little time trying to find the source but did not find it. I checked the citations that are available on line and they do not appear to be the source for this section. Donner60 (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Delisted. Now B for military history, C in banner shell. 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Café de Paris, London, bombed in WWII

Input at Café de Paris, London#Bomb(s) would be welcome, please; was there one bomb or two? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Luftwaffe, lang template/italics or not?

I'm bringing this up here rather than the Luftwaffe page as it affects far more than just that article.

My question is, should Luftwaffe be italicised/use the lang template in articles?

The guideline at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC says:

Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization. ... Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries.

The existence of entries in the following dictionaries suggest that Luftwaffe is fully anglicised, and shouldn't be italicised.

Your opinions would be welcome. (Hohum @) 23:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I used to italicise it, but I consider the overwhelming inclusion in English language dictionaries these days means it should not be italicised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I second that, primarily because of its extensive use in English dictionaries. It should only be italicized when specifically referring to a German word. Since we're on the topic, why don't we discuss about "Wehrmacht" as well, it was mentioned in OED, Collins Online Dictionary, Merriam Webster. But not in American Heritage Dictory and Longman. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I looked at Wehrmacht as a comparison when researching this. It seems less definitive - perhaps a case of either option being valid, as long as it's consistent within an article? (Hohum @) 13:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Review needed

G'day all, my current ACR nom Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jozo Tomasevich has been open since 20 January and has had two reviews (all points addressed, just awaiting any final tweaks required) and a source and image review. Just needs a third review to get it over the line. Cheers in anticipation, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I will review although it might be a few days before I can get to it. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks HF! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

nautical militia

Currently Naval militia, maritime militia and Naval Militia all point to Naval militias in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As the U.S. isn't the only place that has had this kind of militia, a general topic article needs to be built. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the Chinese Maritime Militia and the former British Sea Fencibles spring to mind. Those rediricts should probably be disambiguation pages. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Any article ought also to consider historical examples, for instance, the Norwegian Leidang system. Monstrelet (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Yep, that the redirects to a diambig. Especially as at least one article, not about the US has a wiki link to the US one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
With the newly created SIA stub at naval militia should marine militia point there? nautical militia and maritime militia already point there -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

New draft

I could uses some help with a draft I'm working on, Draft:Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units any help is welcome! LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Source for mascot

In Li'l Abner#Main characters, it mentions that WWII Patrol Boat Squadron 29 used the character as their mascot. I gave a look but couldn't find any sources on this. Figured if anyone would know where to find that sort of info, they'd probably be here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This book might be worth checking. Any books about making models of PT boats would likely be the best source though, as it's the kind of detail model makers like to get right. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Found a few editions of that book from Google but there was nothing there. After some further digging, I notice I'm struggling to find results for "Patrol Boat Squadron 29" from before the statement was added. Would that be the proper name for such a squadron, or is that throwing my searches off? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT SQUADRON 29 was the official name. Adding that the boats in the squadron were PT Boats 552 through 563. The squadron served in the Mediterranean. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/PT-A.html Donner60 (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that definitely helped find the specific squadron in sources. Unfortunately, I still can't turn anything up involving Li'l Abner. I'm gonna remove the claim as unsourced for now; if it's true, hopefully someone else turns it up eventually. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Suwałki Gap and current force stndings

Hello there,

I recently updated the article I promoted to GA in 2022, but one thing I was not really able to find was how many soldiers does each side have. The best data I have is from early 2022, which may be much outdated because of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine (for example, Russia's 11th Army Corps was apparently destroyed to pieces in Ukraine in late 2022, but I'm not sure if they sent replacment troops, and if so, how many).

I would like to request help in finding sources about that. Just as well let me know of any doubts or suggestions so that I can improve the article, potentially towards A-class review stage. Thanks a lot! Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There were some news stories recently about the Poles reinforcing the troops on their eastern borders that might be of use. I suspect that the actual dispositions in this area won't be publicly released on security grounds though. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Help at RefDesk with early 19th-century Royal Navy ranks

Would anybody be able to help with this query at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Volunteer (naval rank) please? Specifically in the timeframe 1824-1853. Alansplodge (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Rushed off my feet right now with work, but if you're still in need of elucidation tomorrow give me a ping and I can help out! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Archive 172 borked

With this edit today, going from 168 discussions down to 14.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested comments at AfD

There is an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish military aircraft that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_172&oldid=1222869422"