Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 173

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

References question

Is there a policy on using refbegin and refend in bibliographies? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

not AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
It's taken a while but I found Template:Refbegin that helps, apparently it's optional. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Its only real uses are to govern the number of columns and things like indents. Its negative effect is shrinking the text size by 10% or so; just enough to require me to need my glasses when I don't need them to read the rest of the article. That feature's not doing vision-impaired readers any favors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before and I sympathise but this should be a decision made by Wiki not either of us. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have identified possible copyright and verifiability issues concerning the article Jack Churchill, which is of interest to this WikiProject. Your input would be welcome. The issues are discussed here. Renerpho (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Map of NATO discussed at Talk:Second Cold War

Link: Talk:Second Cold War#Map of NATO. George Ho (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Operation Hurry question

Does anyone know why the wl in the lead of Operation Hurry are causing dupe wl warnings in the text? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look but the infobox wl aren't showing as dupes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Fort Capuzzo is doing the same. Could the dupe wl scanner be defective? Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyone? Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking more closely, all the flagged duplicate links in the Operation Hurry article are linked in the Infobox, Lead text, and in main link templates. I had not used the Highlight duplicate links feature in the left sidebar before (other than maybe tests). The settings or sensitivity for this could have changed recently. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Auxiliary warships

Following The AfD discussion about whether or not the French ship Gapeau (B284) article should be deleted or not (closed as no consensus to delete after more than 6 weeks discussion and deletion review), I would like to raise the issue of auxiliary warships for discussion.

The auxiliary warships are mostly, but not limited to, Naval Trawlers / Kriegfischkutters /Vorpostenboote of WWI and WWII. Wikipedia has pretty good coverage of the larger naval vessels of this period, but not so good coverage of the smaller vessels. Attempts to cover them are met with some resistance from editors such as Fram, who nominate them for deletion with little success.

One big advantage of Wikipedia is we are not a paper encyclopedia. We are able to cover many more subjects than any printed encyclopedia, including this subject. Gapeau served as a commissioned vessel with two navies, and is, in my opinion, more than notable enough to sustain an article. The ed17 raised WP:SIGCOV in the Gapeau AfD discussion. Once an article has been created, it can always be added to when further information comes to light. Again, this is another big advantage of Wikipedia, the ability to update and expand articles.

It is accepted that some vessels had more exciting careers than others, but a comprehensive approach to a subject is better than a patchy approach. So, do we hold that auxiliary naval vessels are generally going to be notable enough to sustain articles given book sources such as Colbert and Gröner, fleshed out with Lloyd's register? Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't think that it can be assumed that auxiliaries are notable, largely as they're so diverse. The sources reflect this. For instance, prior to a commercialisation program in the 1990s, the Royal Australian Navy's auxiliaries included several very simple unpowered barges that were used as platforms to paint other ships. These barges appeared in various listing type books (Jane's Fighting Ships, etc), but always in passing so wouldn't be notable. More broadly, Wikipedia as a whole is less tolerant these days of claims that entire types of things are automatically notable due to the problems associated with this in the past (e.g. the nonsense around porn stars and obscure academics being declared notable on criteria other than the availability of reliable sources). Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • You're going to have a hard time making broad judgements like this, in large part because of what Nick highlighted above (the era of saying "notable because WP:SOLDIER" is over). But even in cases where a ship is notable, it may not make sense to create an article for it. A good example of this are SMS Rhein and SMS Mosel. Both pass the SIGCOV bar comfortably, but they did so little during their careers (and typically did so in the same place) that it makes more sense to discuss them at Rhein-class monitor instead of at two articles that would be 95% identical (if not more).
  • That being said, in the case of first-German, then-French vessels like Gapeau that are covered by Gröner and Roche, those are probably always going to be notable. Gröner counts as SIGCOV, and though I have not read Roche, I'd assume that his stuff is similar, based on how I've seen people cite it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • THis is why we have GNG, if an auxiliary is notable, it would have received significant coverage in RS. If it has not, it is not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    • If you look at the List of Vorpostenboote in World War II you will see that V 203 Heinrich Buermann isn't redlinked. This is because I've been unable to find out anything much about the ship. If I recall correctly, with V 215 Hela I've not been able to pin down which Hela became the vorpostenboot. There are a few others like that. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Something to be noted about a lot of these minor warships is they were flotilla vessels that didn't operate independently, and often don't get written about individually in any detail, with what little coverage about the activities concentrating on the unit rather than the ships. These sorts of ships tend to be skirting around the edges of notability. There will be hundreds of trawlers etc serving in major navies in wartime that just don't have enough written specifically about the individual ships to sustain an article. The same thing can apply to a lot of smaller active warships like motor minesweepers.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • With a few specific exceptions that don't apply here, we measure notability based on the availability of sources, not intrinsic properties of any subject... So for an auxiliary warships to merit its own article, it must meet WP:SIGCOV by being covered in multiple reliable sources that treat the ship in detail. Sources like Lloyd's or, for most small ships, Conway's don't meet that bar. See WP:N#cite_note-1, "directories and databases [...] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." For Gapeau, I !voted delete because I only saw one source that likely had significant coverage. My suspicion is that many of these small warships should be part of wider-scoped lists per WP:CSC, point #2, and that they could be merged without AfDs. If more sources come to light we can start a new article at that time, which is indeed a benefit of being an online and not paper encyclopedia. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I really suspect a lot of auxillaries and minor warships aren't going to be notable, not just the vorpostenboote. See, for instance, things such as USS W. W. Burns or USS Nathaniel Taylor. Both are 19th-century US naval vessels purchased solely for use as blockships. I haven't done a thorough look for coverage of these vessels' civilian careers, but I don't see any way in which either of those could be considered to be notable simply from their military service. I agree with Ed17 that a list would be a good housing place for many of these auxillaries or minor warships, but I don't know that things like Nathaniel Taylor even need to be mentioned anywhere. Hog Farm Talk 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Our List of requisitioned trawlers of the Royal Navy (WWII) includes several stub-articles of a only a couple of lines for unremarkable vessels, but the most famous RN trawler of the war, HMT Ayrshire (or HMS Ayrshire (FY 225)) of Convoy PQ 17, is not one of them. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Words of estimative probability#Requested move 25 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Words of estimative probability#Requested move 25 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Military Missions

there are a lot of pages about military missions (personnel sent to a country to help train another nations military) yet the page about military advisors is threadbare. it would be difficult to accurately list all military missions, so i suggest the following:

i propose a new category called "military advisors" be created, under which military missions pages, and pages on notable people who took part in these, so its properly organised. Bird244 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean Category:Military advisors, with the subcategory Category:Military advisory groups? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
yes Bird244 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Bombing of country X = battle involving country X?

Quick question: should articles about the bombing of a location in country X by the airforce of country Y be categorised as a battle involving country X? One could argue that, aside from using air defences against country Y's airforce (if X forces did so), the location bombed in the country X is not an active participant in the combat, but rather passively undergoing it. I'm asking because Category:World War II strategic bombing of the Netherlands is not directly in Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving the Netherlands (which is a second-cousin category); but through its parent Category:Netherlands in World War II, it is nevertheless in Category:Wars involving the Netherlands.

I'm not necessarily in favour or against it; just wondering if there are conventions about this, because I'm considering creating a List of battles of World War II involving the Netherlands, and I'd like to know if strategic bombings of the Netherlands by the Axis or Allies, without any Dutch aircraft involved, should 'count' as "involving the Netherlands". (Perhaps a precondition is that Dutch air defences on the ground were somehow involved in order to "count"?) That is going to be important for my selection criteria. Thanks in advance! NLeeuw (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Best not to widen the definition of 'battle' into any old skirmish unless the RS call it one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Sentient (intelligence analysis system) - expanded this article substantially, what now?

Hello, can I ask please if the members of this project can go to the talk page of this article I've been expanding and review it? It is still listed as a Stub on the Talk page and I'm still not quite sure on the Project-type and back-end work necessary here.

This is the article:

I had expanded it from 2606 bytes long on January 1, 2024 to now 30,669 bytes long as of June 6, 2024. I updated a variety of related/connected pages as well.

I'm not quite sure what to do next and still have a variety of sources to still go through, but I may be running out of usable collateral (TBD, what I think I have left is here).

What's next? Refinement? Wikipedia:Good articles? I would definitely welcome some help on Talk:Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system). Thanks all. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  1. The first step in our peer review process is to obtain a B-class assessment. This can be accomplished by posting a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. An editor from the project will provide an assessment based on our B-class criteria. (If it is not already assessed, our MilHistBot will provide an assessment.) In this case, this step is already completed, because I have re-assessed the article as B class.
  2. You can submit the article for a Good Article assessment. See Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions for how to do this. This is an English Wikipedia-wide assessment. A single editor will conduct a review based on the Good Article criteria. When it passes, you can nominate it at Did You Know? See Template:DYK nomination header#Instructions for nominators on how to do this. When the article runs on the front page, it will attract many readers.
  3. The next rung is an A-class assessment. This is conducted by the project. At least three editors from the project will provide an assessment. Nomination instructions can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review
  4. Finally, you can submit the article as a Featured Article candidate. (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for instructions on how to nominate.) This is an English Wikipedia-wide assessment. Multiple editors will conduct a review based on the Featured Article criteria.
Any of these steps can be skipped, but I would recommend going through them all to familiarise yourself with the processes. Great work! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll start reading up on all that. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chang Hsueh-liang#Requested move 6 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chang Hsueh-liang#Requested move 6 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chang Hsueh-liang#Requested move 6 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chang Hsueh-liang#Requested move 6 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chinese conflicts

Template:Chinese conflicts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It would appear that links to many sources for articles dealing with United States Air Force history will have to (again) be changed or relinked tp archived pages. www.afhra.af.mil, which for some time has been the web site for the Air Force Historical Research Agency now redirects to dafhistory.af.mil, which (at east on my computer) cannot be reached. This means links to unit and establishment factsheets, numbered AAF and USAF studies, and a number of works published by AFHRA are no longer valid. Strikes me as something a bot is needed to solve (at least for pages that were archived). Lineagegeek (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Misplacement

Since Haile Selassie I has passed the Good article status can someone add the article as a GA class for Military history? CtasACT (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No need. This occurs automagically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The reason why is the article passed the GA criteria a couple months ago, and it still is listed C class to which i have been troubled by. CtasACT (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 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) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

A proposal at Talk:William D. Leahy that the article's date format Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Raid on Bardia biblio question

Raid on Bardia Anyone know who Wilmott 1944 is? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Check through the history and you can probably find the complete citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the Operation Sunflower article you'll find the citation for Wilmott. Something called Tobruk 1941 that appears to have been published in 1983 and is possibly a reprint of something that came out in 1944. It's listed as (1993) [1944]. Tobruk 1941 (Penguin ed.). Sydney: Halstead Press Intothatdarkness 13:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
It's Chester Wilmot, Aus. war corres. who transferred to BBC in 1944 and made a broadcast about flying in on D-Day, available as "Transcript of a narrative recorded by Chester Wilmot, as BBC war correspondent with 6 Airborne Div, in a glider bound for France on 6 Jun 1944", although god knows where. But your Torbruk 1944 is available at the Internet Archive, here. ——Serial Number 54129 13:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all, I checked the history to no avail, I wondered if it was Chester Wilmot because he wrote on the Desert War. Thanks all. Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Curious, though, Keith-264, as it was you that originally added Wilmot in March 2015... without the full ref. then either  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 14:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well damn my rags! I didn't check my edits as I assumed it wasn't me. I must have adapted the Sonnemblume section from Sonnenblume. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries. It was nicely full circle really!  :) ——Serial Number 54129 15:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Bot assessment

Please ensure your assessment bot follows PIQA, because as of this post, it is not following this and posting differing assessments in the banner shells. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought we opted out of PIQA? Hog Farm Talk 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
That may be the case. My apologies. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
If you feel the bot has incorrectly assessed an article, report it on the MilHistBot talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

UGM-133 Trident II payload?

The text says it may carry "up to eight Mk-5 RVs". However, the infobox says 1 to 12. Those are good-sized warheads, so I would imagine it's the lower number, but neither has a reference. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Trident II can carry up to twelve RVs, but the START II treaty limits them to just eight. In practice, they often carry fewer due to other treaty limits. reference Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review needed

If someone could provide a source review for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Tinian, I would be most grateful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division

Combat Aviation Brigade, 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. Hog Farm Talk 13:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Improve citation format for SIPRI database results

Most members of this project are probably familiar with SIPRI's Arms Transfers Database, a vital source for information on the international movement of military equipment that is used in thousands of articles on Wikipedia. However, citing the database is more difficult than with most web sources, because it does not provide permanent external links to specific data. Instead, all citations on Wiki link to one of the database's search pages. Anyone who wishes to double-check a claim sourced to SIPRI must typically determine, on their own, what search parameters will obtain useful and relevant data.

I propose that we use the "at" parameter in the cite web template to list SIPRI database search parameters, as in the following dummy citation:

  • "Arms Transfers Database: Transfer data". SIPRI Arms Transfers Database (Searchable database). Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 0000-00-00. Recipient QQQ, supplier RRR, weapon category CatPlaceholder, designation NamePlaceholder, order/delivery completion/delivery year from 0000 to 9999. Retrieved 0000-00-00. (Quote goes here.) {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)

Here is how the source code looks: 

{{cite web
| url          = https://armstransfers.sipri.org/ArmsTransfer/TransferData
| title        = Arms Transfers Database: Transfer data
| author       = <!--Not stated-->
| date         = 0000-00-00
| website      = SIPRI Arms Transfers Database
| publisher    = [[Stockholm International Peace Research Institute]]
| type         = Searchable database
| at           = Recipient QQQ, supplier RRR, weapon category CatPlaceholder, designation NamePlaceholder, order/delivery completion/delivery year from 0000 to 9999
| access-date  = 0000-00-00
| quote        = (Quote goes here.)
}}

I will personally use this format, or future versions of it, whenever I cite SIPRI from now on. Huntthetroll (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Single records can be accessed directly using the final entityId:
  • https://armstransfers.sipri.org/ArmsTransfer/TransferData/transferDetail?entityId=245233 (Hohum @) 22:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for confirming this. I was not sure whether it was reproducible. Huntthetroll (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    It is possible that citing this way could require a large number of citations for a single statement. For instance, one sentence in the M48 Patton article currently reads thus: Totally, when the Yom Kippur War broke out, Israel had 540 M48-series (with 105 mm gun) and M60/M60A1 tanks. This single claim appears to rely on adding up the recorded number of vehicles received by Israel in at least three separate database entries, each of which would require its own citation using this method. There is also no way to show to a reader that any such series of citations includes all relevant entries from SIPRI, unless the reader searched the SIPRI database themself. Huntthetroll (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It would probably be possible to create a "Cite SIPIRI" template, to accept multiple linkable entityId's per citation, but it would rely on SIPIRI not changing the access method - and it would still be a bit clunky for more than a few entries too. (Hohum @) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I tried combining our ideas at M47 Patton#Former operators. What do you think? Not sure they really make sense together. Huntthetroll (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Dupe wl scanners question

importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); isn't working properly, isn't there another one? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that as well lately - Evad's was the second one, when Ucucha's stopped working correctly years ago. Neither one of them appear to be particularly active recently, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I asked him to take a look but he hasn't answered, shame, I found it very useful. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It's very difficult to use now - hopefully they can fix one or the other. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken template in Vector 2010 Nthep (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Assessment of Lists

Lately, I have come across the incorrect use of Start class to grade list articles. I fixed this error previously, but found it again with two articles I published in the past couple of days. As a reminder, list articles should be given the WP's list grading template, rather than the one used for "normal" articles.

This brings me to the bigger issue. The WikiProject Military History's assessment ratings options for list articles are quite extensive and currently call for what are considered "non-standard grades" according to Wikipedia:Content assessment. Quoting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Assessment: "WikiProject Lists limits class to FL, List, and Stub for articles". In fact, this WP has a bot that automatically changes incorrect class codes for reporting, such as those included in the WP MH assessment system. Yhus, I propose that WikiProject Military History update its assessment system to remove the non-standard grades for list articles and to use just Stub, List, and Feature List (FL) as per the Wikipedia general guidelines. Rublamb (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rublamb: Actually there is no assessment of lists due to lack of classes. I don't know why is that, and it doesn't make sense. Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: Do you mean within the WP rating template? If that is the case, you would just need to add one more option: Lists. (The only other grade really used in Wikipedia for list articles is Feature List (FL) which is rare and has an overding code, as with Feature Articles). Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, which does detail an assessment system. Rublamb (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no start class for list articles; the project template should not allow it. Can you give me a couple of examples where this has occurred, so I can investigate? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Here are two:
Rublamb (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

How many galleys were at the Battle of Actium?

Please see Talk:Battle of Actium § How many galleys? for an issue that has existed since at least 2019. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR in lists of wars between country A and country B?

Dear colleagues, fellow military historians,

Something has been bugging about these various Lists of wars between country A and country B. Some of them are decent and have proper sourcing, while others are full of WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, especially when it comes to identifying so-called "predecessor states" of countries A and B, centuries before A and B existed, and that from a legal point of view may not be "predecessor states" of A and B at all. Example:

  • List of wars between Russia and Sweden.
  • List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia
    • This is a complicated article that probably deserves its own discussion. I've made some efforts to improve it myself, but I'm not sure about its future. In short, this just began as a DP helping readers to navigate between various articles called "Polish-Russian War"; the interwikis show that in other language Wikipedias this is still the case. But it has been expanded to include all supposed predecessors of "Poland" and "Russia". Again, what we call "Russia" here is quite doubtful. The Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia, which despite what many post-2014 publications might suggest, is very rarely called "Ruthenia", let alone "Russia", in historiography. (The trend to call Galicia-Volhynia "Kingdom of Ruthenia" seems to have begun no earlier than 2015, if you carefully search for it on Google Scholar and Google Books). Like Novgorod, it was never a predecessor of the modern RusFed, because it was annexed by Poland and Lithuania. All wars in that section have lots of issues (2 of them are currently in AfD). Simultaneously, the way the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is identified as a predecessor state of Poland (exclusively) also raises questions, as its legacy has also been claimed by Lithuania and to a lesser extent Belarus and Ukraine. (Under international law, no successor state could probably be identified; everything after 1795 is arguably a new creation, such as the Duchy of Warsaw). And that is before we even start on identifying Kievan Rus' as a predecessor state of Russia as opposed to Ukraine (ideologically speaking the current Russo-Ukrainian War is in no small part about claiming the legacy of that medieval state). A little more justifiable is considering the Soviet Union a predecessor of the RusFed, as it is generally recognised under international law to be so, with the RusFed inheriting all treaties signed by the USSR, and memberships in international organisations such as the United Nations. Therefore, the Polish-Soviet War may reasonably be regarded as a war between "Poland" and "Russia".
  • List of conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan is perhaps a good example of how this type of article might work after all. The opposing belligerents of the 1918-1920 war could reasonably be identified as predecessors of the modern states, and thus no WP:OR is being committed.
  • Similarly, Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts does not go back further than 1947, and seems a helpful and comprehensive overview.

So what we're getting is a mixed picture. There aren't many articles of the type List of wars between Fooland and Barland yet (probably fewer than 10 at the moment). In some cases it seems really questionable how a list is set up, while in others it seems fine and even very helpful. Therefore, I think we should develop some kind of convention for this type of military history list, the do's and don'ts, both for improvement of the current articles, as well as standards that potential future articles should adhere to. As outlined above, I think we should look at this from a legal perspective: can the former country C be identified as the predecessor state of the current country A under international law? If not, then we should probably exclude C from a list of wars between country A and B. E.g. Galicia-Volhynia (which is in historiography is sometimes actually considered a predecessor state of modern Ukraine rather than Russia) should probably be excluded from the List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I have a similar concern. We shouldn't neglect articles such as "X's campaign against Y," "A campaigns in B," or "X's military campaigns and expeditions." I regret having created or improved such articles in the past. For example, in the article Campaigns of Nader Shah, the Mughal Empire, Ottoman Empire, and even the Russian Empire are listed as belligerents. To a newcomer, or someone unfamiliar with the historical context, it might appear that these empires allied against Nader Shah, which never happened.
Similarly, in articles like Muslim conquest of Persia, Ahom-Mughal conflicts, Afghan–Sikh wars, and Gupta–Hunnic Wars, many figures are grouped into a single belligerent/commander list, and presented with a single result, overlooking intermediate outcomes that differed from the presented result. Interestingly, most of the people listed in the infoboxes never even faced each other.
These are just a few examples, but several campaign-type articles have been similarly distorted. I myself created the article Ghaznavid campaigns in India, inspired by other similar articles, and now regret if it misled viewers. We can find several other military campaign-type articles where multiple campaigns are combined into a single infobox, creating confusion. A solution is indeed required to prevent readers from being misled by the infobox, which currently distorting the actual context. It is not surprising that many military conflict-type articles have only a few lines of written context but a large, misleading infobox. Imperial[AFCND] 07:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@ImperialAficionado Thanks for your response! Indeed, newcomers may be encouraged to write such articles if they do not know how either Wikipedia or modern critical historiography works. Some of my first articles written on Dutch Wikipedia were about battles and campaigns, and only in hindsight I realised some of them were original research / WP:SYNTH, because I frankly didn't know what those rules were until someone told me. ;)
I agreed to have some of the worst articles deleted, nominating some of my own articles for deletion. Others I managed to salvage by better sourcing, rewriting or merging.
It's very well possible that some of that what you and I did in our early editing days is also going on with these wars between A and B, or campaigns of C against D. Military history enthusiasts who write lots of stuff before understanding how Wikipedia works. (In case of the "wars" between "Poland" and Galicia-Volhynia, that editor wrote dozens of poorly sourced articles with a heavy bias, and he was blocked after only 3 months on Wikipedia, but some of his battle articles are still there).
In general, I have been trying to split lists of wars involving modern countries and former countries, to prevent people claiming the modern country was also involved in alllll the wars of the country which no longer exists. This is why I created Category:Lists of wars by former country, and I have been slowly populating it ever since. NLeeuw (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nederlandse Leeuw As an editor of South Asian military history, I've encountered many editors, who don't wait to hear us out, takes their articles to mainspace failing many guidelines, leading to their eventual blocking and subsequent meatpuppet or sockpuppet activity. Sadly it became common in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan TA. This behavior of editors, and personal attacks has caused me significant stress, leading to a Wikibreak and a halt in creating such articles. It would be better if a dedicated team could guide new military history editors and review their articles accordingly. Another issue is that new page reviewers from other WikiProjects are accepting AFCs too quickly without fact-checking. I'm pretty sure the majority of war-type articles are synthesized products. Imperial[AFCND] 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@ImperialAficionado I'm glad to hear that you have been trying to set the right example for others to follow! But I'm sad to hear that you have encounted much resistance from people who think they know everything there is to know, and that only their POV is "correct".
Incidentally, now that we're talking, would you be interested in looking at some of my edits on South Asian military history? I have been trying to document all wars of succession in history, without engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. That is not easy, especially outside of Europe, because although wars of succession are a universal phenomenon, the literature aboubt the term "war of succession" and theories about why they happened, how they went, and how various societies tried to settle or prevent such conflicts, is very euro-centric. Western scholars (and Wikipedians like myself) writing about wars of succession in the Indian subcontinent, for example, might (unconsciously or not) be influenced by a certain colonial or postcolonial bias. E.g. they might think it's "just like in Europe", or "worse than in Europe", without really understanding how conflicts played out in South Asia, and what they meant.
At List of wars of succession#Asia, you can see my attempts to document all I could find based on reliable sources and wherever possible linking to existing articles or sections.
At Talk:List of wars of succession#Conventions for the list of wars of succession, I have been describing all the relevant policies, guidelines and recommendations to ensure that we do not make things up, but write military history in accordance with how English Wikipedia is supposed to work. This is both a reminder to myself and to anyone else who would like to contribute. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I really appreciate your attempts to expand the scope of MILHIST and thank you for your work on South Asian history. Wars of succession are indeed complicated in South Asian history throughout the ages, and we often face problems where sources contradict each other in their conclusions. Unfortunately, I can't spend much time on WP right now, as I am on a break within my Wikibreak. I hope to come back and contribute to such articles soon. Best regards. Imperial[AFCND] 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Enjoy your break, and perhaps we shall meet again another time! NLeeuw (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Another thought related to this is that lately, I've begun to think we should prioritise listing battles by war rather than battles by country involved. If we put the country at the centre, we always risk getting a one-sided perspective (especially with the victory/defeat opposition, if not dichotomy), and taking the battles out of the contexts of the wars they were part of. Lists of wars involving (former) countries are probably worthwhile as overview articles, but lists of battles involving (former) countries should perhaps be avoided. NLeeuw (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of civilian owners as operators?

This edit on Chieftain (tank) has me wondering what, if any, space should be devoted within articles to notable private owners of vehicles, like tanks, that are unusual for civilians to own. Does it make sense to count them as "operators" of the equipment? It seems absurd to me, but am I jumping to conclusions? Huntthetroll (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That looks like spam to me. Whistlindiesel appears to be a person who makes stunt Youtube videos. I'm not sure you could have a blanket ban on civilian operators. For example, if a PMC or such operaterated vehicles, they could potentially be mentioned, in the same way as civilian contract operators of warplanes. But individuals owning vehicles in collections I think would be under survivors or preserved examples, as seen in some AFV articles. Monstrelet (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
No, companies yes, as in commercial, operators, and maybe where the item is of historical importance, but not just general kit. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that private civilian ownership of a tank or any other militaria is not notable. It also has nothing to do with the use or military history of the piece. I might make an exception for a sole surviving example, perhaps even two or three survivors, as Slatersteven's mention of an item of historical importance suggests. Perhaps not relevant, I would be surprised if any such examples of historical importance would be in private hands rather than in a museum or retained by the military. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

FAR: Middle Ages

I have nominated Middle Ages 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. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Drone redirects

FYI, drone redirects are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 24 -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

German General involved in Lorković–Vokić plot?

a few weeks back i came across an article about a German General called Edmund Glaise-Horstenau, who according to his wikipedia page took part in the Lorković–Vokić plot, which was an attempt Croat dissidents to remove the Ustashe regime from power in Croatia. i added him to the list of conspirators on the plots page, but someone removed him from the list, which leads me to question whether said general was even involved in the coup.

can anyone verify his involvment? Bird244 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Joe Rice

Joe Rice 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) 20:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Bolivian coup d'état attempt

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Bolivian coup d'état attempt that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Bolivian coup d'état attempt#Requested move 26 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Bolivian coup d'état attempt#Requested move 26 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jutish#Requested move 18 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jutish#Requested move 18 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PK2 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Convoy HG 76

Five of the entries for U-boats [1] have notes that are centred and I can't left justify them; anyone know why? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264 it's the use of {{No2}} in those rows. That template automatically centres the text. You're best removing it and manually styling the background, if that is needed. Nthep (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Ta. Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd tried taking them out but didn't notice all of them. Sorted now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1987 Sharjawi coup d'état attempt#Requested move 27 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1987 Sharjawi coup d'état attempt#Requested move 27 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem

I've got a a question about the rating criteria.

What does "supporting material" refer to?

  • Supporting materials: criterion not met

What's missing? Or what needs improvement?

MWQs (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Tag me in replies please. MWQs (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"Swarm Drone"

Swarm Drone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) claims to be an India-only topic, and only a military topic. Seems, a bit odd, since drone swarms are vastly used in advertising and artistic displays across the world, and espionage and military swarm drones exist outside of India. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Marine Engineering News

The Marine Engineering News was first published in April 1879. Covers mostly UK shipping (including military), with some foreign. Useful for improving articles about ships of that era. I've added the first four volumes to WP:SHIPS/R#Country specific sources. More will be added later. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Deccani–Vijayanagar wars

I would also appreciated any views on whether this should be a standalone article. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Second Northern War#Requested move 23 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Second Northern War#Requested move 23 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Military dictatorship peer review

I've just put Military dictatorship up for a peer review. Given the broad scope of the article, I'm hoping for as many different perspectives as possible. Thanks! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Table formatting

Can anyone who knows how to draw up a table point me to a to do page that shows how to make a grid, with small numbers in the top right hand corner of each square? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264. I don't think I've ever seen that here? Can you find a post that uses that and copy from there? (tag me in reply) MWQs (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@MWQs: Me neither, no, I've looked. I add a note describing the formation of a convoy and the numbering system but it occurred to me that a table would help the reader. I envisage a grid to each margin with the grid number in the top rhs, possibly with the ship name in each square. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Like this?
table caption
column 1 column 2
4

ship name

3

ship name

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Snag, how do I make the table four deep? I've had a tinker but all it does is extend horizontally rather than vertically. Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Answered at my talk page (permalink).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple new articles on Israeli-Palestinian conflict pushing "martyrdom" POV

hey all, I've noticed a bunch of new articles from MWQs that are full of synth and are extreme violations of WP:NPOV.

This one, that I nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem, pushes a martyrdom POV and contains Jesus and Eichmann and Jewish and Palestinian terrorists in the same list; it's language is like that: "An eye for an eye", "King of Martyrs", "he refused to commit sin unto the point of shedding blood", "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa", "prominent militant".

Other articles by this user are also problematic: The killing of the wife, daughter, and infant son of Mohammed Deif fails to mention the reason of the attack, and it reads like "IDF just attacked a random house of an innocent Deif". It can be notable, but it should at least be moved to "Deif family massacre" or something similar. It also has the same NPOV problem: "her previous husband was a martyred Qassami fighter", "high-ranking members of so called "terrorist" organisations".

Executions and assassinations during the Israel–Hamas war, Death of Mahmoud Eshtewi, Extrajudicial killings in the Gaza Strip can have the same problems.

Any comments from MWQs or military history experts? Artem.G (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is hardly NPOV. Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
it's right here Israeli–Palestinian conflict, how would you call it? Artem.G (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Something like the Smith regime or Apartheid South Africa. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Keith-264, I'm very confused, what do you mean? MWQs (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Commenting only to mention that @MWQs actually posted on this page several days earlier, asking for advice. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Huntthetroll Thanks. MWQs (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G. You are welcome to add the "reasons for the attack" on "The killing of the wife, daughter, and infant son of Mohammed Deif" if you think it's missing? I thought it already mentioned that it was a failed assassination attempt? What is missing? I would appreciate other contributions to the page. The information about who Deif is is covered extensively elsewhere on wiki, but if you want to summarise it in the background section of that page then that would be very welcome. MWQs (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G if you prefer "Deif family massacre" it can be that? There is currently an open discussion on the talk page, please contribute. "2014 Deif family massacre" was actually a title I was using for it previously, but I changed it FROM that because I thought that title was too POV and the descriptive title was a more encyclopedic? But if I got that backwards, it can change back. MWQs (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G regarding Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem I found the history of executions in that region notable enough to start the page because there was such a diversity of events. I think that was highlighted in the intro? The "he refused to commit sin unto the point of shedding blood", is directly taken from another wiki article, I summarised a few others. The "eye for an eye" is a quote from the speech by Ahmad Saadat, I probably did get the tone wrong, but it was just a "working title" for that section, if you can think of a better one, just change it? Wikipedia is designed to be collaborative, if you think something is missing you can add it, and if you think something can be improved, you can improve it. MWQs (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
If it's a quote, it should be attributed and sourced, see Wikipedia:Quotations. If the article is a work in progress, it's better to write it in your sandbox or in the draft space. My main concern here is synthethis, as it was very strange to me to see Jesus, Eichmann, and various terrorists in the same list. I would advise you to read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. You're right that everything can be improved, but IMO not everything should be a standalone article, especially if there is "such a diversity of events". Artem.G (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
"Eye for an eye" is a common expression, it's a cleche / ideom / expression. Not the sort of thing you could attribute to Saadat for including it in a speech. I agree it was a bad subheading, I've changed it now. But if you didn't like that heading, why didn't you just change it? MWQs (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a collection of "thing-in-place". The thing and the place are both a bit fuzzy edged, I asked for it to be moved to drafts, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to just do that myself? I was trying to fill a gap caused by related articles that focus a lot on Israel and the Gaza Strip, but leave out the West Bank. Abu Ali Mustafa didn't make sense without Ze'evi, so I expanded to neighbouring Jerusalem, and then it was weird to leave out the most famous execution in Jerusalem? The thing they have in common is that they're interesting / famous / notable. That's the usual inclusion criteria? MWQs (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G, What do you think is being synthesised? MWQs (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Artem.G @Keith-264 I added a couple of lines from Mohammed Deif to the background section of The killing of the wife, daughter, and infant son of Mohammed Deif. Does that help give more context? MWQs (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Did the Philippine-American War end in 1902 or 1913?

The primary point of contention is whether or not to include the Moro Rebellion (1899-1913) within the article's info box. This placement expresses a view that the Philippine-American War did not in fact end with President Roosevelt's proclamation on July 4, 1902. It asserts the armed conflict, as a matter of fact, ended over a decade later. The single sentence in the article body used to justify the Moro Rebellion's info box inclusion asserts, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." The opposing revisions can be found here and here with related discussions here, here and here.

What I care about primarily is whether or not info box inclusion of the Moro Rebellion, juxtaposed against the canonically recognized July, 4 1902 date, will prevent this article from being assessed GA, A and eventually FA. A decision needs to be made regarding a single date that caps the episode labeled "Philippine-American War", as a matter of fact. Any input and thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Chino-Catane (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What quality sources state is what really matters. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. That's what I have been asking @141.155.35.58 for. So far, one verified WP:RS citation has shown that one historian makes the claim that the "Philippine War" ended in 1913. Does the expression of this view by a single individual warrant inclusion of the Moro Rebellion in the article's info box, juxtaposed with the canonically recognized end date? Chino-Catane (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
One source in my view doesn't warrant modification of the infobox. The accepted date is 1902. Intothatdarkness 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Brian Linn, a recognized authority on the conflict, uses the 1902 date in the titles of both his major works on the subject. And the linked Moro Rebellion article may list 1899 in the article title, but the infobox has the conflict beginning in 1902. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that discrepancy. I'll make inquiries as to why that exists. The point of contention between myself and 141.155.35.58 is the claim that "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war", which is subsequently used to justify juxtaposing the Moro Rebellion dates with canonically recognized dates in the info box. This suggests to viewers that there exists active debate among experts about when this retroactively recognized war actually ended. I question the assertion that this debate even exists among subject-matter experts. Chino-Catane (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I suspect someone just changed the article title or lede without looking at the infobox. There are other articles that experience similar issues (American Indian Wars, for example, is routinely targeted by people wanting to change the end date to something found in NO RS). Intothatdarkness 15:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gettysburg Cyclorama

Gettysburg Cyclorama 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) 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Future of the United States Navy into List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships.

There is a merge discussion here: Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy § Proposed merge of Future of the United States Navy into List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Russian War Relief

Does anyone know anything about this organization? The aims and goals are so obviously beneficial to the Soviet Union, I do wonder if there was any direct or indirect ties between them. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there were. It was a communist front organisation. Saville Sax was recruited through the Russian War Relief and acted as a courier for Theodore Hall, a Soviet spy in the Manhattan Project's Los Alamos Laboratory. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
If it's a USSR front organization, then that should be mentioned in the article because that's currently missing from the article. The organization has come up recently in the news since Charlie Chaplin gave a speech at one of their meetings in 1942. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of the Bay of Biscay coords question

I worked out the coordinates of the engagement then found that it was in Slovenia, rather than the Bay of Biscay.... Does anyone know where I can get the real coords? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

War Monthly, Volumes 34-45, 1976, {p. 6) has a "snippet view" which says: "T25 and T26 sunk Glasgow & Enterprise 45° N 12° W", which is not actually in the Bay of Biscay but a bit further out to the NW of Corunna. Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

PQ and QP convoys coordinates question

I haven't added coordinates for the recent revision and expansions I've undertaken and wonder if anyone can suggest a generic one for the route. Murmansk might suit but it is the terminus, perhaps it would be better to pick somewhere half-way there? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Off hand I would have thought that adding any single pair of coordinates would be misleading. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I fear so. Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Both ends? Keith-264 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
You could find the route off-wiki (eg google Earth KML) and link to that but coords of a single location or start and finish aren't really helpful. You have maps in the articles? they do a better job. In fact, I've reverted the addition to PQ1 as not helpful. The only guidance I've seen says " Coordinates should [also] be added to articles about events that are associated with a single location" GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Umberto I of Italy#Requested move 9 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Umberto I of Italy#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anti-submarine ballistic artillery - more eyes requested after an undiscussed page move

Are rocket projectiles (as well as mortars) 'ballistic artillery'?

See Talk:Anti-submarine ballistic artillery#Undiscussed page move Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Policy on cited sources for Background section of on-going armed conflict

Is it against Wikipedia policy or standard practice to cite sources providing background information for an on-going armed conflict, published before the start of the conflict? See the Talk and text-search for "outdated sources" to jump to the relevant part of the discussion. Chino-Catane (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle for Border Post 9631: investigating an obscure battle

After finding links to this non-existent but extremely specific article added by an anonymous editor from Istanbul, I tried to find reliable sources that could confirm the events of the battle, which allegedly occurred in February 2001 on the border between Burma and Thailand. Here is what I found in English-language Google and Wiki searches:

  1. Our articles on Royal Thai Army Rangers, Naresuan 261, Task Force 90 (Thailand), the Royal Thai Air Force, the Myanmar Air Force, the Royal Thai Army Special Warfare Command, and a List of equipment of the Myanmar Army mention this battle by name, while our article on Myanmar-Thailand relations links to a copy of a June 2001 article from Kyodo News International that refers to clashes in early 2001.
  2. Articles from The Guardian ([2]) and CNN ([3],[4]) confirm that there were Burmese-Thai border clashes in February 2001, in which Myanmar Army soldiers seized a Royal Thai Army border post and a Thai counterattack recaptured it, and that the two sides gave differing accounts of the battle. These sources also mention that the Burmese-Thai clash was a consequence of [Myanmar confict|fighting] between the Myanmar Army and the Shan State Army, one of numerous ethnic minority militias within Myanmar/Burma.
  3. An article in the journal Asian Survey and an article in International Relations of the Asia-Pacific mention the clashes but require JSTOR access to read.
  4. An article from the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, an Indian think tank, briefly describes the battle, mentioning that the Thai border post was located near a settlement called Ban Pang Noon.
  5. An opinion piece from The Japan Times also locates the battle near Ban Pang Noon but cannot be read in its entirety without a subscription. Another account that dates and locates the battle was submitted to the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization in February 2001 by Sai Myo Win, General Secretary of the Shan Democratic Union. This article in The Irrawaddy also describes the battle in some detail. Finally, I found an article, published by the International Boundaries Research Unit in the spring 2001 issue of the IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, that explicitly identifies the objective of the battle (according to the Thai government) as "Thai Army Rangers’ Base Number 9631, near Ban Pang Noon, in Chiang Rai’s Mae Pah Luang district".
  6. An exact-text search for "border post 9631" brings up two different blog posts and several forum posts ([5],[6],[7],[8]) that discuss the battle, none of which qualify as reliable sources. However, the blog posts are extremely detailed; one directly translates the dueling accounts of the Thai and Burmese militaries.
  7. The archive of the reg.burma mailing list at burmalibrary.org has an extensive collection of news, analysis and commentary from the time, including a full version of the Japan Times piece mentioned earlier.
  8. As for non-English sources, there is a detailed article on Thai Wikipedia at th:กรณีพิพาทกู่เต็งนาโย่ง, along with other Thai sources that can be found by searching for "ด่านชายแดน 9631". Burmese-language sources might be found by searching for "နယ်ခြားမှတ်တိုင် ၉၆၃၁" or "နယ်ခြားမှတ်တိုင် 9631", although I think that the Myanmar Army has a different name for the battle (maybe "Hill O-7", as translated here. I can't speak or read a word of either language, but machine translation suggests that the sources for the th-wiki article could be useful. There is also a Norwegian Wikipedia article at no:Den thailandsk-burmesiske grensekonflikten i 2001, an article in Swedish at thailandshistoria.se, and a blog post in Dutch at thailandblog.nl.

Based on these findings, I think that there is enough information for an article, but it should be called something like 2001 Myanmar-Thailand border clashes, because there were more episodes of fighting than just the battle for this specific outpost. Huntthetroll (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Our articles on the military forces of those (and most other South East Asian) countries tend to be low quality and often include hoax material, so I wouldn't give any weight to the Wikipedia redlinks or Wikipedias in other languages here. Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I thought that it might be a hoax too, which is why I spent some time determining if there were any independent, reliable sources that could verify that it happened. It seems to have been a real event that received international attention, just not one that merits such a hyper-specific title. An actual article on it would obviously have to draw on the news and journal articles that I linked, as well as other reliable sources if such could be found. Huntthetroll (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Göring has an RfC

Hermann Göring 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Anthony J. Bryant desperately needs sources.

I have been trying to improve the Anthony J. Bryant page and am struggling to find reliable secondary sources for informaiton about him. As it stands, much of the article is derivative of his obituary. I improved it in what ways I could, but I have also flagged it for notability. If anyone wishes to collaborate and help research, I'd appreciate it. He has written a number of books, and maintained a personal website, and served as a historical consultant for an episode of a BBC Television program but outside of that I have been having trouble locating information about him, I cannot even find a biography of him from his publisher that we could utilize. Chrhns (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 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) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 review of the Defence Honours and Awards system (Australia)

Okay, I'm doing up an article on the 2024 review of the Defence Honours and Awards system which also covers the background honours scandal. I was hoping that someone could read over it and let me know if it can be written any better, including if I need more references. The Senate report is due to be published on 28 November 2024, and I'm not sure if I should wait for that before posting to mainspace. Obviously a very real-world ongoing issue with some 13 generals facing having their Distinguished Service Cross's stripped, so don't want to make any silly mistakes, if that makes sense. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Great work here. I'll leave some comments on the draft's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Chosin Reservoir result

I would appreciate more eyes on the result parameter of the Infobox for Battle of Chosin Reservoir thanks Mztourist (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova#Requested move 26 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova#Requested move 26 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Encounters with persistent Vietnam-based IP editor on tank design topics

After checking some recent edits and going through article histories, I noticed frequent, anonymous edits (mostly geolocated to Bắc Giang, Vietnam) that have added near-identical material to several related articles.

IPs used:

These edits have some common characteristics: they cite speculative or unreliable sources, falsify a cited source, inject discussion of logistics and cost-effectiveness into a discussion about vulnerability to ammunition cook-off, or make claims about Western tank designs that are either unsourced or close to tautologically obvious. The net effect on the article is also similar: the relative vulnerability of Soviet/Russian tanks to catastrophic ammunition explosions, as compared to Western tanks, is minimized or justified in terms of design trade-offs; the effectiveness of the 9M133 Kornet anti-tank missile and other Soviet/Russian weapons is emphasized. (Another trait of the editor(s) in question is edits to Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam and articles on battles involving Soviet forces in World War II.) To be clear, I think an analysis of tank design choices would be good to have on this encyclopedia, but it would need to be properly sourced and appropriately placed, instead of being spammed across multiple articles. As far as I can tell, members of this project, including me, have either reverted or pared down these edits wherever we have found them. Who else has encountered this, and has anyone tried to reach out to the editor(s) involved, to discuss how their contributions could be improved? Huntthetroll (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Since two of these IPs have been blocked for sockpuppetry and this person has been falsifying sources and adding speculative, unreliable and POV text, perhaps an administrator should look at this. @Drmies:, @Oshwah:, @BusterD:, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:. Donner60 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
What do you want me to see? Opportunities for range blocks or requests for semi-protection? Drmies (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Opportunities for range blocks for now. If that is not entirely effective, perhaps @Huntthetroll: can suggest semi-protection for articles, at least those in the above list that have been corrected or continue to be subject to further vandalism. I ask Huntthetroll to check the articles and report on further steps and to note whether help from other editors familiar with the subject matter can help. I doubt that a confirmed sockpuppet and identified and determined POV and erroneous content pusher will respond to any editors who reach out, maybe including administrators. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Limited strictly to articles that have been the focus of this user's disruptive tank design edits, I would recommend all the articles linked in my original post for semi-protection, plus Merkava, T-72 tanks in Iraqi service, and T-72. Huntthetroll (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking at IP ranges provides a more complete picture of this user's interests (military weapons and vehicles, Russo-Ukrainian War, Vietnam War, Eastern Front of WWII) and editing patterns (frequent disputes with other editors, usually over battle data[who won, size of forces, losses], weapon capabilities, or source reliability; not-quite-full fluency in English; source swapping; source falsification):
Some specific examples of editing patterns, obfuscated by IP-hopping:
On the rare occasions that this editor has sought to discuss edits with others, the constant IP-hopping creates a misleading impression of the number of people involved in the conversation. Seeking to have the description of North Vietnamese casualties changed in the Vietnam War infobox, this editor used three different addresses in conversation with User:Tpbradbury; as well as another three addresses with User:Slatersteven, with User:Toughtofu, and with User:Goszei. Huntthetroll (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Anglo-Turkish War of 1918-1923

Found this while patrolling. I can't find references to an "Anglo-Turkish War" using basic google searches, which seems odd given the scale of this article and the large countries involved? I am also wary that this might be a WP:FORK of Turkish War of Independence, which is an article with neutrality issues. Therefore I bring it here for your consideration. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a neologism to me too. Huntthetroll (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a neologism to me too. The infobox appears to reflect the Turkish War of Independence (for what the infobox is worth). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The article has now been moved twice, unnecessarily creating a double redirect. At least one editor seems dead-set on the name "Anglo-Turkish War". (See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BaharatlıCheetos2.0.) Huntthetroll (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Note that the same editor also created Greek war crimes, which is certainly a valid subject to cover (although perhaps better in combined form for both sides a la List of massacres during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) ), but needs a "neutral" editor to check it. SnowFire (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Expansion Request

I started the article Harrison S. Kerrick. The main source is a New York Times obituary, which I can't access. Could someone with a New York Times subscription go in and expand the article with the information I am missing from the obituary? Or at least link me a copy of the article to expand myself? Roasted (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Roasted, if nobody here can help, you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move 18 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move 18 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Resource request

Does any user have access to the most up to date Military Balance? List of active Russian military aircraft would benefit from more up to date sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Not my area, but it looks like it's available through WP:TWL. At least when I log in there, click onto "Taylor and Francis" and search "Military Balance" I get a journal entitled "The Military Balance" Volume 124, 2024 - Issue 1; chapter four of which has a listing of assessed current total of Russian units, military equipment etc. - Dumelow (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
As Dumelow said, the latest edition is available through the Wikipedia Library. I have been using it for List of equipment of the United States Army. Huntthetroll (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Deception island incident, 1953

I've been doing some research on this obscure incident and decided to write an article about it, any comments and opinions welcome. Link: Deception Island incident Bob meade (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added a note to the HMS Snipe (U20) article. Alansplodge (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
And to the Deception Island article. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Churchill/Repeat Valiant

Hello everyone. I have (@Bungy1804:) a user who seems to be a person with great knowledge about UK nuclear submarines but does not know how to incorporate their information into the article. Their attempts have been wild and without sources and very much in the vein of vandalism which is why I reverted them on half a dozen pages surrounding the subject of the Churchill-class submarines. I have attempted to explain to them on their talk page how to go about doing this, but they seem to be ignoring me. Maybe someone with greater knowledge of the period/nuclear programs (they keep referencing the Mountbatten program) could speak with them. Llammakey (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're ignoring you...from that talk page it looks like they don't care about policy and simply want to do things their way. Borderline NOTHERE if you ask me. Intothatdarkness 13:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably, but I do not know enough about that era to judge whether their claims are true or not and those pages are full of misinformation. This isn't the first time I ran into someone claiming to be an old veteran who states everything is wrong. I did not like how I handled it the first time, so I thought I would take a different approach this time and seek someone with more knowledge of the era. Llammakey (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Hence why I asked them to read a few policies. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
And I am getting a stong I did not hear that vibe, they are right, everyone else is wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

LOL

I am the chairman of HMS Valiant and of the 3rd Submarine Squardron for a reason.

Chairman of an imaginary group with imaginary friends? Doesn't the Chairman of the Squardron need to be able to spell. LOL MAXIMA. ——Serial Number 54129 15:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is in some way incomplete and it refers to either a board of trustees of some type or some commercial concearn. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
This may be relevant [[9]]. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Has the editor veered into WP:LEGALTHREAT with this? (Hohum @) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I would say so. Intothatdarkness 00:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree, but anyhow the MOD lawyers would be probably more interested in this editor's alleged possession of classified papers and willingness to mouth off about said possession than anything an online encyclopedia says about a submarine/class of submarines! Zawed (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Definite legal threat. I've blocked them. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
They appear to be doubling down on their legal threat [10] (while of course claiming that it isn't a legal threat).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Everything in the articles seems to check out with the sources cited, which appear to be WP: RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Which I have now pointed out to them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Still not hearing it, and still making legal threats. 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
You are doing valiant work (heh!) on that talkpage, Slatersteven, but may I suggest revocation of talk page access? Happy Saturday! (Except to overly- litigious and obstreperous Chairmen perhaps.) 2.28.124.91 (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I've removed their talk page access. Assuming their claimed knowledge is real, which is not a safe assumption, I'd love to see them working collaboratively on Wikipedia. Someone with such a deep interest in the topic would surely have the interest and resources to be able to adroitly expand a swath of articles. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a way to salvage that potential between the legal threats and inability to understand WP:V/WP:RS. High-five to Slatersteven and Llammakey for trying quite hard to show this editor the light. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Libyan Crisis (2011–present)#Requested move 16 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Libyan Crisis (2011–present)#Requested move 16 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Change to 96th Infantry page needed

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: @Fyrfly357: I have moved this from the co-ordinator talk page and changed the title from: change to 96th Infantry page? in order to give it move coverage. At first reading, I think some change is needed in these articles. Also, perhaps we might need to investigate other instances of this sort of thing in other articles connected to the blocked user. Donner60 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am on the board of the 96th Infantry Division Heritage Association and need some guidance regarding a modification of the Wiki history of the 96th Infantry Division (United States).

Our group is composed mainly of descendants and friends of members of the WWII 96th ID (US) dedicated to the preservation of the history of the 96th. We have been collecting information from the Army archives in St. Louis, MO. We also have contact with the Ft Douglas Museum in Salt Lake City, UT which is storing some of our material as well as records of the 96th successor reserve units. Our intention is to expand on the history of the 96th ID and also add to the information of the after war reserve units. While the reserves were not combat units, they did serve in several post-war conflicts.

In June of 2008 the original 96th ID Wiki page was renamed to 96th Sustainment Brigade, without discussion, by a “Dcfowler1” with the 96th ID page now being a redirect. We were not the only group affected and it seems his actions resulted in a temporary suspension of editing privileges.

Since the 96th ID was the parent organization we would like to know if it would be possible to reverse this and return to the original configuration retaining the 96th SB page as a redirect. The majority of the article pertains to the WWII organization so we feel that this is not an unreasonable request. Alternatively, would it be possible to split the existing article and have separate pages for the 96th ID and 96th SB.

Is this something that falls in line with the goals of the WP:MilHist project? Since the 96th ID page already exists, it is my understanding that any changes of this sort would require the assistance of an administrator. We do not wish to cause any problems or disruption so any suggestions, advise, or guidance you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fyrfly357 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fyrfly357: Hi, might I suggest you place this query on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history instead? This page is for the coordination of the WikiProject rather than content matters relating to the wider topic. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'm still kind of a newbie at all this. Fyrfly357 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Donner60 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear all, I am happy to take this on. The key issue is the official Center for Military History lineage of the 96th Sustainment Brigade. What is the connection, if any to the lineage of the 96th Infantry Division, as shown in the official Lineage and Honors certificate? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
OK. The data is available in the division article. The 96th Inf Div was disbanded in late 1965. The 96th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM) formed a few years later was a TDA not a TO&E formation and thus did not inherit the division's official lineage. I would propose to split the article, 96th Inf Div to 1965; now 96th Sustainment Brigade, descending from the 96th Army Reserve Command, from c1969. Any and all comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Buckshot06 and Fyrfly357: Looks good to me. I am pinging Fyrfly357 who may wish to comment. Donner60 (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Buckshot06 and @Donner60: Wow! I had no idea that you guys would be able to handle this so quick. We obviously need to do some cleanup editing, but this looks good. Just have to get the rest of the group in to gear. Thanks again to both of you. Fyrfly357 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
At Wiki#History you will see "wiki" means "quick." ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RfC

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine 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. JDiala (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeking opinions at Talk:Howitzer

Part of the 20th-century subsection of this article is attributed to Modern Guns and Gunnery by H.A. Bethell, a pre-WWI book that you can read here. After skimming it, I found some significant inaccuracies in what the article claims about early 20-century usage of the term "howitzer". Feel free to double-check and chime in. Huntthetroll (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested lowercasings of several military equipment articles...

...which, if passed, might expand to many more. See Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment#Requested move 24 July 2024. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Western Front tactics, 1917

Western Front tactics, 1917 Anyone mind me removing the banner? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 65th Infantry Regiment (United States)

65th Infantry Regiment (United States) 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) 22:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeking Third Opinions on Sihang Warehouse

I opened a RfC regarding English sources on the participating Japanese forces during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse but have yet to hear any input. In short the Japanese order of battle in English sources is contradicted by Japanese sources, including official military histories, but an editor has been arguing in favor of keeping the evidently wrong claims from English sources in favor of using Japanese ones. I have also written up a summary of Japanese participating forces according to a variety of Japanese sources on the article's talk page. I would really appreciate any input on the matter, especially from those who can read Japanese. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be surprised if you find many users who can read Japanese who are not listed on the page Wikipedia:Translators available#Japanese-to-English. Note that the Japanese list has sub-categories of years active but at least some of those listed for years after 2017 are still active. Perhaps there are others but I don't know if there is a way to find them if they have not listed themselves on the linked page. I suspect at least some of the limited number users who can read Japanese don't watch the noticeboard. For what it is worth. Perhaps a few may read your post here, however. Donner60 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

De-capitalisation of all terms and article names

Yet again, over at Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment this time. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

IP editor re-writing Operation Market Garden

An IP-editor is making assertions about the reliability of a source at Operation Market Garden and is re-writing the article to suit this assertion. Given that he/she hasn't shown any proof of this, I have ask the IP not to edit the article but discuss on the talk page. It would be really helpful if someone more experience with WW2 matters than me could take a look and intervene. Happy to be told I'm wrong if that's the case. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

There were references in his edits, yet you decided to revert his changes.
You didn’t “ask the IP not to edit”, you canned them snd closed the page temporarily.
Op MG is surrounded by multiple myths instigated by Cornelius Ryan, that even his own publicly accessible archive proves were incorrect.
You even attacked me in the past for saying similar things on the talk pages, claiming that Ryan is an acceptable source, and was it you who said the same to me about Ambrose?
At some point I will significantly alter the article with the accurate information our team has built up, all suitably referenced. Enderwigginau (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
And the reference to "our team" would indicate you may be attempting to assert some kind of ownership over the article. That's not acceptable behavior, either. Intothatdarkness 16:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect, the reference to “our team” refers to a number of researchers specifically working on MG outside Wikipedia.
IWM and others are slowly revising their information due to what we are providing.
So, no, I don’t “own” anything, but defending those attacking the introduction of a more correct and accurate article says a lot.
Considering the references included in the edits were Pollussen and Wilmot, there is simply no reason to remove them when they were adequately referenced and factually accurate.
Gatekeeping an article implies believing ownership exists. Enderwigginau (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Casting aspersions does little to advance your case. I was commenting on your tone, which feels rather aggressive to an observer and not especially collaborative, and have no stake in this article at all. And from my vantage point it feels rather like you simply want to switch gatekeepers (assuming one exists in the first place). But as this behavior seems par for the course these days, please do carry on. Intothatdarkness 13:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Name of the 1854–1856 Guangdong Uprising

Why is the 1854–1856 uprising referred to as the 'Red Turban Rebellion' when the Chinese name '广东洪兵起义' (Guangdong Hongbing Qiyi) makes no mention of 'Red Turbans,' and it is unrelated to the Red Turban Rebellion of the 1300s? Alexysun (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

American Civil War locations

Hello American Civil War friends! Just wanted to let you know that the Walter Johnson's River of Dark Dreams has prompted an interest in the pre-Civil War landscape of the lower Mississippi. Wanted to flag some recently developed articles on minor boat landings (all now washed away by the River) that could use your expertise on ACW military movements; additional categories, see also, links, and content very welcome!

Thanks in advance for any further development! Best, jengod (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

See Battle of Goodrich's Landing and Battle of Milliken's Bend. The largest amphibious operation prior to D-Day was made at Bruinsburg, Mississippi by General Grant's forces leading to the Battle of Port Gibson and the Vicksburg campaign. The semi-retired, but still somewhat active, Hog Farm is the most knowledgeable editor whom I am aware of on the Western Theater and the Vicksburg campaign in particular. Donner60 (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Jengod - did your sources happen to have anything for New Carthage, Louisiana? That's another pesky ACE site redlink. Hog Farm Talk 01:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
On it. :) jengod (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Gatekeeping of articles

I have noticed over the last twelve months a number of instances of gatekeeping on military history articles, with certain editors reverting changes even when suitably referenced, removing comments from talk pages, blocking and submitting users for review, and temporarily closing edits. What is the view of those here regarding this type of behaviour? Enderwigginau (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Enderwigginau Ditto. I noticed this exact same behavior. Have you noticed it to be one repeated offender or many different people? Alexysun (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I have a fair few articles on watch but I haven't noticed any chicanery. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Multiple but some multiple times.
Not outing anyone at this point. Enderwigginau (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Please retract your threat of WP:outing. There is no place for harrassment here.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
You are deliberately stirring the pot now, Nigel Ish. No-one threatened to WP:OUT anyone in the WP sense, Enderwigginay clearly meant 'not going to name names at this point. ——Serial Number 54129 10:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion unwatched - clearly I am not welcome at this discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@Enderwigginau @Alexysun thanks for bringing some attention to this. unfortunately yes, i've dealt with my share of these folks. some people just take wikipedia editing way too close to heart, it's honestly a bit sad to watch. Wahreit (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I presume you are referring to my recent actions at Operation Market Garden and your subsequent allegations on the article's talk page? I'll repeat what I just posted there, which is "As for your allegations of "gatekeeping", what has happened is nothing like the unacceptable behaviour set out in WP:OWN. Instead it has been about reverting damage to the article caused by a block-evading sockpuppet. Nobody else's contributions have been challenged, so I fail to see how that is "gatekeeping" or ownership behaviour. I would encourage you to read WP:AGF before making further comment." 10mmsocket (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 24 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 24 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Al-Shabaab (Mozambique)#Requested move 25 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Al-Shabaab (Mozambique)#Requested move 25 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Russian ground forces equipment losses in Ukraine

There have been recent changes to List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces which have updated Russian equipment numbers to the 2024 Military Balance figures and deleted all information related to Russian losses in the Ukraine war. Where and how should Russian equipment losses in Ukraine be recorded? Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors are invited to contribute their views at the talkpage discussion now underway at the bottom of Talk:List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Importance?

Does this WP not make use of the "importance" field for tracking and sorting article assessments? Baltarstar (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The Military History project banner does not have an importance rating, e.g see Template:WikiProject Military history. An arbitrary or questionable importance rating would probably just overcomplicate things for little benefit, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Titles of Korean military vehicle articles

I noticed K111 Jeep and K131 Jeep were recently moved to K111 jeep and K131 jeep, respectively. The former indicates that it's commonly known as "Military Jeep" but it's unclear if that's sourced. The lowercase "jeep" doesn't seem likely to me and there doesn't seem to be anything to support that usage. I considered "Kia K111" and "Kia K131" as better titles, but military vehicle articles aren't often titled that way and I don't have much basis for that change besides it being the make/model convention used for civilian vehicles (and Kia KM250 being titled as such). I'm not inclined to make that change unilaterally. --Sable232 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Most similar vehicles (commercial and "soft military vehicles") do seem to follow the "Manufacturer Model" style, while armoured vehicles are typically simply "Model". WP:MILMOS has some guidance, but I think it's under review, and the will be overlap with whatever the guidance is for regular vehicles.. 18:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tsugaru clan

Tsugaru clan 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) 01:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Basil W. Duke

Basil W. Duke 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) 01:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

White Shirts Society has an RfC

White Shirts Society 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Category overlap - when is a Mock castle not a folly?

Not sure this is the best place to ask my question, but I know that this group is active. I shall also flag it on the Architecture project page. We currently have two categories, Category:Mock castles in England and Category:Folly castles in England. I am struggling to make any distinction between the two. Aren't all Folly castles Mock castles, and vice versa? I'd be grateful for any thoughts. I'm sure it's far from the only instance of such seeming categorisation overlap. KJP1 (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests that a folly has no purpose except to enhance a landscape and/or to project the wealth and taste of the owner. [11] A mock castle may also have a very definite function, such as being a country house, an estate lodge or even a water tower. Our category seems to limit this definition to "16th century or later historic houses which are called 'castles' in the secondary sense". Therefore, a castle-like domestic residence cannot be a folly, and by Wikipedia's definition, a folly cannot be a mock castle. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Alan - Much appreciated, and thank you for taking the time to consider it. So, the suggestion is that “purpose” is key. In which case, Bollitree Castle, which brought me to think about this, would be a Mock castle, rather than a Folly castle. I’m not sure about something like Clytha Castle, which is very clearly an eyecatcher, but also served, and serves, as a memorial and as accommodation, but I suppose there will always be outliers. KJP1 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, maybe aggrevated by Wikipedia's rather narrow definition of a mock castle as specifically a "historic house". Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Haret Hreik airstrike#Requested move 30 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Haret Hreik airstrike#Requested move 30 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Role of the Governor General of Australia as commander in chief

There's been some tooing and froing in infoboxes on whether the Governor General of Australia should be described as the commander in chief as the representative of the monarch or in their own right. I've started a thread on this at Talk:Australian Defence Force#Role of the Governor General and would be grateful for views from other editors. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

B2 for obscure events/topics

From the B-class criteria:

  • B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.


Is it true that some articles are notable enough to deserve their own page, but not covered enough in the source material to realistically present all the information necessary to cover the topic? I'm thinking of ancient battles, for example, of which there are scarce records and little hope of discovering more substantial records. Reliable sources might analyze extant material more and more, but it doesn't seem like we'd ever know the order of battle, troop composition, or battle maneuvers of conflicts that are already partly mythologized at best.

In these cases, is B2 impossible? If so, would that mean that those articles are destined to be C or Start class forever?

Or does "reasonably" come to have a different meaning in those cases? If so, does that mean that those articles should be upgraded to B class even if they are quite short and not that informative? How does an editor necessarily know if an obscure event is reasonably covered if the standard takes on a different meaning for different degrees of historicity?


Thanks in advance for all your thoughts. Baltarstar (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen single paragraph aricles with an info box ruled B class on the rationale that it contained all the information available in English (obscure Austrian general, I think). But this was many years ago when I was activily assessing stuff, so I hope we have clearer guidelines now. Monstrelet (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Göring has an RfC

Hermann Göring 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yevgeny Khaldei photo archives published

The World War II photo archives of the famed Soviet photographer Yevgeny Khaldei, best known for his photograph of soldiers raising the Soviet flag on the Reichstag, have been published on russiainphoto.ru in 1024px resolution. Just for 1945 alone there are 1,882 photographs. The photos are all now in public domain since copyright of photographers who worked for TASS news agency during World War II has expired. These photographs can greatly improve the coverage of the Eastern Front, and even include images that would never have been published in the Soviet Union, for example this photograph of soldiers assisting a wounded comrade. Fair warning that the collection includes many images of corpses. Kges1901 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kges1901: If c:Commons:Batch uploading is an option here, that would be fantastic. There's a Commons page where a person can request a batch upload. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A fight over at Battle of Buena Vista

Can one of you have a look? I think I'm about to block the edit-warring IP, but the sourcing isn't all that great (and needs formatting and cleanup--my antediluvian opinion is that the cleaner and stronger something is, the less likely it is to turn into a battleground). Judging from the talk page the matter has been contentious for a decade and a half, but I see no solid discussion and not much of a consensus. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else might also step forward. I have a few sources and will look into further. My initial reaction is that the IP is correct. It was an American victory. Even if the Mexicans claimed victory, the facts show otherwise. Reliance on Mexican face-saving propaganda, excuses and distortions doesn't really change that. So what if they retreated with their flags and war trophies. I know you can't act on that until I or someone else provides some sources. (I have at least five that might provide some clarity.) But perhaps it is too soon to block the IP. FWIW, I wonder whether this dispute can ever be satisfactorily resolved given the entrenched opinions and need to evaluate objectively somewhat difficult to find sources. Of course, you need to resolve the edit warring regardless of that so I hope any further information will help you. Donner60 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Battle of Buena Vista#Result - again. I would disagree with Donner60 that this should be called an American victory and have made an assessment indicating (IMHO) a see Aftermath result, though there is some need to improve that section. Drmies, you may wish to watch and comment on the discussion there. Input from all would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Drmies Cinderella157 I will defer to Cinderella157's more extensive and well considered research and assessment. Perhaps my initial reaction was based on a too incomplete recollection (although I did intend to follow it up as noted). I was a little too hasty and perhaps spreading myself a little too thinly by addressing this, especially at first glance. Cinderella157 does comment on the need for improvement. Although I am deferring and will not spend considerable additional time on this, I will look at the sources that I have and that I have already noted to see if I can add something useful but will leave it to others after that. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Drmies Cinderella157 This is what I am posting on the article talk page. I leave it here also to complete this thread. These excerpts are from the sources that I have readily at hand. I think they are generally reliable; almost all them are from books by historians whose biographies are shown on Wikipedia pages. They seem to me to support the view that the battle was an American victory though perhaps a near-run thing or pyrrhic victory. I post this for what its worth and leave further handling and resolution of this matter to you and others:

[p. 352] “The Battle of Buena Vista was over. A handful of artillerists backed up by volunteers fighting bravely when bravely led had repulsed a superior force executing a well-conceived and well-nigh successful turning movement. Taylor's losses were high – 746 killed, wounded and missing – but Santa Anna's were five times higher. And on the morning of February 24 he turned his troops and began his horrible retreat to San Luis, arriving there with [353] half of the force he had led north with the next best thing to victory: an announcement of one.” Leckie, Robert. The Wars of America: Volume 1: Quebec to Appomattox. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. OCLC 1940480.

[p.357] “Although the hierarchy mistrusted him, he [Santa Anna] was obviously a lesser evil than Farias, and the Moderados, believing in his “victory” at Buena Vista, also rallied to his support.” Leckie, 1968.

[p. 139] “About 14 percent of his [Zachary Taylor's] men were dead, wounded or missing. Although Mexican losses had been severe and Santa Anna retreated, Old Rough and Ready took little joy in the victory. 'The great loss on both sides,' he wrote, 'has deprived me of everything like pleasure.'” Millett, Allan R. and Peter Maslowski and William B. Feis. For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012. Third Edition. New York: Free Press, 2012. ISBN 978-1-4516-2353-6.

At pages 233-234, historian Steven Woodworth concludes his description of the battle as going back and forth. His final paragraph at page 234 is: “Morning light on February 24 revealed that Santa Anna had retreated, leaving his campfires burning to mask the withdrawal. As the realization of what this meant spread through Taylor's army, cheer after cheer swept along the U.S. lines.” Woodworth, Steven E. Manifest Destinies: America's Westward Expansion and the Road to the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, 2010. ISBN 978-0-307-26524-1. Pages 151-296 cover the Mexican-American War.

Woodworth [p. 233] and Eisenhower [p.190] give Taylor's casualties as 673. Both note 1,500 missing, Eisenhower states they were deserters.

[p. 190] “Two regiments, in fact reached Buena Vista on the night of February 23. With these reinforcements Taylor's army was as strong as it had been, numerically, before the beginning of the battle. And Taylor's critical supply situation, much to his relief, would be eased the next morning by the arrival of forty wagons.” Eisenhower, John S. D. So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-8061-3279-2. Originally published New York: Random House, 1989.

[p. 191] February 24: “Santa Anna had held a council of war the previous evening, the results of which convinced him that supplies on hand could not sustain another day's attack, He paused at Agua Nueva, rationalizing that he was luring Taylor to more open ground. That may have been so, for he still had superior numbers, even after suffering 2,100 casualties. But Taylor did not bite.” “From Taylor's side the close squeak was soon forgotten, and dispatches to Washington reflected nothing but satisfaction.” Eisenhower goes on to say that Taylor fell back to Monterrey and stayed there. (This left the remainder of the fighting to the forces under Winfield Scott.) Eisenhower, 1989.

[p. 354] “That night Santa Anna, realizing that his effort to destroy the invading American army had failed, vacated the field. Taylor once more had demonstrated his nimble tactical brilliance, chalking up another victory that would stir appreciation and adulation among his countrymen back home. But Polk was right in concluding this was a victory without strategic significance in what was probably an unnecessary battle.” Merry, Robert W. A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, The Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7432-9744-8.

[p.355] “While Taylor's Buena Vista triumph was much heralded in the land as another reflection of America's growing military strength, Polk chafed at the fact that it did nothing to hasten the war's end.” Merry, 2009.

[p. 259] “On the very day that Scott landed at Veracruz, Santa Anna stumbled back to San Luis Potosi after his defeat at Buena Vista. Early reports tried to cheer Mexico into believing that the battle had been a Mexican victory, but half of the twenty thousand men that Santa Anna had started north with two months before had died in battle, starved to death, or deserted. Only the horror of a foreign invader on Mexican soil could wipe away the stigma of Buena Vista and cause the Mexican populace to rally once more around Santa Anna.” Borneman, Walter R. Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America. New York: Random House, 2008. ISBN 978-1-4000-6560-8. Donner60 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Donner60, Cinderella157, thank you both so much for your help! Drmies (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

One Step Further: Those Whose Gallantry Was Rewarded with the George Cross by Marion Hebblethwaite

Does anyone have access to this? There's a citation in James Scully (GC) I'd like to see verified and fleshed out (volume, pages, ISBN). When I came across the article, the citation was to an auctioneer's website (natch), which my browser dislikes. The name of the officer being quoted (Temple Gray) also needs verifying; I couldn't find him in the London Gazette.

(The quote is very idiomatic, and I like the unconscious humour. The Pioneers ("sandbag-fillers") were reckoned the lowest of the low, and I doubt they got first choice of kit. So his commandant says, "Well if you're going to get a gong, we'll need to smarten you up a bit", and sends him to a tailor. As soon as he arrives in London. a Guards RSM says, "You can't see 'Is Majesty looking like that!", and calls in two more tailors. And when he arrived back on Merseyside, the squad sent to subdue this by-now presumably drunk and violent navvy - who wouldn't have been allowed to pay for a drink all evening - weren't needed for that purpose.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The full text of two versions of that book are available through the Internet Archive: [12] Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for a reading on Crusader history at Ascalon

Hello! I've written a detailed description of Ascalon during the Crusader period. I am not an expert on Crusader history, and did my best. It would be glad of some editors could check it, and see if it is clear, if there are some rewording needed, fact checks and whatever. Thanks in advance! Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles. On how to recognise the recent adoption of Welsh names in English for castles in Wales. DankJae 19:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly a forgotten Confederate Regiment?

So I'm not sure where to exactly post this; but I believe this could be a fine location for it?"

The regiment in question is the 42nd North Carolina Infantry Regiment.

This was also the regiment that Tom Dula enlisted in, specifically Company K, which was from Mecklenburg County, Union County, and Wilkes County, North Carolina.


I know for sure this regiment existed as it has multiple pages on different websites, including NPS.gov ([13])

([14]) ([15])


The main reason I am asking this question is because I am unable to find a Wikipedia page for it. I'd love if anyone has additional info on it, thanks! Squogg (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Squogg: A quick google suggests that you may have found a gap in Wikipedia, and that the regiment may be notable and therefore deserve writing up. You may just have won yourself the intimidating job of writing your first article; notoriously the most difficult thing you will ever do on Wikipedia. I suggest that you do the best you can by drafting an article in your personal sandbox, and then ask again here for advice and comments. (WP:AFC is another route, but you won't get specialist feedback.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello Narky! Thank you for the response. I've attempted to create a page for it.
Draft:42nd North Carolina Infantry Regiment
It has also been submitted for an article Squogg (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Space before unit symbol

MilHist project members led by Hohum (center) defend a hill.

I noticed 14.5×114mm and moved it to 14.5×114 mm per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS. Then I noticed there are a bunch more like this. The space seems common enough in sources, and is in agreement with international standards on SI units, as well as our own MOS. Any objection if I fix more of these? Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on that page, shouldn't it be 14.5 × 114 mm? Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, yes, thrice yes. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
It may not be technically accurate, but is it such common practice within the field that ammunition is specified without spaces that we should follow that practice? (Hohum @) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Even if the practice is no spaces in the academic literature, I'm not sure that conforming to a broader Wikipedia standard here is something we should get up in arms about. Things like names of specific units or even dates are something, but the placement of spaces in the size of an artillery piece is not the hill to die on. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The hill I am standing on was made by a mole. (Hohum @) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Here are some observations from n-gram stats:
  1. Until recently, the "x" is more common than the "×".
  2. With the "x", the unspaced mm was more common than spaced in the 1990s, but otherwise mostly the spaced mm dominates.
  3. With the "×", the spaced mm is more common over time.
  4. The versions with no space between "x" and number are not found (not enough to show up in n-gram stats, or don't match the pattern due to a number before the "x").
  5. Versions with no space between "×" and number are not tabulated, as the book n-grams parsing also treats the "×" as a separate word (like it does with hyphens and apostrophes).
So I'd say putting in all the spaces and keeping the "×", as our MOS suggests, is plenty common in sources, and should not be controversial. If there's a tendency in the ammunition field to do differently, it's not obvious. So I'll plan to work on fixing those, unless someone objects and wants to see an RM discussion. ... I just noticed the MOS also suggests units on each number, as "14.5 mm × 114 mm", but I'm pretty sure that's not going to fly here (though this book does it, sometimes). I'll ask about that at the MOS talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, I asked at WT:MOSNUM#Ammunition calibre/length naming conventions about revising that bit of the guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
It sounds there like several would rather treat it as a name to which the MOS does not apply. If so, how would people prefer to style it? Still follow MOS:NUM on the spaces and cross, but omit the repeated mm? Or something else? Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Looking at scholarly papers, my impression is that the space before the mm is always there, the spaces in the middle are more common than not, and the cross is more common than the x. But this paper has it every which way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, works by scientists are going to tend to use notation they are familiar with, as are military works and military historians. I think scientific study is the outlier here. Repeating the mm looks very unusual. Presumably most people searching for a specific ammunition will type in and recognise what they are used to, which is probably unspaced everything, and an x, even if this is technically incorrect. It's not a hill I'm prepared to die on though. (Hohum @) 23:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
We do have redirects, you know, so people can type it in any way they like. Nobody needs to die on any hills or be otherwise inconvenienced by whatever style we choose. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not use spaces and ×, except for bullet dimensions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If a great majority of sources didn't use those spaces, that would be a sensible exception to ask for (that pretty much how the MOS treats other styling exceptions). I think a great majority don't use the first mm, but the spacing is really very mixed, so we might as well use WP style for that, no?. Dicklyon (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Google search is not very good at separating and counting the variations, which are numerous. I just found another in a couple of books: "14.5 × 114mm", and sometimes with conversion "14.5 × 114mm (.57 calibre) round". Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
So I propose "14.5 × 114 mm" and such. Keith, I can't tell if you're supporting, objecting, or otherwise this as a plan. Anyone else? Dicklyon (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss further, we should do a multi-RM. I'll go ahead and start some moves, and if anyone reverts or objects I'll open the RM. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Flags of Bavarian commanders at the Assault of Brussels (1708)

I have just created a page for the Assault on Brussels (1708), a battle during the War of the Spanish Succession, but I am not sure what flags to use for the commanders on the Bourbon side. Maximilian of Bavaria and D'Arco were from the Electorate of Bavaria but after 1704 Bavaria was occupied by Austria. Maximilian and D'Arco subsequently went into exile with few of their troops. However, despite these two commanders leading this assault on Brussels, I have no source that states that Bavarian troops joined the French in their assaults. Should I in this instance show Bavaria as a belligerent? And should I show the flag of Bavaria next to Maximilian and D'Arco or rather the flags of the troops they commanded? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to not use flags at all in this article. They seem to me to be more likely to confuse than enlighten a reader. See WP:MILMOS#FLAGS. And is there a reason for representing France with the royal standard rather than the national flag? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Which national flag? The modern flag?
As for your other point. You might be right that it is can be confusing, but that still leaves us with the question if Bavaria should be mentioned at all in the infobox. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
As a combatant? I don't think so. You can show that two Bavarians participated, which hardly qualifies, even if one was the titular ruler. (Given the state of the HRE at the time "ruler" is probably over generous at the best of times, which these weren't.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @DavidDijkgraaf! After a bit of research (I can list the sources in the article's talk page), I was able to locate the remaining Bavarian troops in the French alliance. They were part of Berwick's Rhine army defending Alsace and the lines of the Lauter and Saar rivers. They still stayed there when Berwick was called to Flanders. When Maximilian Emanuel set off for his temporary residence at Mons to rally troops for the assault, almost no Bavarian troops accompanied him. He gathered local garrisons into a small assault force, probably either French or "pro-French" Spanish troops. The only Bavarian troops participating that I could identify were 3 squadrons of his guard and the personal regiment of Comte d'Arco. Therefore Bavaria should not be listed as a combatant. When it comes to flags, all choices seem misleading to me. Maximilian still commanded over Bavarian troops -but not here, he still called himself ruler of Bavaria - but was outlawed and in exile, he wasn't Governor of the Spanish Netherlands anymore - but still governed over parts of it from time to time. So preferably no flags either. Palastwache (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@Palastwache Thank you very much! Yeah, you're probably right that the situation was to complex to have flags for the Bourbon commanders. As for the combatant status. 3 Bavarian squadrons and one regiment still seems significant enough to include them. They only reason not to seems to be if these Bavarian troops served within the French or Spanish armies. Maybe I am wrong though. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily see it as a significant force but given the small size of the overall army and the presence of the personal guard of the (titular) ruler, you might still list it. Palastwache (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the overal army just consisted of 14 battalions and 18 squadrons. Could you give me the source for the precense of Bavarian troops btw? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I've just added it on the article's talk page :) Palastwache (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Thomas C. Hindman

I have nominated Thomas C. Hindman 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. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson has an RfC

Woodrow Wilson 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Halen 1914

Filled in some missing citations only to notice that text from Hove, P. van den (2014). "Halen, 12th of August, 1914: A Forgotten Battle in a Forgotten Landscape?". Brussels: Flanders Heritage Agency. Retrieved 23 December 2019 appears to have been pasted in rather than paraphrased. Copy edited the section but it might do with another look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Elmer W. Harris

Please see discussion at Talk:Elmer W. Harris#Elmer W. Harris where the content of the article and the subject's status as a Korean War fighter ace are disputed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance

Hello! There has been several threads, some archived, about which of his decorations should be mentioned where in the article, like the infobox, and if a primary source should be used. One ongoing thread is Talk:JD_Vance#Why_do_you_keep_deleting_his_medals?, and it lists some other threads. If you have an opinion, please join. In case you didn't know, JD Vance is Donald Trumps VP-candidate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia:Ownership of content. There is consensus on the inclusion of medals yet you seem to have devoted an inordinate amount of time in pushing for undue change. Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and perhaps you could take a break from hyperediting a single article above all. There is also no need for Wikipedia:Canvassing. 73.123.180.173 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
No, there is no consensus to include them. His awards are in the category of "was present with a pulse"; I have all of his same medals (or the Army equivalent) with the exception of the sea service medal. They're routine, run-of-the-mill awards that are handed out by the literal hundreds of thousands, and they do not belong in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
If there was consensus to include the medal, we wouldn't have like ten separate discussions on the topic. There's more discussions than Vance has medals. Cortador (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 220, August 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) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move that would benefit from further views

Please see: Talk:Air raids on Australia, 1942–1943#Requested move 25 July 2024 for a discussion of the best title for this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Göring has an RfC

Hermann Göring 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Philippe Pétain has an RfC

Philippe Pétain 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 130th Engineer Brigade (United States)

130th Engineer Brigade (United States) 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 23:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Najaf (1918)#Infobox

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)

[[File:Admiral Yi Sunshin's Naval campaigns in 1592.svg|thumb|upright=1.8|Map of Admiral Yi Sun-Shin's naval campaigns – 1592]]

Anyone know why this pic isn't showing at [16]? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
"error on line 31943 at column 21: Namespace prefix sodipodi for type on path is not defined". What does that mean? I've no idea. You've reached the end of my use in this! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Along the lines of Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I'm thinking there's an issue with the original svg file. I can't see it on Commons, and when I download it I see the same line 31943 etc. error. Weirdly, I can see the svg's Spanish translation. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Trịnh Tố Tâm advice

Howdy. I created Trịnh Tố Tâm through using the Vietnamese article as a base. The statement that he personally killed 272 enemies during the Vietnam War is exceptional, but I can't find any sources that criticize that number. I'm not sure I'm the one to tell what's propaganda or not. Would it be incorrect to use words such as "allegedly" or "claimed" as I did in the article, or would this be a mild form of WP:OR as the sources do not seem to use this language? With this exceptionalism in mind, what articles would you link to this one in order to de-orphan in? Mbdfar (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mbdfar: Technically, yes that would be OR. What you could do is recast the sentence to make clear that it's not Wikipedia's voice. For example, using info from vi:Tiền phong (báo), you could say "The state-owned news outlet Báo điện tử Tiền Phong reported that ...". That level of caution is a good practice when repeating any information from non-indepdendent state-owned outlets. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Any Holy Roman / Frederick Barbarossa fans around here?

I've just tagged a bunch of statements in Frederick Barbarossa's lead as either not being supported in/contradicting the body, not being verified in the body, or being absolutely ridiculous (one sentence says he was "almost superhuman" .......). Does anyone have the resources to be able to address the article's issues? See also Talk:Frederick Barbarossa#Problems with the lead. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for United States Special Operations Command

United States Special Operations Command 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) 23:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Palestinian suicide terrorism#Requested move 21 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Palestinian suicide terrorism#Requested move 21 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy 1940 question

Did the RAN have a version of this {{navy|UKGBI}} in 1940? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This might be a question for Nick-D or Sturmvogel 66? Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
What like Template:Country data Australia? But be advised that I have no idea about which Australian flags might have been adopted when.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I happened to write New Zealand White Ensign a few years ago; they adopted their own ensign in 1968, prior to this using the RN ensign. The Australian version is at Australian white ensign and was adopted in 1967. The reason for the change being that ships fighting in the Vietnam War were otherwise doing so effectively under the flag of a non-belligerent state - Dumelow (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I found that but it would be an anachronism; it's the RN ensign then. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of the Yarmuk

Battle of the Yarmuk 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) 14:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central#Requested move 16 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 12:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Plataea

Battle of Plataea 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) 18:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Action off Cape Passero

Gave the article a spring-lean but can't find enough about Italian casualties. Does anyone have a source to remedy this? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Delgado, James P. (2019). War at Sea: A Shipwrecked History from Antiquity to the Cold War. Oxford University Press. p. 382. ISBN 978-0-19-088801-5., 132 were killed in the sinking of the Artigliere. No luck on wounded or missing or casualties on other ships - Dumelow (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

List articles

The milhist bot rated a list article as start, so I corrected it back to list in the template. But it's still showing as start-class, for some reason. What am I missing? It's at Talk:Bibliography of the Dreyfus Affair. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You needed to add the list= parameter to get the template to recognize it as a list. MILHIST uses its own custom assessment template for a number of reasons. Parsecboy (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Isaac Brock

I have nominated Isaac Brock for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Unattached list", 1825-1911

In the talk page discussion at Talk:William Hewett (British Army officer)#Unattached list, there is some confusion about the meaning of unattached list, general list and special list in the context of 19th century British officers. Note that the two blue links are redirects to an article about one use of those terms in World War II. There seems to be some lack of coverage, particularly pre-WWII and (in a related context discussed there) outside of the US. Any input, especially help with finding reliable sources, would be appreciated. Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a thread here which gives a bit of guidance. Nthep (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Pre-dreadnought battleship

I have nominated Pre-dreadnought battleship 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. Hog Farm Talk 22:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Göring has an RfC

Hermann Göring 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vladimir Putin's December 2021 ultimatum#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vladimir Putin's December 2021 ultimatum#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

New article created; not sure this is a new class of military weapon

A new article was just created—Rocket drone—following the introduction by Ukraine of a new long-range, low-cost, jet-powered cruise missile called Palianytsia. Although in Ukrainian language, the name for the type of weapon is called ракета-дрон, or rocket-drone in direct word translation, I believe that the Ukrainian (and Russian) word for missile is ракета. So, I'm not clear that rocket drone is really a new class of weapon for the English Wikipedia.

Would appreciate it if an editor from the Military science, technology, and theory task force would take a look at the new rocket drone article, and think through what is going on here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I left a comment. The article looks like a clear merge with its current content, but MILHIST thoughts on whether the concept should have an article would be valuable. (Do we have no articles that cover this already?) Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien has nominated List of deaths at the Berlin Wall for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Leipzig infobox

Napoleonic history isn't my regular haunt. Is it, however, standard anywhere on the MILHIST radar to be using headings within infoboxes? It's broken the TOC on the left too. See these diffs. Ifly6 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the section headers as they are very much not supposed to be put into infoboxes. However, the rest of the infobox could still use work—it has way too much information and flies in the face of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. All the specific unit names could probably be put in an order of battle/bulleted list farther down. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The infobox could be considered a whole separate order of battle! I might see about paring it down a little. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Not my area either, so I wouldn't be confident in making these changes myself, but the commander parameter is supposed to be limited to 7 per combatant, and we can see it's gone way over that. Loafiewa (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Philippe Pétain has an RfC

Philippe Pétain 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ivan Turchin

An editor has requested that Ivan Turchin be moved to John B. Turchin, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke has an RfC

Yasuke 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. Brocade River Poems 02:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator election notice

Hi, I received this notice, while I can figure out that it refers to MILHIST by clicking the link, there is otherwise no indication what wikiproject it is from. Perhaps you could make sure to specify next time. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

While we're at it, the header made it look like voting, not simply nominations, had opened... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
This is something for Hawkeye7 to cast his eyes over if he would be so kind! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I have updated the instructions for next year to address the issues reported this time. (The above, plus another that I found.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Ian Rose, Hawkeye7, and Buidhe: Should a clarified mass message be sent to recipients? I don't have the "massmessage" user right so I can't do it if it should be done. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Siege of Szigetvár

Siege of Szigetvár 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) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 1 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 1 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Re-drafted RFC on weapons in Syria

It would probably help if a few knowledgeable folks looked at Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism#RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria. The RFC question has been re-written, and I think it's clearer now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand how on-wiki collaborations work

The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:

Whatever input you bring to the two spaces will help us make better decisions about next steps beyond the current tools we support. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of additional context—Alex is a long-time English Wikipedia editor and one of the smartest people at the Wikimedia Foundation. If you've ever been doing something inside MILHIST and thought to yourself "this could be better if _____", you should share this with the WMF and potentially have them work on a solution. I also work at the Foundation,* so I can say from personal knowledge that these sorts of surveys are impactful and given careful consideration inside the organization.
*I'm not involved with this project and I'm definitely not writing in my staff capacity. I've known Alex far longer than I've been working with the WMF. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The "legend" of S-5's conversation before rescue

Can anyone verify the story given at USS S-5#Rescue? I'm seeing it in a 1985 snippet view on Google Books, a couple books from 2004 and 2015 without citations, a whole bunch of blog-level content, and that's about it... so I'm a bit skeptical that this is anything more than apocryphal. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I misread the header as S-5's conversion! Maybe a newspaper story? It's certainly sounds sensationalist enough for one!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
That's a great idea, but I just checked Chronicling America and The New York Times' archive to no avail. The latter has a lot of details, especially on page 5, and not a single word on a conversation like the one we report...
The story has been in the article since its first revision in January 2004, which was done with the edit summary "from DANFS", but DANFS didn't support that claim back then and it doesn't now. I'll work on the article in a bit. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
No templates in section headings; to do so breaks section links from watchlists and histories.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:H2X#Requested move 16 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:H2X#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Spica-class torpedo boat

Spica-class torpedo boat can anyone complete the citations for Astore and Spica in Swedish service please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Operation White (15–18 November 1940)

Operation White trying to complete a table of the Italian ships involved but can't find details of Italian destroyers only that 14 were involved from Bragadin. Can anyone help? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Fort Pulaski

Hi, I have been doing a lot of copy editing to the subject article. I would observe that it (still) tends to repeat itself in places, making it a bit disjointed, and has a degree of intricate detail that would be considered unsuitable in an encyclopedic article. I'm going to give it a break for now but somebody with a Civil War interest might like to do some more copy editing. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll give it a look when I have a little more time, which won't be in the next week or so. I toured the fort with a group that also stopped at other forts or gun positions in the area about four years ago. It doesn't make me an expert but does give me a feel for the place and what might I may recall having been been emphasized by the guide. More importantly, I have a few books that certainly include coverage of the various actions at and in the vicinity of the fort. The picture with the article shows a quite familiar setting to me. The apparent covered opening just outside the fort leads to an underground tunnel or storage depot of some sort. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

More eyes needed on UN offensive into North Korea and Pusan Perimeter offensive

More eyes needed on recent changes on UN offensive into North Korea and Pusan Perimeter offensive and latest discussions on their respective Talk Pages please. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion potentially affects articles which incorporate, nearly verbatim, large portions of "United States Army in the Korean War: South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu June - November 1950". At the very least, input is needed concerning modifications to that text (degree of copy-editing, level of detail, etc..) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps Forces Command

United States Marine Corps Forces Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems jumbled and mixed up to me, it interchangeably uses COMMARFORCOM (Commander of the United States Marine Corps Forces Command) and MARFORCOM (United States Marine Corps Forces Command). The title of the article is the command, while the first sentence is about the position. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Donald Sheppard, British D-Day Veteran

I just created a Draft:Donald Sheppard, who died recently at the age of 104. He's gotten a fair amount of coverage including an obituary in The NY Times. Do all these type of vets warrant articles, or are they better suited to lists? Thriley (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It would appear that they are only notable for their longevity as a veteran. WP:RECENTISM applies. We have previously dealt with the last survivors of WWI. Perhaps we can learn from that. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: moving RfC requests to their own section

We've been getting a lot of requests for participation in RfCs, requested moves, and the like. For me, they make it difficult to scan the page and follow ongoing actual discussions. Would anyone object if we started moving those requests into their own section placed at the top of the page? (Is that a thing that could be automated?) Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Intothatdarkness 16:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@The ed17: - alternatively they could be on a sub-page - WT:MILHIST/RFC with a link from here and the project page. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Various MOS talk pages (eg WT:MOS) maintain a list of RMs, RfCs and other discussions as a first section of their talk page. This system seems to work quite well and might be a model to follow here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@Intothatdarkness, Mjroots, and Cinderella157: I'm thinking the two options there (subpage or first section) mainly differ in watchlist notifications as long as we transclude it here. Any thoughts on whether it would be better to have a subpage for people to watch, or to keep the notifications centralized on this page? Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I like the idea of a subpage personally, but am fine with anything that keeps these notifications from scattering through the main discussions like they do currently. Intothatdarkness 11:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
A sub-page transcluded here would work. I think it is better centralised here for visibility. A separate page would have an independent archive and be easier to search. WT:MOS uses a different strategy to record past discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
If an editor has a page watchlisted, doesn't that automatically watchlist subpages of that page? Either method works though. Mjroots (talk)
@Intothatdarkness, Cinderella157, and Mjroots: I've created a new page and transcluded it here. I also added this note to the top of this page that I am open to improvements on.
It's all going to be a manual process unless someone has a better idea, but I figure the new page will need pruning no more than once a week.
To the question around automatic watchlisting, unfortunately I don't believe that's how it works. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Capitalisation (yet again) now running at M40 Gun Motor Carriage

Remove all capitalisation in proper names, see M40 Gun Motor Carriage. Your comments are invited. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Does it really matter anymore? Wikipedia is going to do what it wants regardless. Arial Rocket Artillery was changed without any apparent discussion on its page. Removing capitalization is apparently the "in" thing to do these days. Intothatdarkness 11:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Do we give up so easily? This one isn't quite such a bad change as when Motor Torpedo Boat and Steam Gun Boat (the RN proper name form for specific classes) was turned into the generic motor torpedo boat (worldwide) and steam gun boat (a term that has just not been used otherwise). Nor is it so obviously wrong as for the Apollo space program Lunar Module. Yet still, it's wrong. It's abandoning WP:RS in favour of WP:MOS. All driven by a single editor who seems to make few other edits otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I did find it interesting that the editor changed ARA with no discussion I can see. I've also seen this trend crop up in other (to me inappropriate) areas. Ignoring RS in this way feels like a dangerous trend. Intothatdarkness 13:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Aerial Rocket Artillery [17] and it's a B class article, so hardly an unchecked stub- or start- class. I'll list it at WP:RM/TR. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hesitant to do much with it since I did a great deal of work on that article. Intothatdarkness 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
It's just the same as was done at Rover Light Armoured Car. Ignore any sources, impose WP:MOS on it despite, no discussion beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The subject move is in compliance with MOS:MIL. Also, the guidance at MOS:CAPS is not a case of ignoring sources but tells us to look at usage across sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
It is precisely a matter of ignoring WP:SECONDARY RS in favour of counting Ghits, to 'determine' that something is not a proper name. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of storm in a teacup, obviously, but I do note that WP:NCCPT says "when in doubt, reliable reference works for capitalization conventions and other style matters may be useful." Has anyone consulted style guides like Chicago etc. yet to see if/how they handle military equipment? Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
So you would also support the view that MOS trumps RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The MOS trumps RS in cases where the issue is a matter of style. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Or more precisely, the MOS tells us what to look for in RSs to decide style issues. It might "trump" some RSs by relying on others. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
+1 to Hawkeye7, but I'd also note that NCCPT is not part of our manual of style. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Right, it's a naming convention guideline, outside of the MOS. Not an important difference, but a difference. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I' like to point out that all names already are RS capitalized and several MOS people simply refuse to address that. Sammy D III (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
You mean you didn't like how several addressed it right there in that section you started. Nobody denies that some reliable sources capitalize these terms; that's just not the point. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of France

[[File:Adolf Hitler in Paris 1940.jpg|thumb|Hitler tours Paris with architect [[Albert Speer]] (left) and sculptor [[Arno Breker]] (right), 23 June 1940]] Can anyone see why this photo won't load on the article page? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The image appears in the edit preview but not in full view. How strange. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Apparently the file is hosted here on en.wiki and not on the commons, meanwhile there definitely are several uploads available, e.g. here and here. No clue if the conflicting permissions have anything to do with it though. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
A couple more appeared the other day so I deleted them, thinking it was a formatting error or that they were relics of removed images. Thanks for the help. Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
This image is working fine for me now. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I followed one of GELongstreet's links and used that. Keith-264 (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

sclass formula question

How do I put Leander-class cruiser (1931) into the sclass formula? Each time I try the 1931 trips me up. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

{{sclass|Leander|cruiser|||1931}}
Leander-class cruiser
This is described in the template's documentation: Template:Sclass § Optional parameter: "class-name disambiguation"
—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I had a look but missed the third pipe ;O( Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Petersburg#Edit to Union order of battle

Anyone familiar with this engagement of the ACW please cast your eye over the issue I describe and the edit I have made to resolve it. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Best way to organizes units

I am working on the Morrisite War and I came to a problem where the units section of the info-box looks poor. Anyway I can improve it. I really like what I did with the Ruby Ridge standoff however I think that military info-box would be better than the one I used at Ruby Ridge. Anyway, what is the best way to organizes units in an info-box? LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The best way to organise this case is not to include since the "units" appear to be synth - it was a posse - no more, no less. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes there was the posse but it was supported by federal and territorial marshals as well as other local militias. Also, we should keep the United States as a combatant if federal forces were involved as US Marshals.
Also I see a lot of similarities between the Morriste War and the Waco Sigde, both being Christian apocalyptic cults facing off with government forces, so I used that as a background for how I would organize this info-box. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The U.S. Marshals during this period didn't function in the same way they do now. You might want to reevaluate some of this, too. Intothatdarkness 18:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Like I said, I used the Waco siege as a reference, so I do not understand why that info-box has flags while this one does not. I understand why the US is a belligerent but why does it have flags and list so many leaders.
I mean the updated info-box seams to simplify the event when it was a lot more complicated. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Also we can move the the article for better organization. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 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) 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Convoy ON 154 tabulation format question

Does anyone know why the ship dates in the rows in pink are an extra space to the right? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks to have been something in template:no2, used here to colour the cells, that defaults to centre align. I've fixed with "align="left"|" for the date cells - Dumelow (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll remember next time. Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Yuk, that's really sloppy use of {{no2}} as a shortcut to using css to specify a background colour in something which isn't a comparison table. The lack of a legend doesn't help either. Without one, you have to read the text to deduce that pink rows indicate ships that were sunk which rather defeats the object of colouring the row. Nthep (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Citogenesis on Sihang Warehouse - Thoughts?

Since the 03:45, 9 April 2006 revision the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article has stated the Japanese attackers were the IJA 3rd Division. Later at 02:24, 11 April 2006 more information was added. Neither of these edits had inline citations added but despite this the order of battle was left more or less unquestioned for well over a decade. It was not until 24 March 2023 when I took notice and updated it to reflect Japanese sources stating it was in fact not the IJA 3rd Division but rather the IJN's Shanghai SNLF.

Since then some editors have taken issue with this change—alleging the IJA 3rd Division was in fact involved and cited Eric Niderost's "Chinese Alamo" to assert the 3rd Division's involvement. Niderost's article, published in December 2007, is un-cited and appears to have paraphrased the unsourced Japanese OOB from the 9 Aug 2007 or later revision of the wiki article:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:
The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars."
Niderost, Dec 2007:
"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."

As of writing this, the article still erroneously states the IJA 3rd Division was involved using a handful of sources including Niderost's article and a recent book that also cites Niderost. I have a detailed thread on the article's talk page discussing the participating Japanese forces, but have not heard much feedback at all. I would love to hear some input from others. At the very least, how do we handle this citogenesis/circular reference when other editors insist it is a valid source? Adachi1939 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

A week and not a single comment on this matter? Does nobody care about historical accuracy on subjects related to the Second Sino-Japanese War? Adachi1939 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I will add that the Sino-Japanese war is comparatively obscure so it is unlikely many editors will want to jump in to begin with. However, my view (based more on general site policy than the specifics of this battle, since I also know little) is that since Wahreit, the other user in this content dispute, hasn't replied to the talk page since late July, removing the claim you believe to be erroneous would be justified. If they revert without adding any comment to the TP, I'd suggest going to either WP:3O or WP:EWN, whichever you believe is more appropriate. Loafiewa (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the response and advice. It is highly appreciated. I will make some changes to the article. Adachi1939 (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling all Military Aviation editors

As a relatively new editor here at Wikipedia, I have a bucket-load of questions relating to military aviation articles, many of which are probably issues that have been thrashed out before, but I don't know how to phrase my search criteria, or where to start. And if you use the phrase ask your mentor, I shall scream!

I also find I am sometimes seemingly the only person to see an obvious mistake that was added to Wikipedia up to 20 years ago. Unless it isn't a mistake, it's just me? Who do I bounce my ideas off? The TeaHouse is good, but does it have the sort of honed expertise in aviation that I am looking for?

Here are a couple of hoary old chestnuts to kick-off with;

  • Why do all RAF stations start with the phrase 'RAF Lower Middle Slaughter is a former ....'

Surely it was an active RAF Station (from date to date, often featuring WWII). It is now farmland (or something similar).

  • RAF Medmenham gets its own listing, as does Danesfield House hotel and spa, and yes, they are both the same historic building.
  • But RAF Biggin Hill gets a redirect to London Biggin Hill Airport which is obviously the same location, but not the same thing.
  • And RAF Wethersfield, with it's long & rich aviation history, gets sidelined in favour of an article headed MDP Wethersfield, a nondescript establishment that is as noteworthy as a cowpat.

Notwithstanding these specific issues, where do I ask the questions?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Footnote; I've just stumbled across MOS:MIL, and I'm hoping once I've read it three times through I'll get some more clues. And FYI, this 'new' editor has accumulated just over 500 edits, most of which are real contributions (IMHO), not just correcting spelling & punctuation. I also recognise 500 is small beer, having suffered an UNDO from a hit-and-run editor with over 100,000 edits to their name, LOL.
WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
You're not the first and won't be the last to note glaring gaps in the Wikipedia's coverage of a particular subject area. There was a major effort years ago to create articles on RAF bases, but it fell by the wayside, and one of the editors copied coyrighted text, resulting in some articles being deleted or reduced to stubs again. Work awaits editors with the interest, knowledge and resources to deal with a subject area. All editors are volunteers, so they get to pick and choose their own assignments, which can make coverage very uneven.
  • There is nothing amiss with RAF Medmenham and Danesfield House having their own listings; one article is about the building and the other about the airbase.
  • Similarly, there is nothing stopping someone splitting off the section in London Biggin Hill Airport on RAF Biggin Hill and turning the redirect into a separate article. That's a common way in which new articles are created.
  • You have come to the right place for military aviation expertise.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Most excellent, thank you. I think I can see now what is going to occupy the next five years of my life.
Here's another question; how might I access old copies of the Daily Mail, say from 1960? Is there a standard resource for old newspapers, assuming someone has taken the trouble to upload old microfiche? Is this photocopy of several Daily Mail articles, available on Flickr, acceptable as a source?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/192710984@N05/51255937296
Never mind the nuclear bombs, even the small article headed 'Buy Bowlers' is relevant - the 492nd Fighter Squadron, originally nicknamed 'The Madhatters' are these days known as 'The Bolars' (flight callsigns are limited to five letters, B-O-L-A-R, hence the corruption).
Flickr ? Daily Mail ? I am getting impression that Flickr is one of the more acceptable sources for images, but where do we stand if those images contain snippets of information that I would like to incorporate into an article? In the case above, Flickr provides whole newspaper articles from a named journalist (Chapman Pincher). But frequently it is just subtleties of aircraft markings e.g. 123 sqdn features a yellow fin flash on its aircraft, as seen in this image... In this second case I am somewhat relying on the person who added their caption to the image being knowledgeable and correct, although typically I check a variety of images from different photographers, and then select one image as a 'source' for the statement. (pauses for breath)
WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
@WendlingCrusader: On the Daily Mail, that photocopy should be acceptable if you're sure it's legit (although I wouldn't link to it in an article because the photo technically violates copyright laws). Be careful about using articles from the modern Daily Mail, which have been banned for being "generally unreliable".
You should check out and apply for WP:TWL now that you have over 500 edits. That will give you access to the British Newspaper Archive for free.
On using information from images, information on Wikipedia needs to come from a reliable source. In the case of a yellow fin, we would probably need a historian to say that in a book because a single image doesn't prove that it's a symbol of the squadron. Books and academic articles are strongly preferred for this sort of thing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
@ Ed. Many thanks for more useful answers.
  • The question of reliable sources must be a huge issue across Wikipedia, not just for me. But I am also proceeding on the basis of making my own judgements as to what is reliable, and then waiting for some kick-back if I should overstep the mark. For example, on the issue of 'yellow fin flashes', of course it is better if an editor can find a qualified source, but even the USAF themselves can be somewhat careless in these matters. However in most cases I am not guilty of introducing the problem, I am the editor who is trying to solve it. For instance do I leave a particular image that is at odds with the accompanying text, or shall I add some additional text that qualifies the image, thus helping the reader, but that I cannot 100% back-up with 'reliable' sources? I'm sure that I have read that Wikipedia is a work in progress (and forever will be), so my edit isn't offered as the final solution, but surely it serves to take us a step closer purely in terms of accuracy? (Typically the original text was unverified too, but at least my text takes us forward in terms of accuracy)
  • Returning to the Daily Mail; again your comments were most helpful. A few weeks back I qualified for WP:TWL, but I somehow missed the link to British Newspaper Archive; I've still got so much to learn. However an unexpected bonus was following your link to the Wikipedia article on their facility at Boston Spa, in the City of Leeds. But it's ok, I've dashed in there and corrected that mistake too. In fact I suspect it is one of a host of similar articles that need to be put straight. Watch out Yorkshire, here I come... LOL.
WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
If you find an unsourced claim and cannot find anything that supports it with reliable sources, I think you should remove it. I also wouldn't categorise tourism websites as at all reliable. Ifly6 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Smashing response! And I would agree, except in this case (IIRC) it is given as one of two sources, supporting the other with the tiniest snippet of information (because the current name of the airfield is different to that given in the 'reliable' source). Should I remove it, and leave everyone wondering which specific local airfield goes by that name? And BTW, by what dark & devious means did you track down my input to that article?
Actually, right here/right now I cannot make the same connection that I did before in order to definitively identify the correct airfield from all those in the St. Omer area. I vaguely recall tracing through Adolf Galland, the unit he was flying with in 1941, and their unit history, possibly resorting to either French Wikipedia, or the German version, or both? Maybe I should pull the whole edit?
p.s. still smiling here, and hoping to learn stuff too
WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@WendlingCrusader: +1 to Ifly6. One interesting part of Wikipedia is that if it hasn't been reported in a RS, we shouldn't include the information. We are a mirror of the world and a tertiary source that draws all of humanity's resources together—but we don't add new information. This both boosts our own reliability and helps us judge what should be included on Wikipedia. For example, if the yellow flashes haven't been recorded in RSes, they are very likely to be a fact that we don't want to include in an article.
That said... I'd be lying if I said I'd never corrected/updated existing unsourced text with things that are true but not verified in RS yet. I'd just advise doing so selectively and on information that is entirely unobjectionable, particularly as a newer editor. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The question of reliable sources is indeed a huge issue across Wikipedia. Nothing can be added without a reliable source. Military historians are generally comfortable with evaluating the relative merits of various sources, but it is worth noting that we prefer secondary sources to primary ones - the reverse of the usual situation in academic military history writing. If you have questions about sources, you can bring them here or to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. A useful resource is the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list, which summaries previous discussions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Peace Day 1919

Can anyone help me with details of the military parade in London on 19 July 1919? Please reply at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Peace Day 1919. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Help Joining this Group

Hello gentleman I am new to this, so please be patient with me. I am hoping to join your group, and the American Military history taskforce. Specifically. I have some ideas about adding to the List of wars involving the United States and creating and contributing to related articles. My interest is in smaller wars that not as many people know about. But I want to discuss my ideas with all the people working on these projects, because I want to be a team player and not just jump in without consulting anyone. I want to be extremely respectful to everyone's time and efforts. Please advice when possible.

And thank you for all your help. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reposted from coordinator page for wider coverage since other experienced users and those interested in the particular subject may be interested in this and wish to reply. Donner60 (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) I have left a longer message on the coordinator talk pages. Get the Bugle monthly newsletter and other project mass mailings by adding your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members. Also, as noted in the longer message, you may wish to contact the users listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force on their user talk pages because they may be the more likely members of the project to be working on your topics. Note that many list specific topics that they are most interested in. That might narrow down the list. You can also reply to me here saying you are notifying task force participants of your question here started with or ending with {{ping|Username 1|Username 2|...}} adding as many user names as you choose and all will get the message. See Help:Notifications. Donner60 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

B-class review

My article "List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Turkey" got C-class, so I asked the original reviewer what I should improve, and he said he's not very familiar with MH so he told me to come here to ask.

Is this article worthy of B-class or does it perhaps need improvement, and if it does, what should I improve? Setergh (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A little bit of extra work.
  • Note that in the entries for 1502–1510, 1526, 1633–1634 and 1666–1671 the reference purports to support the line about who won, but there is no citation for the consequences.
  • References 45 and 48 are invalid. The entry for A Global Chronology of Conflict in the Bibliography has first and last round the wrong way, and is missing a year (2010?).
  • Footnotes 5, 12, 15, 21, 31, 41, 46 and 51 seem to be citing the Wikipedia?
  • The Polish and Ottoman side columns lack citations
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get to work
  1. Fair point, I'll be sure to either find some or just remove these "consequences".
  2. Thank you for this, I'll change
  3. It's to show the battles of the war, I didn't exactly know a better way to do, perhaps I can find one.
  4. Is this really necessary? If it is then sure, but just sounds like a hassle to me.
Setergh (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright, so far
  1. Completed
  2. Completed
  3. Completed
  4. Once again, I'll just wait and see if this is genuinely needed (cause if it is then goodness me this will requires hundreds of citations if I'm gonna have to put one for every single belligerent)
Setergh (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Convoy ON 154 tabulation format question

What do I need to do to get the title of the table here [18] to be on the same line as the first line of text to its left? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hohum: floatright, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

New user making lot of Indian MH articles

While partolling new articles, I came across a new editor who has been making a lot of Indian military history articles on events that are not familiar to me (some seems small).

I have seen editors redirect some of these these articles to larger Wikipedia articles on Indian military history, which makes me wonder if they are making excessive individual articles. They have written a lot of articles in a very short time, some of which are: Maratha Plunder of Mughal Territory, Sheo Bhatt's Invasion of Bengal, Siege of Barabati fort, Simhana's Southern Expansion, Capture of Ahmedabad, Battle of Nesari, Battle of Medinipur, Raghuji's Conquest of Orrisa, Battle of Belavadi.

Would be great to get input from MH editors who are familiar with this topic area. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a feeling that another new editor who is also making a lot of new Indian MH articles, such as Battle of Malthan, and who writes in the same subject area and with the same style is connected to the one above. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
We now have niche articles such as Night Attack on Shaista Khan (with a lot more created since). Would be great to have the MH project row in here on whether these articles are useful? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Both these users are the subject of active SPI requests. If you could keep an eye on the articles in the meantime that would be highly appreciated. I'm not sure who we have in the Indian content realm who could take a look at them purely from a content perspective, Matarisvan perhaps? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I will have a look and post my comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Matarisvan, and Aszx5000: I have found significant close paraphasing in one article, Battle of Nesari:
CLOP analysis
Article from article creation Source link
In this battle, Shivaji mourned the loss of his energetic commander-in-chief, Prataprao Gujar. Shivaji had previously blamed Prataprao for allowing Bahlol Khan to escape at the Battle of Umrani. Stung by this criticism, Prataprao rashly attacked Bahlol Khan's camp at Nesari on February 24, 1674.
Following Prataprao's death, Hambirrao Mohite was appointed as the Maratha commander-in-chief in April 1674. Prior to this, Prataprao’s second-in-command had led the army in raiding the surrounding Bijapur territories. Meanwhile, Bahlol Khan was pursuing Anandrao, with the Mughals under Diler Khan joining him. Narain Shenoy, the British agent, described the situation in a letter dated April 4, 1674.
Anandrao , meanwhile, raided the city of Pench, located eight leagues from Bankapur, which was part of Bahlol Khan’s jagir. Anandrao returned with a large haul, including three thousand oxen loaded with goods... During the battle, Khizr Khan’s brother, who was Bahlol Khan’s cousin, was killed. Anand Roy looted the entire army, capturing five hundred horses, two elephants, and other valuables. Bahlol Khan and Khizr Khan fled the scene. Anandrao, after leaving his spoils with Shivaji, returned to Balaghat to continue his raids. 		In this battle, Shivaji had to mourn the loss of his energetic commander-in-chief Patraprao Gujar. He had blamed Prataprao for allowing Bahlol Khan to escape in the battle of Umrani. Stung to the quick, Prataprao rashly fell upon the camp of Bahlol Khan at Nesari on 24 February 1674.
He was succeeded by Hambirrao Mohite as commanderin-chief of the Marathas in April 1674. Even earlier, Prataprao’s second-in-command had rallied the army for raiding the surrounding Bijapur territory. Bahlol Khan was in pursuit of Anandrao. The Mughals under Diler Khan too joined Bahlol Khan. Here is a graphic description given by Narain Shenoy, the agent of the British, in his letter of 4 April 1674.
Anand Roy (Anandrao) passing much inland robbed a city called Pench, eight leagues from Bankapur, which city belongs to Bahlol Khan’s jagir, from whence he returned well-laden with three thousand oxen laden with goods... In said battle fell a brother of Khizr Khan, cousin of Bahlol Khan, and Anand Roy robbed the whole army and brought five hundred horses and two elephants and other things; Bahlol Khan and Khizr Khan fleeing away. Anand Roy on his return* leaving his booty with Shivaji, is gone again to Balaghat to rob more towns.”
I have requested G12 speedy deletion; it would be worth checking the user's articles for more such examples. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, @Aszx5000, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I looked through the articles and they are notable with proper sourcing. I see that both users are under investigation at SPI, and I'm new to this process so I'm guessing that all articles created by a SP have to be deleted. However, I think an indef block for the SPs would be enough without deletion of the articles since they are independently notable. Waiting for the comments of the users tagged above. Matarisvan (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mehmed II's Albanian campaign/1

The sources used in the article are questionable. It is difficult to assess whether this is not a hoax. Jacek555 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Do you happen to have any knowledge on this topic? Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Not my main area of expertise, but passingly familiar. I will have a look. Constantine ✍ 07:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Thanks for weighing in there. I figured it was a stretch for you, but I couldn't think of anyone with a closer specialty! Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments requested on possible Fort Riley article improvements for GA

Comment from article talk page copied here for greater exposure for request for comments. Donner60 (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The article appears to now have all the material referenced per Donner60's recommendations. I've also made a few other changes, such as improving and expanding the infobox. Hopefully it now meets B-class.

I'm hoping to also eventually bring up the article to GA-status soon, so any comments on how this might be done I would appreciate. I have been looking at the GA-class article "Loring Air Force Base" for guidance, as I cannot find any active US military bases with GA-class status. Some thoughts about possible improvements:

  • The vast majority of the information from the United States Cavalry School section is listed elsewhere and redundant. Integrate what isn't into the "History" section and then delete the section.
  • Create a section similar to the Loring AFB article's "Base culture and civilian life" section. It could cover several topics, including "Irwin Army Hospital" and "Fort Riley museums" sections. I would also like to elaborate on the general amenities and facilities available on the base, and provide a brief overview of the six functional areas, which include the Main Post, Camp Funston, Marshall Army Airfield (MAAF), Camp Whitside, Camp Forsyth, and Custer Hill.
  • Perhaps some image improvements, such as placement, adding some photos (I added File:Fort Riley Henry Gate 2019.webp to Commons, which I think would do well in the article), and better placement of the ones that are there (more alternating which side of page they are on).

This is my first GA-class article on any topic, and it may be the only GA-article for an active US military base, so any guidance or advice would be appreciated. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I commented on the article talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Nicosia Airport

An editor created this article from Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974. I can't find any reference to a "Battle of Nicosia Airport" in any sources but I thought I would bring it here for review. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be not one mention of that battle in any book listed on Google Books, which raises some notability concerns. If those can be surmounted, I'd suggest at least starting a requested move to a descriptive name, perhaps following the guidance at WP:NOYEAR. I also noticed that this seems to be an article on Simple English as well (simple:Battle of Nicosia Airport). Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I redirected it back to Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, where this incident is covered, but the creator reverted it. I told them that I could find not reference to a "Battle of Nicosia Airport" anywhere and that he was straying to OR territory but hey were not for turning. Helpful that you found the same outcome. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I left a comment over at Talk:Battle of Nicosia Airport, tagged a few unreliable sources, and added the correct attribution templates because it turns out that a chunk of this article was copied from Simple English Wikipedia. The input of anyone else in the project would be welcomed, especially if you can show that the topic is notable. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Somali Armed Forces

Dear Milhist editors, MajidApdalla has consistently been trying to insert material not supported by reliable facts at Somali Armed Forces and Somali Air Force. I have been trying to remove his rather unsupported claims of "26 active aircraft in the Somali Air Force" etc and replace them with cited WP:RELIABLE sources but he has continued to remove my text. Please feel free to review my edits and make any amendments you wish.

I would also like to draw editors' attention to the edit records at these two articles and the warnings I have placed on this editor's talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I added the following after your recent talk page comment on Somali Armed Forces and as a Recent Information section on the talk page of Somali Air Force, FWIW: :As information: From https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/somalia/#military-and-security The World Factbook Page last updated: September 24, 2024 "Military and security forces: Somali National Armed Forces (SNAF; aka Somali National Defense Force): Land Forces (Somali National Army or SNA), Somali Navy, Somali Air Force; Ministry of Internal Security: Somali National Police (SNP, includes Coast Guard and a commando unit known as Harmacad or Cheetah); National Security and Intelligence Agency (includes a commando/counterterrorism unit) (2024); note 1: the Somali Navy and Air Force have only a few hundred personnel, little equipment, and are not operational; in early 2024, Somalia signed an agreement with Turkey to build, train and equip the Somali Navy. Donner60 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox of the Dutch–Portuguese War

Can somebody check in on the discussion on the infobox of the Dutch-Portuguese War? There has been a lot of editing on it recently by editors who argue that the infobox should also display the territories Portugal retained, while I argue for the layout current infobox. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_173&oldid=1249534405"