Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members

Differences in naming convention[edit]

Hi, back in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles with the summary "Name comes before hull or pennant number or disambiguation. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming articles about military ships." It appears that such a convention applies chiefly to American and British ships, as those that serve in the Russian and Soviet Navies follow a different naming convention, with the name following the pennant number eg "K-141 Kursk". This convention appears to have been adopted by several other navies as well. Should the moves be kept as they are, or should they be reverted? Has there been a significant oversight on my part? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that for Soviet/Russian submarines, that " K-xxx" is a Pennant or Hull number - its more like an alternative name , with some subs only having a number. For Soviet/Russian SURFACE ships, the pennant number (as painted on the ship's side) would be unsuitable for use as a disambiguator anyway as they were noted as changing very frequently.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Kriegsmarine ships also followed this form of naming. Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish and Mjroots: Since some of the submarines have no names but are only given numbers, perhaps my moves should be reverted then? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sp33dyphil: It would seem so, but a note also needs to be made at WP:NC-S to ensure this situation is covered. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there two "Wilhelm Brandt" tank warfare officers (Chaco War and WWII) or same person?[edit]

I wanted to work up a stub on Wilhelm Brandt, who was a tank commander for the Bolivian army during the Chaco War. But looking up that name, I'm finding a Wilhelm Brandt who wrote about armored warfare in the 1920s, and during/before WWII desiged Waffen SS camouflage. I'm unable to suss out whether in between those phases he was mucking around in Bolivia, or whether these are two different people of similar name who both happen to be involved with tanks. Any input? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: or @23 editor: this is a bit out of your normal topic area, but maybe you'll be able to help? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Not me, but maybe @MisterBee1966:. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry, I have no clue MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
They were one and the same person. The Germans had a military mission to Bolivia, which allowed them to play with tanks outside the Treaty of Versailles. Apparently he talks about his experiences in Bolivia in his books. [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Added some background data on Brandt to the article. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Awesome, thanks for your help! I've been meaning to write an article on that guy for like 5 years since I saw passing mention of the names of a few foreign tank instructors in the Chaco War in an Osprey Book. A few colorful characters drifted down for that one... This project always has some amazing experts emerging for the nichest questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

3rd opinion at US Invasion of Panama[edit]

An editor misread an article in Newsweek and is now trying to alter the infobox to reflect his contention that the US only had 4,500 troops in Panama and that the only units to participate in the invasion were the units flown in (such as the 82nd). In his version, units already there, such as the 193 Infantry Bde didn't participate. I've provided a considerable amount of reliable sources that refute this, but he has a massive case of WP:IDHT. Conversation is here [2]. Outside observations would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Three editors have weighed in on the issue. The discussion is now closed. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Gday all. There now seems to be further discussion about other issues on this page which could probably do with some outside opinions, specifically at Talk:United_States_invasion_of_Panama#3RR. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Is true. I thought we had resolved the original issue when I commented, but issues are ongoing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"4.5th generation" ?[edit]

Why are we adding the "th" after "4.5"? It's not as if we are pronouncing it "four point fifth", (which would actually be written as "4.2"). It's silly, needless and doesn't make sense. It should simply be "4.5 generation". As in, between the "fourth (4th) generation" and "fifth (5th) generation", is the "four point five (4.5) generation". Can we drop the "th"? - theWOLFchild 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The linked article uses "4.5th" for two specific usages of the term, one describing what language the US Government uses and the other in relation to a specific aircraft. So unless these statements in the article are incorrect, I see no reason to change them. (However, one has no citation, the other - which puts 4.5th in quotes - is cited to a dead link. Fifth-generation jet fighter uses it four times without citation. So, what the actual usage is in the context being used (and Google brings up both results) should be what is preferred in Wikipedia articles. I'm not as certain as you that "we" wouldn't say "four point fifth", but would think Americans would be more likely than Commonwealth citizens to use that term. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, who cares who else uses it? (sources, government, aerospace industry, etc.) If it's wrong, and silly, I see no need to follow suit. I'm sure we, as a project, can use our collective intelligence to say "hey, this should be 4.5, not 4.5th". And who cares how what usage is "more likely" between Americans and the Commonwealth? There's "right" and there's "wrong". - theWOLFchild 02:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Describing gun size...[edit]

...can anyone remind me where the guidance is on the formatting of gun sizes (e.g. how we format a "9 lb gun", a "75 mm gun")? They don't normally make an appearance in my medieval work and I can't find the relevant pages! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917)[edit]

Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) Does anyone know what I have to do to make the collapsing table collapse rather than open automatically and have to be shut? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it....Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

problems with no TF template[edit]

I've been going through the assessment backlog and found a template problem I don't know how to deal with. First, in the "no task force" area, I'm finding several that have task forces but are still coming up on the no TF list. The common thread in these is that they redirect to another article. for example, Talk:Battle of Girard, Alabama redirects to the talk for the article of Battle of Columbus (1865), and has a TF associated. I suspect that the redirect was created without redirecting the talk page, BUT....I dont know how to fix this. Others: Talk:Middle Tennessee Campaign. Talk:Last Stand Hill. Slowly whittling away on the backlog!  ;) auntieruth (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that a talk page for a redirect should also be a redirect (just like what happens when you move a page -- unless you say no, the talk page becomes a redirect, too). So the MILHIST template on this page should just be replaced with a redirect template. In the case of a talk page with extensive contributions that isn't moved along with its main page, issues with licensing and copyright may occur. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the talk page should go with the article. But once an article is redirected and a new talk page emerges, how are they combined. As I said, I don't know how to fix this. auntieruth (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest simply removing the banner from the talk page of the redirect. There's really no great need for us to have redirects tagged. Kirill [talk] 22:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yippee. Finished all 60 of the no task force pages, removed some templates, requested deletion on others, etc. Have left the draft articles as is. Any general instruction on those? auntieruth (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Argentine dictator - copy editing request[edit]

Hello, Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the most famous Argentines in History, having ruled with an iron grip his home country for decades and engaged in several wars, including with the Empire of Brazil. The article is full ready to be nominated for FA, but I need to be sure that the writing is great. Is someone skilled at copy editing willing to take a look at the article? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Which war[edit]

Which war would have affected the Nord department of France in 1616? Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The only war I can think of that would fit the timeline would be the abortive revolt that was ended by the Treaty of Loudun, but I'm not sure whether the north of France was involved in that to any great degree. Kirill [talk] 21:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a long way from Nord. Maybe the incident I'm thinking of was a minor dispute between two noblemen and their supporters. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't the region have a different name then, Picardy, Artois, Flanders? Keith-264 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Keith-264: Probably, but not Picardy. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't the region have been under Spanish control at the time? 1616 would have been during the Twelve Years' Truce in the middle of the 80 Years' War. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Parsecboy is probably right on this. MJroots, what is the context of your question? auntieruth (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


Looking to discuss the possible merging of both Queen's Rangers and King's Rangers into Roger's Rangers as a single, comprehensive article. Thoughts? - theWOLFchild 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would seem to be appropriate to merge Queen's Rangers, but unless the King's Rangers article can be expanded from its current content, I would question the unit's notability. I could envision its content in an explanatory note stating Rogers formed another unit after departing the Queen's Rangers. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Format question re Military conflict infoboxes[edit]

Is there a standard of who is Combatant 1 (left hand side placement) and Combatant 2 (right hand side placement)? Visually speaking, I think we should be consistent, and the battles of the Texas Revolution are disconcerting to me as is.

Mexicans as Combatant 1, on the left side:

Battle of Gonzales - Texian victory
Siege of Béxar - Texian victory
Battle of San Patricio- Mexican victory
Battle of Agua Dulce- Mexican victory
Battle of the Alamo - Mexican victory
Battle of Refugio - Mexican victory
Battle of Coleto - Mexican victory
Battle of San Jacinto - Texian victory

Texians as Combatant 1, on the left side:

Battle of Goliad -Texian victory
Battle of Concepción - Texian victory
Battle of Lipantitlán - Texian victory
Grass Fight - Texian victory

Any thoughts on this? Also pinging Karanacs— Maile (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Good question. It makes sense to me that combatant one might be the victor or the side which initiated the battle, but apparently I wasn't the least bit consistent. Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how many you did, but I'm seeing various editors who inserted these over a number of years. Until our recent effort to work on these articles as a whole, probably no one knew, or even thought about, standardization. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
DJ and I struggle with this on the articles on the War of the First Coalition. We have yet to resolve it. One of the things that would be definitely true about this is the spelling of Texan. auntieruth (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
So, I gather this project has no real firm policy on this. Texian is when writing about that time and place. It's what they called themselves. Texan is the correct spelling after the 1845 annexation. In earlier years, there were long talk page threads debating on whether or not to be true to the time and place by using that spelling. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not a question of honour or honor, but a question of recognizability. Would you use Tejanos? Or Texicans? You might include a note about this in each problem with that. auntieruth (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Tejano are about a specific group of people, it is an ethnicity unto itself, just as much as Cajun is. It is not a term that is used for all from the Republic of Texas or the present state of Texas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism on USS Arizona article[edit]

I've repeatedly reverted a change to the year that the battleship USS Arizona (BB-39) was struck that is being made by ‎new user Tiger-Man101 (talk), but still he persists. Last time I looked, it was the single edit made by him, so I'm fairly confident that it just tenacious vandalism. I've posted to his talk page without response, so I'll leave it up to an admin to determine the appropriate response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I see Tigerman's blocked. In some hope of bringing him into the fold, I've pointed out on his talk page that the date the user keeps adding isn't even the date that the Japanese struck the ship, so it's more than just understanding what being struck means. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with Operation Sahayogi Haat, Nepal Earthquake relief operation for a DYK?[edit]

Hello MilHist, can't finish this worthy stub for a DYK as day job calls. Anyone available to make Operation Sahayogi Haat a DYK? --Djembayz (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

New website on the Australian involvement in the Vietnam War[edit]

This new website might be of interest to a range of editors - it provides a mapped summary of every Australian Army engagement of the Vietnam War, and is being expanded to cover the Navy and Air Force's engagements. It's a pretty extraordinary resource for anyone with an interest in the nuts and bolts of small unit warfare, and should count as a reliable source given that it's hosted by a university and several members of the team who developed it are academics and/or published authors on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Nick. I'd heard about Andrew Ross and Bob Hall's 1 ATF Contact Database before so was wondering if / when it might be made available to the public. It should prove quite valuable. Anotherclown (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I suppose one other point to make is that the website currently only includes the actions involving 1 ATF; however, I believe they have plans to add the other Army units (esp 1 RAR BG, AATTV and 1 ALSG) as part of the expansion. Anotherclown (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be the case - their future plans are explained here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


Does anyone know why my laptop shows campaignboxes open and with no "hide" button?Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mine is doing the same thing and I've seen other people on talk pages complaining. I think they must have "improved" the code or something. Sorry not to be particularly helpful, but it does seem to be a case of "do not adjust your set"... :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Cliftonian has the right idea -- I was surprised to find TOC boxes displaying with no "hide" button a little while ago and then they returned as mysteriously as they'd disappeared... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Gremlins, DaveKeith-264 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Any developments?Keith-264 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's back to normal for me now; has been for a couple of days. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Still stuck open.Keith-264 (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review - How make A-class - U.S. Veterans benefits PTSD[edit]

Students involved in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program started a very helpful article (IMHO), Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States in 2011. I and others have built on their work since late 2012. The article is now close to A-class, and I hope to submit it to WP:MIL for A-class consideration on 30 JUN 2015 or shortly thereafter.

But first I would love to receive suggestions, feedback, and/or edits from you all. I started a new section on the article's Talk page, What is needed to make this an A-class article?, in which you can offer advice or, if desired, comment on edits you made. On that Talk page I also disclose my potential sources of bias, briefly describe my background, list experts who have reviewed the article and offered suggested changes, and list some of the potential problem areas.

Thank you very much,

Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. Perhaps these students can also be pointed towards the article Homeless veterans in the United States, which could use significant amount of work.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. :o) ... Unfortunately, this was a one-semester project for the students (Spring, 2011). It's been mostly me since then, despite my best efforts to recruit new editors. But I know I'm not alone in that regard, as I saw it was a topic of conversation for almost all the WMF candidates. Mark D Worthen PsyD 17:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Mutiny on the Bounty now at FAC[edit]

Just a note to let project members know that the article Mutiny on the Bounty is now at FAC here. All comments are welcome. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

MGM-31 Pershing[edit]

I have been working on MGM-31 Pershing. The article is getting long and the Pershing II section will get longer. Should this be split into three articles and if so, what names would be used? Looking at how other missile articles use designations, I can see that this will not work for Pershing. The problem is that Pershing used MGM-31A to refer to the missile only, where Pershing I was the MGM-31A on the M474 carrier and Pershing IA was the MGM-31A on the M790 launcher. As best I can tell from military documentation, Pershing II never used a designation; MGM-31B is used on some sites and MGM-31C on others, but I can't find any definitive sources. --21lima (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd fork the article into two daughters, not three. MGM-31A Pershing I and MGM-31B/C Pershing II. The Pershing IA should be lumped in with the first of these as it used the exact same missile as the vanilla I. I'm a little surprised at the confusion in your sources on the Pershing II as DoD is usually very precise about letter suffixes for missiles, so there must be some (significant?) difference between them that you'll need to figure out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a good thought on PI and PIA, but if I understand the process, we would fork PII to a separate article leaving PI and PIA.
The PII missile was a entire new system that used a modified and redesignated PIA launcher. The PII launcher, vehicles and other equipment used M designations, but not the missile. Yes, it makes no sense for the Army to not use a designation. See:
--21lima (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The DoD nomenclature system is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma, etc. Generally missiles and electronics get the 3-letter DoD treatment, but service-specific stuff doesn't. So thus the MGM-31 missile and M-series designations for all its ancillary equipment. I read through Parsch's entry on the Pershing ( and I'm inclined to agree with him on the A/B/C suffixes for the I/IA/II. Yes, split out the Pershing II into a new article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been going through my old manuals and the box I just received and just can't find any use of an M designator. I have have everything in the Pershing missile bibliography and probably a few more.
I did find the model numbers for the training missile sections, but not for a training missile as a whole. --21lima (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Start this as Draft:Pershing II Weapon System so I can clean it up before moving it. --21lima (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft help please[edit]

Please can someone have a look at Draft:The Pleime Campaign about a Vietnam War campaign? Way beyond my scope of knowledge, so not sure if it should be accepted or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a summary of the Battle of Ia Drang - don't know if we need two articles (and also considering there's one for the Siege of Plei Me). It's also worth pointing out that the editor who submitted it has since added much of the same material to the Ia Drang article (see for instance in these edits). Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I've rejected it as duplicating Battle of Ia Drang, as most of that draft text has been added there instead. Thanks for your help. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Featured topic removal candidate: Minas Geraes-class battleship[edit]

Hi all, there's a FTCR open at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleships/archive1. It's been very kindly re-opened by GamerPro, and I'd appreciate your comments on it. Thank you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Is this really a military history issue or am I just missing the point?Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the contributions, it looks like its been sent to every Wikiproject or subproject with a talk page. -- saberwyn 08:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a fair degree of cross over - for instance, relating to articles on the status of LGBT service personnel or bios of such personnel. I'd suspect that the availability of sources for this topic would be pretty good. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And we should be very appreciative of some of the pioneering work the LGBT project has done, which I understand we essentially adopted. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)