Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The June newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Bradley Winslow Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Gubir shootdown • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Charlemagne • Tim Hughes (soldier) • John S. McCain Sr. • HMS Trent (1796) • Eleanor of Castile Good article reassessments Galatian War • Franklin's lost expedition • Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine • Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Civil War token Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,558) • only work on referencing and citation (43,149) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,689) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,675) • work on structure (31,794) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,176) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,774) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (6) • assessment as lists (118) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (2) • assessment checklists completed (7) • task forces added (287) • attention to task force coverage (657)

Good article reassessment for Fort Pasir Panjang

Fort Pasir Panjang has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Good article reassessment for Winchester Model 1200

Winchester Model 1200 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hoping that somebody may have access to suitable sources that link the Models 200, 120 and 2200 to the Model 1200. If you do, please drop by and add these to the variants. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, could somebody please help with archiving a web page Lot 345: Vietnam Era U.S. Winchester 1200 Trench Shotgun with Accessories. I haven't found any free images but this could at least be used as a cited link. Thanks in advance. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The page is archived here. 11:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Katyusha rocket launcher

Katyusha rocket launcher has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection, Ft. Benning

I will be visiting the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection at Fort Benning, GA, this weekend. This museum is not normally open to the public. I believe this is only the second open house they have hosted. If you want a photo of a particular tank/tanks, please let me know. There are over 190 tanks, including many "does not exist anywhere else in the world" vehicles on display. Inside the Tankodrome.

I will also be visiting Auburn to view the Philip W. Lett collection (Lett was the chief designer of the M1 Abrams). Please also let me know if you need anything scanned/photographed from that collection. Schierbecker (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Schierbecker: Photos of the prototype US heavy tank designs of World War II (on the left at about 1:25) would be useful. There were quite a few of these designs, and they're historically significant as forerunners of the US main battle tank series, as well as an interesting on 'what might have been' grounds given that the Army decided to buy lots of M4s instead of these tanks. There also seem to be some prototype designs from other countries, and photos of them would be valuable. There are surprisingly few photos of some of the main European Cold War era AFVs on Commons, so I'd suggest taking photos of all of these types as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nick-D I would like to post my thoughts in the next Bugle. Saturday's Scouts in Action live fire demo was amazing. Schierbecker (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be fantastic - please do. Please let me know if you need any assistance with this or advice. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nick-D, it has been a very fruitful trip. When is the publish deadline? I want to do a short write-up and a gallery of photos and video. Schierbecker (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We try to send it out in the first weekend of every month, so it might be too late for this month (unless you're a fast writer!). If you're happy to hold this over until next month, anything by the end of the month would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Composite bow

Composite bow 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 03:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

One-battle campaignbox

On whether Template:Campaignbox Expedition from Brazos Santiago should exist at all: it has but one battle in it, and the expedition itself has no article of its own. In 2014, Mojoworker has argued in favor of keeping the template, but more discussion is needed. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There's been some more recent TFDs that have supported the existence of similar campaignboxen. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Template:Campaignbox Quantrill's Raid into Kansas and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_28#Template:Campaignbox_Operations_near_Saint_Mark's. Hog Farm _Talk 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless there's potential for expansion, this seems to be almost decorative and of little navigational use (like using a map for directions to get to the dead end of a one-way street you're already on). -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Henry Moore

I have nominated Henry Moore 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) 15:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Split List of wars involving France

See Talk:List of wars involving France#Split proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

RS question

Operation Wunderland Combat operations of the German armed forces on the Northern sea route during the Great Patriotic War by E P Guriev [1] is this a RS? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

All post-Soviet sources and a professional publication, so I'd think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It does seem a slightly odd place for a history article to be published - a conference about environmental sciences - if its used to draw unusual conclusions then undue may come in to play - if its for simple facts then that shouldn't be a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've used it sparingly and put most of the material in notes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

92nd Engineer Batt. Detachment Size

So, one question. I was looking at the 92nd Engineer Battalion page, and it doesn't actually say what the size of the detachments are. Are they platoon-sized? Company-sized? What? Can someone please clear this up? I don't have access to the necessary tools to do so, unfortunately. Faith15 15:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Detachments can be pretty much any size. It's an "as needed" kind of thing. Sometimes it's a squad, sometimes a platoon. Companies are usually sent intact and wouldn't be listed as a detachment, but a company-size detachment could be possible if you combined assets from different companies within the battalion. Intothatdarkness 15:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha. Thanks, @Intothatdarkness. Faith15 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Intothatdarkness 15:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Renaming the Russian, Soviet and CIS task force

Can we rename the “Russian, Soviet and CIS” milhist task force? The name is mildly embarrassing.

Referring to Moscow’s moribund “CIS” project does not define or describe the task force’s current scope any better than invoking the “EEU,” “CSTO,” or “Union State” would. It reflects a non-neutral, obsolete point of view: the CIS was thought of as a potential successor to the Soviet Union around 1993 or so, but never became that. The CIS has eight active member states, but this project concerns thirteen countries. No one uses “CIS” to refer to this subject field: there is no important university department or academic specialty called “CIS Studies.”

And since it is a military history task force, we can assume all historical predecessor states, and don’t have to name a particular one – i.e., the Soviet Union – while omitting others within the geographical scope, e.g., Kyivan Rus, the Crimean Khanate, the Golden Horde.

For example, the biggest relevant academic association is the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. Dartmouth College changed its Russian Languages and Literatures department to East European, Eurasian and Russian studies.[2] In Canada, Carleton has an Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies,[3] St. Francis Xavier a Centre for Post-Communist Studies,[4] and Toronto a Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.[5]

A year ago I suggested a move at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 167#Requested move 3 May 2022. I would still suggest Eastern Europe and Eurasia military history task force, but am open to any other objective title.  —Michael Z. 16:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling that renaming of academic associations was dictated by the attempt to preserve funding (Russia "is not cool" now). XX century history know many waves of renaming (the first one was caused by WWI, and, as far as I remember, event the British royal family changed its name as a result).

I think "CIS" looks really awkward. Maybe "Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet" task force would be a better name? It would refer to three periods (pre 1917, 1917-91, and post 91). Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, CIS is needlessly obscure, though I think just "Russian and Soviet" would be suffice. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy with "Russian and Soviet." Buckshot06 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re just making that up. Organizations renamed themselves to accurately reflect their scope and in response to changes in academia after the colonial and Soviet periods. If it’s not clear to you that views have changed in the last century . . .

Russia is not a period. It is a country. The scope of this task force is the military history of thirteen countries, and none of them are Soviet. Its name should reflect the academic views of current sources about its subject, and not imperial nostalgia or any other political POV.  —Michael Z. 13:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support "Russian and Soviet". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That contradicts the stated scope of the task force.  —Michael Z. 14:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it was a couple of years ago I grassed reported Mzajac to arbcom for off-site canvassing—Twitter, wasn't it, and over the Kiev naming dispute? :D SN54129 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, please show evidence that this is true, or strike.  —Michael Z. 16:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think editors are hearing your point Mzajac, just not agreeing with it. There is no need to keep repeating it. FWIW, IMO "Eurasia" contradicts the stated scope even more, as it would subsume China and India. Now, if you were to suggest "Eastern Europe and Russia" ... ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Eurasian" may also refer to highly obscure and dubious Dugin's pseudotheory. It would be better to avoid it. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s Eurasianist. The existence of Eurasianism doesn’t discredit the geopolitical notion of Eurasia.  —Michael Z. 16:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Eurasia is obviously commonly used to refer to Russia and Central Asia in academia. It is inclusive. It does not apply a Russo-centric point of view by omitting a dozen out of thirteen states within the scope.

“Eastern Europe and Russia” is Eurocentric, omitting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.  —Michael Z. 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have always understood Eurasia to be the combination of Europe and Asia, since Europe isn't really a continent geographically speaking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong image in "voulge" page

The page about the polearm known as "Voulge" (vouge as well) contains the wrong image. The information in the page itself seems perfectly fine. At least it fits with what I know. The problem is that the image shows a double-edged sword, when the polearm in question is a single-edged blade attached to a long wooden stick. The polearm itself does not resemble any kind of sword in any way. (Edit: forgot to add the page itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voulge ) Canzandridas (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the voulge is it is a horribly imprecise term. It can mean a broad bladed single edge weapon but the 15th century weapon of the same name usually looks just like the one in the photo. It's even more confusing when we consider the so-called Swiss voulge, which many would consider a type of halberd. Having looked at the photo, incidentally, I suspect it is a copyvio - the source of the photo (the Musee de L'Armee) clearly claim copyright and there is no sign in the wikimedia page that they have waived it. Monstrelet (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the more I look into it the more confusing it get with details that count somewhere and don't somewhere else haha. Since the photo that's there now looks exactly as to what I would expect a voulge head to be my job here is done (I say as if I was some kind of authority in this). I understand that might have been a voulge, and if it turned out to be a copyvio then all is well if it was fixed! I'll crawl back to my hole now and thank you for your time! Canzandridas (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

But the illustration shows voulges of a type specifically said in the article as being misidentified in the 19th century. The copyvio did meet the more recent identification of the medieval weapon. Monstrelet (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)