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 Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The October 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 German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Otto Hahn • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge • Khalji Revolution • SPARS Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. Peer reviews 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark • Battle of Chunj • War of the Antiochene Succession Good article nominees Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • Mongol invasion of Khorasan • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Ian Morrison (RNZAF officer) • Charles the Bold • James Alexander Ulio • Central Powers • Mordechai Schlein • Short Sunderland in New Zealand service • Te Pōrere Redoubts • Aromal Chekavar Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Haile Selassie Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,924) • only work on referencing and citation (43,223) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,306) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,908) • work on structure (32,010) • only work on structure (341) • work on grammar (8,285) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (33,063) • only work on supporting materials (1,290) • assessment (142) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (16) • assessment checklists completed (113) • task forces added (5) • attention to task force coverage (654)

Question re: scoring for the April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive contest

Still feeling somewhat like the "slow kid in class" (once again borrowing terminology from Gog the Mild), but am also becoming more comfortable with various Wikipedia tools, etc. thanks to tips from everyone during the April backlog drive. So, first, many thanks to creators of the drive and to all who have provided input. Second, from the various instructions I've read over the past few weeks, it looks like backlog drive participants are supposed to be doing their own rough scoring, but I'm confused about how to do that because I've seen what appear to be two different "how to score" charts:

• 1.) WikiProject Military history/April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive; and
• 2.) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest

Which one do I use (no. 1 or 2)? Thank you in advance for the scoring tutorial. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: No.1 - the rules for the drive. Ignore no. 2, those are the rules for the contest. (Unless you want to put articles into the contest as well. I do.) Don't worry about actually adding up your score, a helpful if underpaid coordinator will do that for you. Just make sure that you record all of the articles you tag, assess, etc on your Drive worksheet. Which you seem to be doing.

If I get problems I tend to peek at what others are doing, via user contributions, view history and compare selected revisions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Number 1 is the thing to do. Number 2 is the regular writing/improving contest that is run every month (and the whole year for that matter) and is not related to the drive. As for scoring itself just add your edits to the worklist and once the month is over a coordinator will do the math for you ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Obscure chemical lineage and honors question

As [1] reveals, some U.S. Army Chemical units have a much longer history than otherwise known. Fixing their Lineage and Honors now presents a serious question. Unusual knowledge may be required. Can anyone help? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That was just a little more creative than usual vandalism. Kges1901 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

NBC in the US military is notoriously...hyperbolic. I'd let it lie barring compelling information. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree -- always let sleeping dragons lie. MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a Middle-Earth task force to tag it with? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Just don't put it through assessment. It shall not pass. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:World War II reenactment#Recent edit

There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether adding certain material at this time is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

My opinion remains unchanged, and consensus here and at the article supports your recent edits. I've again removed the material as it lacks the support to be included. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Operation Chastise

It is just over a month to the 75th anniversary of Operation Chastise. It would be nice to see the article listed at OTD, but currently the article is ineligible due to being tagged for refimprove. Can we please fix this? Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals.Bermicourt (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Captain's mast

I've just discovered we have two separate articles on captain's mast: Non-judicial punishment and Mast (naval), which is more US-centric. And there is no redirect to either one from captain's mast (although there is a redirect at Captains Mast to Non-judicial punishment and one at Captain's Mast to Mast (naval)).

It seems to me these should at least be hatnoted to each other, but it might make more sense to merge them. The US Navy considers them to be the same thing[2] but that's a US-centric view; Non-judicial punishment has a more international focus.

Suggestions? Is "captain's mast" a US-only term or is it more international? Do we need a separate article for the US version? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As you've alluded to, the official term for "Captain's mast" in the USN is "commanding officer's non-judicial punishment", often abbreviated NJP. It's under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and is the same as the US Army "field grade Article 15". Unlike the Army's "company grade Article 15", the USN does not use lower grade NJP. If the USN version is sufficiently different from other countries' NJP, maybe a separate section in that article would do it. RobDuch (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward merging it all in to Non-judicial punishment. It's a more generic term that can include Army Article 15, and leaves open the possibility of including non-US material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Jackspeak: A guide to British Naval slang & usage by Rick Jolly says "Captain's mast: USN version of the RN "Angel's Whisper". Disciplinary procedure at which the Commanding Officer of a US Navy vessel deals with any members of the crew brought before him for investigation and possible punishment". Apparently an "angel's whisper" is slang for "defaulters parade" which you can read about here. BTW, Surgeon-Captain Rick Jolly is famous for setting-up a field hospital in a bullet-ridden sheep-shed during the Falklands War. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

For good measure, from the Imperial War Museum; "On board HMS RODNEY the Master at Arms (left) reading out the names at the "Captain's Defaulters and Requestmen" parade. A Defaulters and Requestmen parade is a court (petty sessions rather than courts martial) for both trying minor offences by defaulters or hearing pleas and petitions whilst aboard ship. It takes place at the break of the quarterdeck on a ship at the same time each morning. As the sailor in this image is still wearing his cap in front of the Commander he is a 'Requestman'. Defaulters have to remove their caps". Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a merge discussion at Talk:Non-judicial punishment#Merge of Mast (naval). Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Donald Forrester Brown needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Donald Forrester Brown; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Page moves

There's someone going round mass renaming pages. [3]. No RfC is cited, just "more common name". But it seems strange to disambiguate an air force general as "US Army officer". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We should pause this until some general discussion takes place. Disambiguation is generally done at the simplest level possible, so there seems little point in turning Robert Wynn (soldier) into Robert Wynn (United States Army soldier) unless there's a more famous soldier with the same name in another army. In any case why the long-winded "United States Army soldier" instead of "US Army soldier"? Further, disambiguating generals as just that rather than as "xxx Army officer" is a long-time practice and while that doesn't mean it's perfect it again warrants discussion before changing. Berserker276 could you respond here before any further moves? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB says "The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible)". This suggests these moves are wrong and should be reverted. Also I question whether we should include a disambiguator when there is no ambiguity. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox military award

Template:Infobox military award has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox award. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese-Ottoman War

What is the opinion of the Military History community on this page, The Portuguese-Ottoman War? It used to be called just Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts until a user took the initiative to change its name and merge it with Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559) and Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-89).

I disagree with these changes, since the last two articles were meant to detail very specific periods of fighting on their own, while the name "The Portuguese-Ottoman War" does not seem as appropriate, since the Portuguese and Turks fought occasionally and undeclaredly for a period of some 200 years, between the 16th and 18th centuries.

The author of these edits however, refuses any changes regardless of arguments, so I'd like to consult with the community if splitting them again would be in order, and if moving to the old name would be more approppriate. Crenelator (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The article itself requires a lot of work. Style-wise, its use of frequent bold type and a great many quotations from sources is poor. Some of the English is eccentric and non-encylopedic in tone. Monstrelet (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review that needs one more set of eyes

G'day all, it's mine, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Commissioner Government has been open since 22 January, so closing in on three months. It has two supports and just needs another reviewer to get it over the line. Any comments appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs

There is currently an ongoing move discussion at this page which could probably benefit from additional disinterested opinions of editors who have experience with potentially controversial non-obvious titles. Your input is appreciated. Thanks. GMG^talk 11:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Frank Richards (author)

Was wondering if someone from WP:MILHIST would mind taking a look at Frank Richards (author) and seeing if they can help out his grandson Secretpsychologist whose trying to correct some errors in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

==Infobox issue==

|place= Serre-lès-Puisieux, France * |coordinates = {{Coord|50|06|11|N|40|09|10|E|display=INLINE,title}} * |map_type = France * |map_size = 200 * |map_caption = {{centre|Serre-lès-Puisieux, a village in the [[Communes of France|commune]] of [[Puisieux, Pas-de-Calais|Puisieux]] in the [[Pas-de-Calais]] [[Departments of France|department]] in northern [[France]].}} * |map_label = Serre-lès-Puisieux

Does anyone know why this isn't producing a red dot and village name on the loc map pl? Keith-264 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) See below for legible version

Loc Map Q

|place= Serre-lès-Puisieux, France
|coordinates = 50°06′11″N 40°09′10″E
|map_type = France
|map_size = 200
|map_caption = Serre-lès-Puisieux, a village in the commune of Puisieux in the Pas-de-Calais department in northern France.
|map_label = Serre-lès-Puisieux

Does anyone know why this isn't producing a red dot and village name on the loc map pls? Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Found it, buggered up the coords....Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul von Rennenkampf

Up until a few days ago, Paul von Rennenkampf contained two sources that supported spelling his last name with a single 'f'. Recently, TsaristAlvin has removed those sources, replacing them with an offline source (so I can't readily verify spelling) and attempting to add de.wiki as a source.

There are two issues: first, the change/removal in sourcing; but more critically, the spelling of the last name. TsaristAlvin has attempted to move the page to Paul von Rennenkampff and Paul Georg von Rennenkampff. What name should the article have per MOS and other Wikipedia policies? —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Article should be kept at original title. A single f at the end of his name is the standard English transliteration and also the most accurate translation of his Russian last name per WP:RUS romanization. Double f is his German name, but even though Rennenkampf was a Baltic German he spent his career in a Russian-speaking army so English sources refer to him by the Russian transliteration of his name with a single f. Not a single English google books hit refers to him with two f's, so clearly Rennenkampf is his common name. Kges1901 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:ARC

There is an ongoing discussion here related to WWII, which may benefit from knowledgeable editors from this project. Thanks. GMG^talk 11:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)