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 2024 coordinator election has begun with nominations open until 14 September. The August 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 Jozo Tomasevich • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Castlereagh–Canning duel Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) • 2008 Mumbai attacks • United States Special Operations Command • Kony 2012 Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,260) • only work on referencing and citation (43,210) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,539) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,855) • work on structure (31,856) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,165) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,892) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (1) • project tags fixed (1) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (1) • task forces added (3) • attention to task force coverage (656)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

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)

Disambiguation expert needed

There is great confusion about the naming and disambiguation of U.S. Navy aviation squadrons. (See the lengthy and wide-ranging discussion ABOVE.) We need someone who is very well-versed in disambiguation to work out a few test cases, so we can figure out how to take care of the rest. I have two test cases in mind — one fairly simple and one fairly complex — if a well-qualified volunteer steps forward, I will provide all the details. (I am a skilled editor myself, and knowledgeable about these squadrons and their articles, but a total newbie with disambiguation). Reply here if interested. Lou Sander (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by policy and consensus. The core policy for article is covered at Deciding_on_an_article_title, and the desired outcome should be "...recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." If the intended article title is identical (or similar) enough to another article then the guidance on disambiguation comes into play. But ultimately if policies and guidance lead to more than one equally valid solution, then the one that gains the most traction from other editors is likely to win out. You could ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation for specific advice on disambiguation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

All good and valid points. Renaming will happen, especially to the squadrons that are now badly named. In the meantime, I hope to work out the best disambiguation scheme, starting with a few of the already-more-properly-named articles. I'll post a request at the disambiguation project. Thanks for identifying it. Lou Sander (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lou Sander Would you mind making a mark next to the pages that are able to be moved so that we can begin processing them? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The first and easiest would seem to be in the VP area. See User:Lou Sander/VP Table for a list of all of the VP squadrons. Note that all of them but one are named "VP-nnn". The only reason that VP-16 (U.S. Navy) isn't named VP-16 is that there's a redirect to "VP-16" on the Etoposide article. Apparently "VP-16" is some sort of nickname for Etoposide. If you search for VP-16, you get the Etoposide article, which has some stuff about disambiguation. It seems to me that what's best for all is to rename VP-16 (U.S. Navy) to VP-16, and have that article include a disambiguation link to Etoposide. All this is providing, of course, that it doesn't step on the toes of people interested in Etoposide. The justification for doing it as I suggest is that 1) VP-16 is an actual squadron name, but only a nickname for Etoposide, and 2) it eliminates the need for the squadron name, alone out of all the others, to have the disambiguation extension (or whatever it is called). Lou Sander (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

PS - I just posted a request on the Etoposide talk page, to see if anyone over there has any input. I'm guessing there won't be any, since that article doesn't seem to get much activity. Lou Sander (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There's also the Herpes simplex virus protein vmw65 which VP16 redirects to. So you might get a response if you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. It could just be that no article can lay claim to being the Primary Topic and VP-16 ends up as a redirect to VP-16 (disambiguation) and you'll be stuck with a disambiguator for the squadron. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good get! I've been thinking that it might do to be bold, and just make the squadron the main article, but include the disambiguation links. I don't like to do that, but the justifications above seem to me to be valid. If there are objections from the pharma and bio worlds, we could always change it back. I will do as you suggest and post some queries at the two projects. Lou Sander (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done There are now feelers out to Talk:Etoposide, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology, Talk:Herpes simplex virus protein vmw65, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. I propose to wait a day or two for any responses, and to be bold if none are made. Part of being bold would be to post further information to the four places mentioned. Whatever happens, there probably needs to be a disambiguation page for VP16/VP-16, referring to all three articles. (But as stated, I'm a newbie to disambiguation.) Lou Sander (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, if it's determined that there is no primary topic for VP-16, the disambiguation page should be located there, not at VP-16 (disambiguation) - that would be a mal-placed disambiguation page. Parsecboy (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Category Population Problem

How are firearm articles like Talk:Gunshot not populating the Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists? I have been working through WP:GUN and have noticed similar articles failing to populate the category even though they clearly have no B-Class checklists. --Molestash (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the standard for what appears on the incomplete B Class checklist changed sometime last year and dropped 10,000 articles or so. Articles with something like {{WPMILHIST|class=something|importance=any}} used to appear on the list, but no longer do. It seems that only if {{WPMILHIST|class=something|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}} is on the page with either a blank or a y/n for one of the B class items will the article appear. Of course, the good news is that the backlog went away.--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So we cleared a backlog through manipulating the bot? Well that doesn't sound very cleared at all. --Molestash (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the inclusion of pages with no checklist parameters at all in the backlog was a bug to begin with; the category was intended to identify cases where the checklist had been incorrectly/incompletely inserted and filled out, not to serve as a catch-all for Start-Class articles that had never gone through a B-Class assessment. The latter is obviously a much larger group of articles, but they're not really instances where there's a problem with the assessment template that needs to be actively fixed. Kirill ^[talk] 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that;s why the category says it's for articles with incomplete checklists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well then excellent! Thanks for the clarification. --Molestash (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice re pictures in a conflict article

Hi all,

Per Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Distinct_bias_in_picture_subjects, we have an issue at this conflict article re a perceived unbalance in the casualties shown in the article pictures vs the actual casualty count of both sides in the conflict.

I presume this is an issue that has come up before on other conflict articles.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how we should approach reaching a fair position here without getting in to some kind of macabre competition over whose casualty pictures are more deserving?

Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

More advice on images needed

I need some help in checking the copy right image tag on the image from commons File:Kammhuber Line Map - Agent Tegal.png. I used the image in the Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer article and during its review although the image was tagged as PD in the UK, a request was made to add a "German PD" to the image as well. My problems, first I don't know if it is public domain, second, I thought that material seized by the Allies was considered public domain, just like some of the Heinrich Hoffmann images. Any help and guidance is welcome. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous EU tag should cover it - it's been more than the 70 years since publication and the author apparently wasn't disclosed (which is in no way surprising for a map like this). Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean, nothing is to be done? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

UK PD is pretty much identical to German. I suppose you might hit URAA, depending when Germany adopted consolodated copyright dates. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Shadowboxes

First, some explanation. The William Guarnere page was very busy today. He died yesterday and a bunch of IPs started listing him as dead without benefit of a reference. I ticked off a lot of people by reverting their edits. A valid news source finally carried the piece, so another one is gone. Looking at the page later, I noticed that Guarnere is credited with the Presidential Unit Citation with one OLC; the reference is an on-line shadowbox. So the question is: Is a shadowbox any better as a reference than a blog?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think that individuals could be awarded the PUC? My understanding is that this is a unit-level award, and individuals can wear it only while they're actually posted to that unit and not after they leave it (for instance, soldiers in D Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment are entitled to wear the PUC ribbon that company was awarded for the Battle of Long Tan, but have to remove it if they're posted to a different company in the same battalion). Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad typing on my part. The 101st was awarded the PUC. Those who were present for the period get to wear it forever. Those who are assigned later get to wear it while assigned.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Audie Murphy honors and awards at FLC

Not trying to be pushy, or canvass, or anything of that nature. This is my first go-around with FLC. AM honors and awards has kind of stalled in the process, but I notice others before it did also for a time. Not knowing what to expect, is there anything else I should do besides sit and wait it out? And can lack of further input on the nomination cause it to be rejected? — Maile (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikitable question

Does anyone know how to shorten the vertical line on the rhs? Thanks.

Battle of the Somme British, French and German casualties: July–November 1916
Month	British	French	Sub- total	German	(% of Allied total)
July	158,786	49,859	208,645	103,000	49.4
August	58,085	18,806	76,891	68,000	88.4
September	101,313	76,147	177,460	140,000	78.9
October	57,722	37,626	95,348	78,500	82.3
November	39,784	20,129	59,913	45,000	75
Total	415,690	202,567	618,257	434,500	70.3
Casualties from Wendt: Verdun 1916 Die Angriffe Falkenhayns im Maasgebiet mit Richtung auf Verdun als strategisches Problem (1931)

well I'd lay it out like this, which I believe to be closer to the manual of style and accessibility (though don't quote me on the later)

Battle of the Somme
British, French and German casualties: July–November 1916

Month	British	French	Sub- total	German	(% of Allied total)
July	158,786	49,859	208,645	103,000	49.4
August	58,085	18,806	76,891	68,000	88.4
September	101,313	76,147	177,460	140,000	78.9
October	57,722	37,626	95,348	78,500	82.3
November	39,784	20,129	59,913	45,000	75
Total	415,690	202,567	618,257	434,500	70.3

Thanks, I've only been able to copy a table from a wiki page and adapt it as needed so I'll follow your recommendation.Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this? Kirill ^[talk] 00:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme British, French and German casualties July–November 1916
Month	British	French	Sub- total	German	(% of Allied total)
July	158,786	49,859	208,645	103,000	49.4
August	58,085	18,806	76,891	68,000	88.4
September	101,313	76,147	177,460	140,000	78.9
October	57,722	37,626	95,348	78,500	82.3
November	39,784	20,129	59,913	45,000	75
Total	415,690	202,567	618,257	434,500	70.3
Casualties from Wendt: Verdun 1916 Die Angriffe Falkenhayns im Maasgebiet mit Richtung auf Verdun als strategisches Problem (1931)

Thanks, that's what I had in mind at first; what does {{clear}} do?Keith-264 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I've just noticed, thanks Cuprum.Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Williams and Sir Richard Williams (Royal Marines officers)

Hello, military experts. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this old abandoned Afc submission, but there doesn't seem to be a project British Marines. Should this article be kept (or made into two articles), or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Both are certainly notable enough for articles, but they should obviously be two separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur; both are notable and both need to be in entirely seperate articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, there was already an article about the younger man, Richard Williams (Royal Marines officer), and it had extensive military information but little personal info, so I moved that material from the draft article and added an appropriate edit summary. I deleted the rest about him from the draft article, so now it is just about the older Williams. Both articles could use some cleanup from someone familiar with military history (since I'm not really familiar with what's suitable for inclusion in such articles), and then the draft article can be renamed and moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The draft is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Williams (Royal Marines officer born 1757). —Anne Delong (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

An opportunity exists

...to create five new military ship articles, and eliminate the redlinks from the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article. Any takers? Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi, would someone mind taking a look at these two articles? I don't think they meet the criteria of CSD:A3 as they do have some information in the infoboxes but other than that they're blank. If someone has the time to work on them that'd be great. 51st Expeditionary Signal Battalion and 50th Expeditionary Signal Battalion. Thanks C1776M^Talk 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this one too. 62 Signal Battalion C1776M^Talk 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviewers needed Strachwitz

I am looking for further reviewers. Anyone interested? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Lt. Garlin Murl Conner

Does this project have a section for "requested articles"? Don't know if you've seen this news item, but it's about the widow of Lt. Garlin Murl Conner trying to get her husband the Medal of Honor. I took note that it says "Conner left the U.S. Army as the second-most decorated soldier during World War II". What a shame, with all that backing, the judge denied the request on a technicality.— Maile (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never started an article, but I support the idea. There's a good starting point here. We have plenty of pages for people who earned fewer medals. (Don't get me started on the number of Easy Company-related pages we have.)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And Here, Also Here, Cong Record 2004. This would possibly take an editor with resources already at hand. But this seems to be a worthy subject. — Maile (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's begun: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garlin Murl Conner. There's a way to go, resolving his rank, describing the actions, timelines, etc. I'm wondering if he really joined up in January 1941. Found his grave, at least.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Good for starting this. The issue of when he really joined up - wouldn't it be nice if someone had written a book about him? From the Library of Congress. — Maile (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• It was moved into main space already:Garlin Murl Conner — Maile (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That was quicker than I expected. I'm really sure it was ready for "prime time," but thanks to all for the help and improvements.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm also glad to see others editing over there.— Maile (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

PDF question

If you use "take a snapshot" to, er take snapshots, how do you turn off the "take a snapshot" so that you have the usual vertical cursor again?Keith-264 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Go back to the Edit pulldown menu and turn it off (uncheck take snapshot). If that does not work, hit the Escape button. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try the esc button. Could it be the malignant hand of Google interfering with the software? (It's a pdf from Archive.org with a Google advertisement on the front.)?Keith-264 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

needed: Naval history of World War II

While all the details are here in hundreds of specialized articles, we are lacking an overview of the Naval history of World War II. If you look at the World War II article, naval affairs are given very little attention (eg destroyers and cruisers are not even mentioned). So far the new article has a short outline and a long bibliography, so I hope people can join in. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A-class reviews in need of attention

Hi folks, if anyone has some spare time and is looking for a way to help MilHist, the following A-class reviews have been open for over a month and would benefit from the attention of another reviewer:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ha–Hm)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Flavius (full disclosure: my nom)

If anyone has time, please do chip in! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Fontaine

Could someone take a look at this article? It doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements. Looks more like an obituary for a local man than an actual article. Wild Wolf (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• It would appear that the man is getting ready to run for election. The article has no particular notability at this point, in my opinion. Now, if he wins his election, he would be notable as an elected official in the state of Georgia. The article contains a couple of misspellings and the parenthetical locations used everywhere are distracting; it needs some cleanup if it is to stay. Just my opinion of course. Cuprum17 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also has some interesting claims. Subject was a general (one star displayed) and commanded an infantry regiment, of which, to my knowledge, we have none.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As a general he is automatically presumed notable per MOS:SOLDIER. This claim checks out [1][2] I don't see where it says he commanded an infantry regiment. We could email him at bernardfontaine40@gmail.com Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, Milmos only says that the people/units/etc. are likely to be notable because those categories usually have sufficient, non-trivial documentation to prove their notability. Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 14/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garlin Murl Conner. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to help me?

Hi all, I uploaded a new picture to the article of British sailor Frederick Fleet, who served on the Titanic and began to expand it. Can anybody help me with both grammar and referencing the article? It's not mandatory! only if you want!. Thank you. --Japanesehelper (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring

I'm having trouble in the Albert Kesselring featured article with a POV pushing IP who heard somewhere that Operation Bagration was the most important battle of World War II. The original text read:

An Allied offensive in April finally broke through, leading to a collapse of the Axis position in Tunisia. Some 275,000 German and Italian prisoners were taken. Only the Battle of Stalingrad overshadowed this disaster. It refers to the two battles that occurred in early 1943.

The new text is an outright lie besides being ungrammatical:

Only the Battle of Stalingrad and specially Operation Bagration later in the summer of 1944 were bigger disasters in number of prisoners.

Of course, far more prisoners were taken in the Ruhr pocket in 1945. Can someone please revert the text back to the original for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Looks like there's a sock, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

LR-87 rocket engine

I need help at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles. TIA Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)