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 May 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 Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Shigi Qutuqu • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend 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 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal 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 • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • 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 • Ernest J. King • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • María Pacheco Good article reassessments Galatian War Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,461) • only work on referencing and citation (43,142) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,573) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,648) • work on structure (31,799) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,194) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,769) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (9) • assessment as lists (115) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (15) • assessment checklists completed (41) • task forces added (278) • attention to task force coverage (658)

Please help review a draft at AFC

Draft:Supply Support Activity is a modern American "thing" related to military logistics. Is the draft acceptable in its current state? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

G'day, many "warfighters" (combat corps personnel) say "logistics just happens"...and while this ignores the (obvious) importance of expertise and operational art in the area, I think it highlights something fundamental, i.e. that the topic is largely considered a "dark art" and that most people probably do not wish to educate themselves about it. This is potentially out of ignorance, but in itself it is probably illustrative of the fact that potentially the topic isn't actually notable to people outside the area. With regards to this article, it seems... well, somewhat esoteric and largely impenetrable to the lay person. To me, it is simply referring to the way in which items are ordered, tracked, delivered, stored and disposed of in support of a military event or organisation. In short, it is really just supply chain management in "cams/ACUs" or in a military setting (and a narrow subset of that setting at that i.e just the US military). All other militaries no doubt use similar but slightly different terms of art. Individually I would argue that they are not notable, but together they would be. Hence, a parent article seems fair enough (such as those that already exist on military logistics and combat service support etc), but one that focuses on a narrow subset (like this current article), does not seem likely to meet the notability guidelines. Anyway, that is just my opinion and of course others may feel differently. Apologies if it sounds overly disparaging. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Upmerge to a section on modern American logistics in military logistics. 41.191.107.147 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve

[copied from my talk page]

Hi Dank: I m interested in trying to upgrade an article titled United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, but I hesitate to go forward because the title does not square well with the contents. The article actually describes two distinct subjects, women who served in the women’s active reserve in WW II (by an act of Congress) and women who served in World War I (by edict of the Secretary of the Navy in 1917). The women’s reserve was not authorized by Congress until1942; no such reserve seems to have existed prior to this.

Question: should both periods be woven into one story, or should the story be about the US Marine Corps Women’s Reserve to the exclusion of the women who served in WW I. I appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, they should be forked as they are separate subjects, although I don't know how well the materials that you have to hand would support that. But even a stub on the WWI service would be useful as a base for further expansion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the page doesn't look too bad, but splitting it may help. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Splitting it would seem to be the most appropriate considering they are separate subjects.*Treker (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

How about calling it "Women in the United States Marine Corps Reserve", or something like that. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• ^ Something along those lines that seems best. The generally related content can be covered in one place. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Locator map question

Attack on Convoy AN 14 I added the locator map to the infobox then got ambitious and tried to move the label from left to right of the red dot. I managed it but does anyone know why I added another and how I get rid please? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of coordinates in the infobox; you're getting dots for both. Which is the location of the attack? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The Kaso Strait. Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's always a great pleasure dealing with you, Keith. Which of the two dots on the map is the Kaso Strait? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Fnar! The one on the right. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, I too have failed. It doesn't look as though location map~ plays nicely with the infobox; and the infobox lacks a parameter to switch the position of the label. Right now, we should probably revent back to the version in which the label is to the left, and perhaps take up the missing parameter and the squabbling to Module talk:Infobox military conflict, which I'll do in my next edit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, I've given up and restored the original form. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Naming convention for Italian Ships

I have noticed that Italian naval ships tend to have their articles called Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi or Italian destroyer Andrea Doria. Is there a reason that they are named as such and not ITS Andrea Doria (D553) as it might be done for other navies? Thanks in advance Gbawden (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

See Italy at Ship prefix#National or military prefixes. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships from navies without ship prefixes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gbawden (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Fighter Squadron Lineage URL is toast

The primary reference in all the various stub articles concerning US Navy air squadrons was changed by Naval History and Heritage at some point recently, so now almost the sole citation in all these articles is 404'd. Is there a bot that can somehow enter the new URL or is this going to have to be fixed manually? Because looking at the List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons, that's going to be quite the clean-up. The new URL is https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/insignias/naval-aviation-squadron-lineage/fighter-squadron-lineage.html Thanks, Finktron (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do they do this? Some new squeaker ensign with a need to show his chain of command that his division is doing something? Yeah that's a rhetorical question.

At the prompting of another editor, I once created {{cite DANAS}} that could link to the various sections of the various DANAS chapters. That editor never used the template so there it sits abandoned. We could resurrect that template to at the least link to the silly new html page names at NHHS or change it to link directly to the pdf version of the DANAS chapter. Instead of linking to:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/dictionary-of-american-naval-aviation-squadrons-volume-1/chapter-2-attack-squadron-histories-for-va-1e-to-va-23.html

link to:

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/dictionary-of-american-naval-aviation-squadrons-volume-1/pdfs/va-1-23.pdf

If {{cite DANAS}} is reworked and instances of direct urls are replaced with a call to the template (presumably AWB will suffice for that), NEXT TIME, a squeaker ensign needs to show that his division is doing something, it will be less painful for us to recover from his follies.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever they did to DANAS broke all the links I see in the test page for your cite template. If the current .pdf versions were subbed for the previously existing links and the template was made to work, I'd be willing to put in time fixing up the existing squadron articles and otherwise fixing the various ace pages this has impacted. I'm not savvy enough to do the template work myself, though, so I can really only do this if you or another editor can make the cite template for DANAS work. Thanks for your reply! Finktron (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know about the {{cite DANAS}} template before I created all of the VP and VPB pages. Unfortunately changing that template won't do anything to help with the fighter squadron lineage as that's a separate document not contained in DANAS. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I (and User:Kges1901) have gone through all the VF squadrons and manually changed the link. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

{{cite DANAS}} is working again. There is a gotcha: our squeaker ensign felt it necessary to be inconsistent in his use of chapter-section capitalization. If referencing the chapter 1 or chapter 4 sections of volume 1, be sure that these are not capitalized in |section=; chapters 3, 5, and 6 are to be capitalized.

It might be beneficial to create a template for the lineage document so that we only have to fix one thing when the next squeaker ensign decides that changes to NHHC urls are a good thing for her division to do. There are about 65 pages linking to the lineage document.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

{{cite vf lineage}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of this. I work a lot the next two days but I'll do what I can to start standardizing the naval aviation pages referencing these sources using the cite templates you've created. I tested cite vf lineage in my user sandbox and it looks like it works fine. I'll do the same for cite DANAS before I implement any changes, but I have a feeling it'll display alright. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Raseiniai

I was thinking about beefing up the Battle of Raseiniai article by making a massive increase in information about the 'lone wolf' KV-2. I was thinking I could add a new subsection, and write two or three paragraphs instead of the two sentences that currently apply to the skirmish. I think that the topic deserves more than a few sentences, given how badass it was. I just wanted to know if it would be ok, or would it be unnecessary? I don't really like to make big changes to articles without some sort of approval, because without an approval it runs a higher risk of being removed or reverted. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Gday, I have no knowledge of this topic so couldn't state definitively if this would be appropriate and as such will have to defer to someone else for their opinion on this. That said we generally try not to focus articles about battles on the actions of a single individual or unit, but instead try to provide a broad summary of the topic from all angles to avoid providing undue weight to just one aspect. Anotherclown (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with that statement. I just think that the battle was really badass and it deserves more recognition than just one or two sentences. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Go for it, if you want me to check in on it and give advice, just say the word. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I have at least one source, but that probably won't be enough for 2-3 paragraphs so i'll try to find at least one other. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Reach out to Kges1901 and Wreck Smurfy who are our gurus in this area, should you wish. Please always be WP:BOLD - we've got a pretty good level headed group of editors working the Eastern Front, so reverts of usefully expanded sections are unlikely. Thanks for your idea!! Buckshot06 (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone mind checking out the section I wrote on the Battle of Raseiniai? I added a new section (The 'Lone Wolf' KV-2) and wrote about 4.5 paragraphs. You can't really miss it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll just direct mention the people recommended. Kges1901 Wreck Smurfy UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The section on the KV-2 needs reliable sources. Kges1901 (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to find some more. Anything else need fixing? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Kges1901 I have a fourth source for the subsection that I wrote, but I can't apply it until around 4:00PM EDT because of the website restrictions that my school puts on the wifi UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants to just add the 4th source in at the end of the "'Lone Wolf' KV-2" section along with the others, just put it in. Please reply with 'got it' so that way it isn't put in multiple times by different people. (Here is it -----> http://worldoftanks.ru/community/history/battles/rasejnyaj_battle <-----) It's from a gaming website so it might not be reliable, but there are already two reliable sources so one more somewhat unreliable source won't make a difference. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That isn't how sourcing is done here. If a source is not reliable, then it should not be used. The WoT article was duplicated by tankarchive, one of the refs already there. The second ref, to War History Online, appears more reliable, but I could not find more information about the author, Colin Fraser. Ref #3 from WW2Live is actually from RBTH here. RBTH is financed by RG which is Russian official, so there may be potential bias issues. Kges1901 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The fourth source isn't really necessary, so it doesn't really matter. We already have three, two of which are reliable. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick ce then put the dupe wikilink detector on. Does everyone here know that wikilinks are only used on the first mention of a linkable item? I didn't when I started either. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Wreck Smurfy here. As an Advanced Squad Leader player I'm familiar with this action. I have a copy of a very detailed scenario published around 1990 by one of the more respected authors in the community for historical accuracy. If this would be considered a published source (as I believe it should) I could work from this directly. Otherwise I could reach out to the author and ask for his source materials. I have read one other reasonably detailed account and several other works which mention the action more or less in passing, but can't remember exactly where just offhand.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Pardon my refactoring Wreck Smurfy. Thought this might get lost. Can you upload the detailed scenario to WikiSource, or, at the very least, generate a sort of 'citation'? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. Members here may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so potentially work done in any field would be recognized. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African military history articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles and might feel like a change working on some African historical battles and figures, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not important; I'll still try but I'm just going to ask: What are some of the prizes? All I could think of are barnstars. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The linked page mentions that a request has been put in to fund cash prizes ranging from twenty dollars (of which there would be many recipients) to two hundred dollars (of which there would be few recipients). MPS1992 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Interested editors might be able to find inspiration for articles to destub here: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

TfD: Pilot/Observer Badge with Diamonds

Template:Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland#Misconceptions

The whole section reads like an apologetic piece from some former member of the Polish Army.

1. The list of misconception itself: The first two are valid entries, popular stories making the rounds about his war specifically, the others are just tidbits about the war that should be addressed in the proper sections of the article. Or not at all in the case of the supposed quick surrender: The same is said after any surprisingly quick victory.
2. The horse bit reads a bit apologetic, but is fine. It's a bit mixed up and could be restructured a bit. (cavalry in Poland - cavalry elsewhere - instances during the war)
3. "Lost to all operational causes" sounds fishy. Was there a hurricane swapping planes out of the sky? Was the Luftwaffe (mostly unexperienced) losing a lot of planes to mechanic failures? Only shot down/damages planes matter here.
4. The section on the quick surrender sound especially apologetic. Why does the Romanian Bridgehead matter? I'm sure the Germans had a number of fine plans in the drawer that, when executed, would have won them the war. Only they weren't. It's history, not speculative fiction. The bit that Poland never surrended is a joke: Neither did Germany after the war. Polond stopped existing, there was nobody around in a position to sign any surrender notice, or to continue the war. The part that resistence continued is also misleading, that's apples and oranges. Accepting this definition of "war", most wars of the 20th century are still going on.
5. The section about Blitzkrieg belongs in Blitzkrieg, not here.

I think a section like this might be useful, if it's brought to WP standards.-62.156.151.10 (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Much better alternative to the horse section.-62.156.151.10 (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Another better description.-62.156.151.10 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I commented on this in the article's featured article review back in 2009, and agree that presenting this material in this way isn't really satisfactory. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@62.156.151.10: I'll tag it for POV, and see about fixing it later today. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: I wouldn't take this post too seriously considering the low-brow and highly partisan language of the IP: 62.156.151.10 from Deutsche Telekom AG, Germany, especially in Talk:Invasion of Poland. We don't know who the IP 62.156.151.1 is. The article needs work, but so does everything in Wikipedia. Perhaps the "invasion of Poland" is not the best place to promote the greatness of the Wehrmacht. I have no idea what kind of 'neutrality' you're looking for? The Invasion of Poland#Misconceptions is actually very well referenced (as oppose to sections mentioned by you at the Featured article review). The article needs to be improved for English grammar and clarity; however, the citations there originate from reputable English sources confirming the facts quoted. Historian R. J. Overy in his book The air war says: "Luftwaffe had lost 285 aircraft with 279 damaged against a loss of 333 Polish aircraft" (end of quote). Overy does not say that the Luftwaffe had lost those planes "to all operational causes..." Google search reveals that Overy never used this phrase in his book even once. Template WP:NPOV dispute is inappropriate. There's nothing "apologetic" about explaining the complex workings of a major historical event. Poeticbent talk 15:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Source cited: The air war, 1939-1945 by R. J. Overy, Stein & Day, 1980

Had a little tidy-up, the misconception section seems misconceived (ahem!) giving undue weight to matters better integrated into an Analysis section. A couple of books seem to have fallen off the bibliography, which had some authors out of order. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: I don't know who you are either, and alluding to where the IP geo-locates without engaging with their substantive criticisms is awful. I agree with Keith that to the extent that this material needs to be covered, it could easily be integrated into other sections rather than presenting a rather self-pitying and POV pushing agenda. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• This seems to be somewhat similar to a Criticism section, which should be avoided in most cases (see WP:CRIT essay). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is any POV it's the German one, both the horses vs. tanks and destroyed planes stories were spread during and after the war and both were false. German propaganda was and is powerful and accepted - as we can see here - by many people in the West, who despise everything Polish.

If the text will be moved to separate page German propaganda about the invasion many readers will not read it and they will still believe German propaganda. The German propaganda is based in Germany, in German books, German museum and universities, so yes, many German editors repeat their German stereotypes. We don't discuss the facts of 1939 war only but the propaganda description of the war, spread by Western historians who don't read Polish to understand Polish documents.

The Polish Army did relatively well comparing every other army till December 1941.

The problem of Blitzkrieg isn't anti or pro-Polish, it should be moved or removed.

The bit that Poland never surrended is a joke - that such opinion isn't rejected by allegedly neutral editors is a joke.

I believe that the text said that an equvalent of an armoured division had been destroyed, not a specific division. But yes, the quoted source Bekker, Cajus should be replaced by an academic one.

Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that German museums and universities are currently spreading anti-Polish propaganda is Germanophobic if anything. I guess there must be some grand, anti-Polish conspiracy in the Western academia.--Catlemur (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

My memory of the discussions which preceded the FAR was that the editors involved in the article preferred to see the article delisted from FA class than to remove or fix what multiple other editors were pointing out was not FA-standard material excusing away the Polish defeat. From the above conspiracy theory it looks like that the same attitude survives. I suggest removing this section outright. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. The misinformation about cavalry and planes on the ground are somewhat resilient and specific to this war, they should be mentioned. Since mentioning non-information in the article text might be awkward and misleading, an section seems to be the better choice.-192.166.53.201 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting: The German article contained a bit describing the superiority of the Luftwaffe, sourcing it to a dissertation from a German university. I've asked for better sources, let's see how this turns out...-192.166.53.201 (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Single source within the dissertation is a "unpublished study" of Göring's adjudant. Yeah, right.-192.166.53.201 (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Poeticbent, @Xx236: Thank you for your help! Your statements are evidence that the section as it currently stands is indeed much more than just information, it is propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia.

• I've seen some low blows on Wikipedia, but the partial dox is the quickest and lowest deterioration of a discussion I've seen. Completely unwarranted, even if I had nothing useful to say at all. You should be ashamed of yourself. (@Nick-D, thanks for your support. No thanks to anyone else who let this slip by.)
• The statement that I wanted to "promote the greatness of the Wehrmacht", as if all Germans want to do this, is either another sign of racial or national bigotry, or meant to be an insult. Which is it?
• I mentioned that the cavalry and the planes bits are "popular stories making the rounds about his war specifically". How is this turned around to the statement that Nazi propaganda is still "powerful and accepted", using my statement as evidence ("as we can see here")?
• The claim that modern German books and museums still spread Nazi propaganda is wrong and libelous.
• If there was still any doubt, my aborted quote about the surrender makes it clear that Xx236 has no interest in the truth. My remark was clarified in the very next sentences, which he left out.

AGF has limits, and I think we are past those limits. Both editors have not only shown their bigotry throughout their statements, but also their willingness to distort the truth to get their story in a WP article.-192.166.53.201 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Malta Convoys

Tidied and added citations and sources; perhaps interested readers would like to cast an eye with suggestions for improvements? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

PS, why does the campaignbox open automatically? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

ENS as Egyptian Navy ship name prefix

There is a discussion at Talk:Egyptian ship Gamal Abdel Nasser#Requested move 7 October 2016 regarding the validity of using ENS as the prefix in Egyptian Navy ship article titles. Comments there are welcome. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Malta Convoys

I've attempted a chart for MW 10 which is sort of OK but would be grateful for some scrutiny and suggestions. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Template for Deletion: Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr

FYI, Template:Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr and Bundesgrenzschutz has been nominated for deletion. The related discussion is here: Entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)