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 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 • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • 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 (148,141) • only work on referencing and citation (43,203) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,366) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,802) • work on structure (31,845) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,166) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,873) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (5) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (0) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (0) • task forces added (6) • attention to task force coverage (657)

MilHistBot issue

I'm not sure if this is a known issue or not, but I've come across several older A-Class articles where MilHistBot changed the class for multiple project banners, not just Milhist (example). My understanding is that since A-Class reviews are assigned at the project level, other project banners should not be labelled as such. –dlthewave ☎ 21:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a long-standing agreement, which I helped set up, between the Aviation and MilHist projects by which the former would accept the latter's A-Class assessments -- military aircraft being a subset of aircraft in general, if a MilHist ACR for an aircraft passed then there was no need to duplicate such a review under the Aviation banner. The same applies, and has done for even longer, to the MilHist and Ships projects. I'm thinking there's a similar arrangement between the Bio project and MilHist but I wasn't involved in that one so can't really speak to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The NZ and AU projects accept A-Class assessments from other projects, and the Milhist criteria is specifically referred to as examples here and here in discussing article quality. I haven't looked into it further but would expect that most other country projects have similar arrangements. Zawed (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you both for the insight, it makes more sense now. I would suggest documenting any reciprocal agreements on the A-Class Review page. It can be confusing when an A-Class article is delisted since it takes a bit of research to decipher which projects have actually performed an assessment. –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the Aviation (and other projects) and MilHist agreement fully reciprocal, i.e. does MilHist accept other projects' ACRs? I ask because MilHist has only recently mandated source reviews in its ACRs, and if Aviation et al does not... Factotem (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair question and good point. I think Aviation and MilHist did go both ways in theory, but in practice MilHist's ACR process was much more active and I doubt we ever had to accept an Aviation assessment (in fact last I looked the Aviation project as a whole wasn't very active). I have to admit I feel more comfortable with the idea of Milhist's assessments being accepted by other projects than the other way round, for precisely the reason you bring up. Given that A-Class is a project-specific assessment, we can't necessarily rely on the criteria being in sync. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian, do you know about when the arrangement with Aviation was set up? I'd like to formally record this in our assessment documentation if we can find the discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Fury 1991 is a WP:SOCK of User:Don Brunett, previously blocked for copyright

This is my judgment based upon very similar article editing patterns, and side comments such as "Most people do not have an understanding of the division and its capacities", referring to the 101st Airborne Division [1]. How do I file a SOCK report? This is a long-standing issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: G'day, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, click the drop down box titled "How to open an investigation", and follow the steps listed there. Evidence is very important, so you will need a few diffs that demonstrate similarities in terms of editing patterns, articles edited, peculiar wording etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

FAR Notice: Heinrich Bär

I have nominated Heinrich Bär for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No article about the Battle of Orange Walk

I recently learned about the Battle of Orange Walk which is commemorated each year on September 1 in Belize. I wanted to learn more about it, but surprisingly there is no Wikipedia article about it. It is mentioned in various other articles: 1872, British Honduras, History of Belize, and Caste War of Yucatán, but there is no detailed information. There are plenty of history blogs about it, usually skewing heavily towards either the Maya perspective (e.g. [2]) or the British perspective (e.g. [3]), and some books that discuss it. The most detailed account I found is in the book El bosque sitiado by Martha Herminia Villalobos González (which has lots of helpful footnotes). However, it is written in Spanish, so that may limit its usefulness. Kaldari (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We go back to notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The battle is certainly notable. It was a pivotal point in the Caste War and the early history of British Honduras. Here are some more sources:

• The History of the First West India Regiment, Alfred Burdon Ellis.
• Colonialism and Resistance in Belize, O. Nigel Bollard.

Bollard wrote the history section for the Belize Country Study, which gives this a page. The section speaks well for him. Qwirkle (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Belize: Tracking the Path of Its History, Johanna Mayr.
• Maya Wars, Terry Rugeley.
• Anthropology and History in Yucatan, Grant D. Jones.
• Confederate Settlements in British Honduras, Donald C. Simmonds. Jr.
• The Caste War of Yucatan, Nelson Reed.
• Yucatan’s Maya peasantry and the origins of the Caste War, Terry Rugeley.
• A History of Orange Walk Town, Belize, Charles Emond.

Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The question is not how many sources mention it, it is depth of coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The 1st book I mentioned, El bosque sitiado has a 10-page section about it. The 2nd book, The History of the First West India Regiment has an entire chapter about it. Shall I continue? Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

As you have identified and have access to the sources perhaps you should write it? Lyndaship (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is notable, but there is a question of finding suitably reliable sources. I've started a draft at User:Dumelow/Battle of Orange Walk if people want to pitch in. Sourcing at present is a bit archaic and primary for my liking but hopefully more useful sources will come to light - Dumelow (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It’s unfortunate, but Wiki is driven far more than it should be by easy online access to sources. Adding them, as above, improves the chance of an article surviving...although personally, I don’t see this as independently notable. Qwirkle (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the draft to mainspace (Battle of Orange Walk) - Dumelow (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Madeline Blair

Article brought over from the french Wikipedia about a stowaway hooker on USS Arizona. Was just added to Arizona's see also section. Thoughts? - wolf 01:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems trivial for USS Arizona, obviously not for Ms Blair. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? this seems to silly for words.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

All officers of the ship (that would be nearly 100 officers?!?) received official reprimands from an Admiral over the incident, and a number of enlisted men received sentences of up to 10 years imprisonment. Quite a substantial "flap", as the British would say, at the very least. MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Its even more "trivial" to have a stand alone article on her, per WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is so bad that it it is difficult to see, based on it, whether the topic deserves more than a (literal) footnote or not, but it certainly doesnt rise to “See Also”. Qwirkle (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggest one line mention in Arizona; no opinion on deletion discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Anything affecting so many ship's officers merits a mention on her page; agree the biopage is a bit overkill, since Blair isn't known for much else... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mentioned in a bio of Arleigh Burke [4] and Nofi's book about Fleet Problems. Seems significant enough for a one line mention in the Arizona article, but Blair is not independently notable. Kges1901 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Johann Mickl, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC on size of infobox at Syrian Civil War article

RFC can be found here. Shearonink (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"For the Fallen"

Hello all! I recently got the book Laurence Binyon: Poet, Scholar of East and West via an inter library loan, with the express intent to improve "For the Fallen" to a better quality. Unfortunately, as an American and not experienced with poetry matters, I don't think I can do it justice. If anyone wants me to scan the chapter and send it to them online to expand the article please let me know and I should be able to get it to them within a week. I'd like to get the article to FA, but do not know how to write a good poem article from scratch. Tks! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing everyone who ever got a DSC

Please chime in at Talk:Distinguished Service Cross (United States). Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

The article on Marcus Aurelius is currently going through an A-class review. One reviewer has noted a problem: the sourcing in the section of the article about the Antonine Plague. I have little knowledge about the plague, and I would appreciate any information that could be added. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this the same problem as a couple week ago? Seems your post got archived. There are ways you can prevent that, or at least put it off for awhile. I'm sure someone here can help with that. (do we just remove the time and date from fron "Vecochel"'s post? or use the {{subst:Do not archive until}} template?) - wolf 16:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thewolfchild, my post did get archived. Do you know of anyone who could help with the plague section in the article? Векочел (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also appreciate thoughts on my draft article Sons of Antiochus VIII. Векочел (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ship disambiguation

A discussion about ship disambiguation is taking place at WT:SHIPS. The discussion may affect some articles that fall under MILHIST. Input is invited from members of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Really bad article could use some eyeballs.

The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong. Sort of thing where strategic and tactical are used as synonyms and the M16 is a rifle(carbine). Undoubtedly some of New Journalism’s worst tendencies crept into it from the subject. I’ve cleared some of the crap out of it, but there’s a bit to go. Qwirkle (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead isn't even clear on what it is. A longform news article? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Some timeline templates proposed for deletion

It may interest some editors of this WikiProject to learn about some unused "Timeline"-themed templates that have been proposed for delete here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4#Unused_timeline_templates, eg {{Timeline of Islamic military history}}, {{Timeline of Xinhai Revolution}} and many more. I have a perspective about these templates, but thought some editors here might wish to know in case there's something worth saving.--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Richard III of England, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Updates to the Northrop Grumman Article

Hello, I'm Jan, an employee of Northrop Grumman, and I am interested in helping the Wikipedia community make relevant updates and improvements to the Northrop Grumman article. I will only post to discussion pages, refraining from making direct edits. Is there an editor with an interest in military history that would be willing to take a look at my requested updates on the Northrop Grumman Talk page and put them into effect? If you have any questions, feedback, or comments, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you! JanAtNorthropGrumman (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)