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 (148,288) • only work on referencing and citation (43,212) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,573) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,862) • work on structure (31,856) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,165) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,899) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (7) • 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)

HMS Sceptre (1917)

An unsourced claim that HMS Sceptre (1917) shot down a Zeppelin on 17 July 1917 has been in the article since it was created in 2004. I cannot find any source for this apart from Wikipedia mirrors or other online sources where the text appears to have been copied from here - certainly it isn't in the official history. Has anyone any decent source for this or should the statement be removed?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Certainly seems dubious. The National Maritime Museum mentions it in relation to a painting of Sceptre and the Royal Naval Association on their page about the modern nuclear submarine but they are passing mentions and it's not inconceivable that they got it from us. There seems to be pretty good records relating to the fate of the zeppelins online but I found no reference to any lost in July 1917 - Dumelow (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The wording on the National Maritime Museum page looks in parts suspiciously like the wikipage, with things like "'Sceptre' saw action as part of Admiral David Beatty's force, primarily employed in convoy escort and patrol duty in the North Sea and Atlantic" comparing with "Sceptre saw action as part of Admiral David Beatty's force, primarily employed in convoy escort and patrol duty in the North Sea and Atlantic."Nigel Ish (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the dubious text, along with more unsourced stuff about trial speeds and simply wrong information about the ship being part of David Beatty's force (which was the Grand Fleet) rather than being a member of the Harwich Force as supported by sources like Navy Lists and the official history.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The date quoted for the Zeppelin incident on some web pages like this one is 17 July 1917, which matches the loss of Zeppelin LZ 95 (L 48) which crashed at Theberton in Suffolk. It was attacked separately by four British aircraft, including Captain R.H.M.S Saundby in an Airco DH.2 who was awarded the Military Cross for his part in it. This wasn't too far away from Harwich, so perhaps Sceptre took some potshots as it passed, but I can't find any confirmation of it. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Cole and Cheeseman's The Air Defence of Britain 1914–1918 (Putnam, 1984) L 48 was shot down on the night of 16/17 June 1917. Cole and Cheeseman do not mention any involvement of ships in the shooting down, just the four aircraft, three of which claimed to be solely responsible for the Zeppelin's destruction. H.A. Jones in The War in the Air: volume 5 mentions accurate anti-aircraft fire from Harwich, but as L48 was at a height of ~17000 ft at the time and Sceptre' anti-aircraft armament consisted of a pom-pom, it's not really credible that the destroyer shot it down (and if Sceptre did claim to have done so, surely someone would have recorded it, after all, everybody else's claims were recorded.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Quite so, but at least we have identified the suspect and eliminated it from our inquiries. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification of new essay - Wikipedia:Casualty lists

Closing an RfC at Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting#Naming the victims, I became aware of the recent creation of the subject essay. I made this notification following the close:

I note the recent creation of the essay Wikipedia:Casualty lists. This edit by the essay's creator, Locke Cole, states: victim lists [link added] implies the issue only applies to attack events (shootings) where casualties can apply to really any event where some people are killed (deliberately or not). The term casualties clearly has applicability to military history. I am making a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to inform the project of the essay's creation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

For your information. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see RFC about potential confusion for Air University vs. Civil Air Patrol

Please see Talk:Civil Air Patrol#RFC: Should the word "university" be used in connection with education provided by the Civil Air Patrol?

Jc3s5h (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Milhist banner query

G'day all, it has been years since I looked at this, and cannot see what is going on here. If you look at Talk:Battle of Calais you will see in our banner a redlink for "passed" an A-Class review. The article history is fine, and the reason is probably something to do with the fact that the article has been moved since its ACR, but what is the fix? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There's currently no work around in the Template code; it shouldn't be too complicated to implement something by adding a field like |oldtitle=, and setting it up in the code. Alternatively, we could move the A-class review page itself. Harrias ^talk 06:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, most of this was written by Kirill Lokshin, he might have an answer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Calais as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Calais (1349), so it now appears as a blue link in the banner. Harrias ^talk 08:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, that rings a bell. There are a few others, I'll do the same. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks guys. If, and it may be a big if, Battle of Calais passes its FAC in the next few days, is that going to cause any new problems? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn't think so. Harrias ^talk 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, we've normally just moved the review subpage or created a redirect from the new name, as Harrias has done; it's not something that occurs very often, so I think that's easier (and less error-prone) than recoding the banner to allow people to override the title, especially if an article goes through multiple names over its lifetime. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to have a hatnote directing readers to the Siege of Calais disambiguation page? My first thought when I saw "Battle of Calais" was the 1940 one. Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military unit discussion

There is an RfC on the use of the native name field in the Infobox military unit template happening at Template talk:Infobox military unit#RfC on the usage of native name field. Feel free to chime in there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Help needed

If anyone can work out what is wrong with the Milhist banner on Talk:Battle of Hampton Roads I'll buy you a virtual beer. I've been mucking around with it, but can't work out why it is in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging, which is otherwise cleared out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if you have already tried this Peacemaker67, but the portal link to war, that displays Selected is a redlink, meaning no subarticle exists at Portal:War/Selected article/10. So if you click on a selected or featured article link on a talk page such as Talk:Ivan Bagramyan,the word selected is a blue link. Could possibly be it? Maybe, maybe not? Good luck with the solution. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That could be it, but I'm at a loss as to what the alternative target would be. I've asked at Portal talk:War. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it. With this edit Gog the Mild removed |portal1-name=United States Navy and mistakenly |portal2-link=Featured article/19, rather than |portal1-link=Selected article/10. "Selected article/10" referred to the United States Navy portal, not the War portal. All sorted now. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Gah! Apologies all. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Meh, easily done, particularly when mass editing. It's not like it majorly broke anything, so no real harm done. Harrias ^talk 07:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias, the category is now (temporarily) empty and your virtual beer is waiting. Gog, I did something similar today while deleting old portals, a common problem while gnoming. Sometimes I don't even know exactly what it is that I did that fixed a given problem... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

WASP notability

I notice that the women in red project is creating articles on WASP aviators but I am not sure that most of them are not particularly noteworthy. An example Gwendolyne Cowart created this week, she did some good stuff ferrying aircraft around not unlike the other 1000 wasps but I dont see anything outstanding. A lot of these article shows she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal but it was a collective award and not actually awarded to individuals. I didnt want to prod some of these articles without some other opinions because we dont want to discourage the WIR project which is doing some good stuff but do they really meet mil his notability guidelines ? MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the day, they have to meet GNG, which is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Whether they meet SOLDIER is neither here nor there, and to be fair, SOLDIER is naturally skewed to favour men over women due to men's dominance of senior and combat roles at the time. Cowart as the "youngest woman to get a commercial pilot's licence in the South" is a pretty major achievement on its own, especially for that era. I think the main source is an online version of a newspaper in a city of 300,000, so it should be ok on face value. Perhaps it is a little light-on, but I wouldn't be prodding it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, as an aside I have never really been keen on achievements like "youngest woman to get a commercial pilot's licence in the South" although I cant see the reference, it begs the question to us non-American readers what the "South" is and why it is important, and who was the youngest in the North! MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, I agree with Peacemaker that Cowart looks to have received enough coverage in the media to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Like all bio (military history) articles, they have to be looked at, one at a time. I would rate this one a "Weak Keep". Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Blackburn

This ACR of a rather fine article could do with another review and with someone running their eyes over the sourcing, if anyone fancies it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

USS Harrisburg

I created USS Harrisburg (LPD-30) given that ship was named today. As admittedly military and ship articles are not my prime area of expertise, leaving a note here for anybody who wants to take a look and tidy it up. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

1959 San Diego F3H crash

The article 1959 San Diego F3H crash has been created on an accident which may have hit things and killed sombody, but like thousands of such accidents it didnt, one question is that the pilot was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal would this be enough to pass the notability threshold for the accident. thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

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: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I posted on the talk page of Gregory_A._Feest, but no response. The article seems to be copied entirely from a military website. Is this standard practice? Daundelin❁ 20:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)