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) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu • Sabuktigin • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I • Sam Manekshaw Featured article review Edward III of England • 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 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Kōka ikki • 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 Good article reassessments Lockheed YF-22 • Galatian War Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,402) • only work on referencing and citation (43,150) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,516) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,641) • work on structure (31,788) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,185) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,754) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (13) • assessment as lists (123) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (13) • assessment checklists completed (34) • task forces added (291) • attention to task force coverage (679)

RFC: 1st Division, 1st Armoured Division, 1st Infantry Division (UK)

Which of the following histories of British divisions indicated as "1st" should be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A.

• 1st Division (1809–1814) > 1st Division (1815) > 1st Division (1854–1856) > 1st Division (multiple points through late 1800s on and off) > 1st Division (1899–1900) > 1st Division (1902-1918, division renamed Western Division in Germany) > 1st Division (1919, division reformed in England-until renamed) > 1st Infantry Division (at least 1939 - until 1950s) > 1st Division (1950s-1960, when disbanded in England) > 1st Division (1960 division reformed in Germany–mid 70s) > 1st Armoured Division (mid-70s–1993 and disbanded) > 1st (UK) Armoured Division (1993–2014) > 1st (UK) Division (2014-present)
• 1st Armoured Divison (1937-1945) and then another 1st Armoured Division (1947)

B.

• 1st Division (1809–1814) > 1st Division (1815) > 1st Division (1854–1856) > 1st Division (multiple points through late 1800s on and off) > 1st Division (1899–1900) > 1st Division (1902-1918)> 1st Division (1919-until renamed) 1st Infantry Division (-until 1960, existed simultaneously with 1st Armoured Division during Second World War.) Last confirmed existence 1960.
• 1st Division (1960–1976) possibly aligned with 1st Infantry Division (all divisions infantry unless specified otherwise, would be the reasoning).
• 1st Armoured Division: 1937-1945, existed simultaneously with 1st Infantry Division; 1947, 1976-2014 with a brief consolidation/amalgamation in 1993, lost its armoured character in July 2014 as became a headquarters for light brigades, but retained the lineage, especially visible in parenting former 4th and 7th Armoured Brigades. Continues in existence.

Instructions Enter A or B, with a brief statement, in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion section.

Supporting Case for A

• The division itself:

  Twitter post stating the division celebrated Peninsular Day, when it was founded in 1809. Not just a birthday tweet, the divisional headquarter staff attended a service.

  Wilson, P (1985) The First Division 1809-1985: A Short Illustrated History, 1st Armoured Division, Viersen

  Wilson, P (1993?) The First Division 1809-1993: An Illustrated History (2nd Edition), 1st Division, Hereford?

• The British Army's website has claimed for, at least 20-years, that the current division was founded in 1809:

  Current version

  2007 version the website, as referenced on the article's talkpage at the time

  2001 version of the website, which is the oldest available that I have found. This also makes a claim of a link with Germany, based off the division containing German troops in the 19th Century

• NATO's Allied Rapid Reaction Corps website:

  Stated the division, when based in Germany, has a history stretching back to 1809. It also noted the amalgamation of the 1st Infantry and 1st Armoured Division's insignia into its current form

• Imperial War Museum:

  Explains the insignia used by the 1st Infantry Division was used post-war by the 1st Division, including when it was part of BAOR

  Explains that the 1st Division insignia was maintained through to the 80s. After the division was renamed the 1st Armoured Division, the GOC adopted the 1st Armoured Division insignia but merged it with the 1st Division's existing insignia to create the current blended design

• Army Notes, Royal United Services Institution journal:

  States that that the 1st Division was disbanded in the UK in June 1960, the title was transferred to be used within BAOR, and the 5th Division was renamed 1st Division

• The London Gazette:

  Gregson was appointed Maj-Gen of 1 Infantry Division in 1955

  Gregson relinquishes 1 Division in 1959, Hobbs appointed to command of 1 Division This also presents evidence that the 1st Infantry Division dropped the "infantry" part of the title at some point between 55–59.

  Hobbs relinquishes command of 1 Division in June 1960, and Jolly takes command of 1 Division in July Per Army Notes, for example, this highlights Hobbs as being the final commander of 1st Division in England, and Jolly as the first commander of the 1st Division on reforming in Germany.

• Various secondary sources that reference the division reforming and not distinguishing between two different formations:

  Lord and Watson, The Royal Corps of Signals, p. 25, no distinction made between the formation before 1960 and thereafter

  Watson and Rinaldi, The British Army in Germany: An Organizational History 1947-2004, a self-published source/does not meet WP:RS, does not distinguish between the pre June 1960 formation and the one formed in July 1960

  McNish, Messenger, Bray (2000), Iron Division: The History of the 3rd Division 1809-2000, p. 151: references the 1st Division as being reformed in Germany, after the 3rd Division took over their role in the UK.

• Colin Mackie:

  List of commanding officers from 1902 to present Mackie, while his work is unsourced and would not be used in the article, has been recognized for the lists he compiles. He lists the commanding officers for the 1st Division from 1902 to present (1st Div, 1st Inf, 1st Div, 1st Arm, 1st (UK)). Commanding officers of the 1st Armoured Division (1937-1947) are listed separately.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Supporting Case for B

• Charles Heyman

  Heyman is a defense analyst and a retired British Army major. His regularly updated guide on the British Army (example) and websites associated with him, state that the current division was formed in 1940. This argument has been made since as far back as at least the 1997/8 edition of his work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• I've been hesitant to participate in this, given that this is very far from my domain of expertise, but decided to finally throw in my two cents given that nobody else seems to be chiming in. While I can't make sense of the complete lineage, the fact that both the division itself and the British Army in general state rather unambiguously that the 1st (UK) Division's lineage goes back to 1809 speaks rather strongly against B. At the same time, I can't really make sense of the BAOR era stuff, which means that I'm not certain that A is completely correct either. So I guess my !vote is not B, if you'll allow such a weird hedging? -Ljleppan (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the feedback. I am sure we can look at other options as well as A and B above, if we can entice more comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I would argue that not only do the sources not support the status quo, they (while acknowledging that the likes of the self-published would not be used in the articles) outright state the current division is in a lineage with the one formed in 1809. A variety of sources discuss the 1st Infantry Division/1st Division and the current formation as the same entity.

I apologize for any potential 'short hand' descriptions or interpretations of the above sources, and ask that editors read them to see what they say.

I note that in 1942, the 1st Division was converted into a mixed division: a concept to try and find a middle ground between infantry and armor. When reformed in July 1960, the formation controlled armoured formations before the name subsequent name change to "armoured division". The current formation now controls only infantry brigades.

I highlight that several of the sources above, and additional sources not cited, contradict several points made by Heyman. Per Joslen, the compiler of the official order of battle for the British Army during the Second World War, we know that the 1st Armoured Division existed prior to 1940 (it was just renamed that year). Joslen also informs us that this division was disbanded in 1945. Heyman states it carried on existing. He does not explain/discuss the Cold War period, does not support the 1st (UK) Division being formed in 1960 or the 1st Infantry Division/1st Division ceasing to exist in 1960 etc. I understand, per wiki policy, that we are not here to interpret the sources and rather just indicate what they state. I would argue that the rest of the sources outweigh this one. I would also conceded that changes to article should include this opposing perspective in a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, EnigmaMcmxc clearly Heyman is far more concerned with *right now* and didn't do his homework re 1940 etc!!

It's the two divisional histories produced by the division itself that are the most authoritative sources offered here. Without the ability to actually read them and to see whether (a) they present the division's history as a history of a single, not two separate formations (which would be hard since two separate entities definitely existed during World War II!!) or (b) a history of all the '1st Divisions' between 1809 and the late 1980s, we must go on the evidence of the titles alone, which clearly imply a single formation (despite the World War II anomaly!! again, staff officers are generally focused on the right-now and near future to the near total exclusion of all else).

So, for the moment, I withdraw my objections to the inclusion of a template claiming descent from both 1AD and 1ID to the present division in the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article. That may change if anyone gets to the IWM and manages to read both div histories, which we would should do at some point anyway for completeness. But that whole sweep from 1809 is a bit too broad for a single article, and the 1800s temporary formations have never been strongly associated with the 20th-century divisions by secondary sources. Thus I will go ahead with my delayed split out of 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), with its wartime history and 1977-2014 period, and participate as appropriate in summarisation of that history at 1st (United Kingdom) Division. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best until the RFC process has came to a conclusion before either of us make any changes to the various articles. For example, I would argue that the 1977-2014 period should not be included on the 1st Armoured Division article as that period is still relevant to the 1st Division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought I *was* concluding the RfC process, but, as you wish. It's a bit inarguable to include the 1st Armoured Division material in the 1st Armoured Division article as it's the same titled division with the same insignia!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the process is, since we disagree on a couple of points, it would be best to garner more thoughts on how best to proceed. I think if we do not end up with any additional input, we could start making changes. Although, it seems we will still butt heads over some of the nuances that may end up requiring further consensus building.

At the moment, based off the variety of things I have read, I feel that the Cold War 1st Armoured Division is kind of like Facebook/Meta. Its the same thing as the Cold War 1st Division, regardless of the name and insignia changes, so should be in the same article as the 1st Division. Yet, I do believe we need a cut-off so that the 1st Infantry Division article can be used as a "history of" article and cover the founding through to some undetermined point after the Second World War, where the 1 (UK) Div article can pick up and discuss things like the Gulf War etc. That would leave the 1st Arm Div article to solely focus on the 37-45 formation, with a special mention for the 6th Arm Div being renamed the 1st for a short while in '47 (no ideas on if they kept the 6th Arm Div insignia or if they switched to the 1st).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As I have said above, I disagree fundamentally with most of these points. The 1st Armoured Division existed from 1937-47 and in 1978-2014; the 1st Infantry Division has a clear, unchallenged, and separate existence from the time the Mobile Division was renamed 1st Armoured to sometime after 1955, depending on exact dates which are in the 'British Army in Germany Organizational History' book; and I would not support any changes to those articles along those lines.

1st (United Kingdom) Division, as I said above, can have a template claiming descent from both 1ID and 1AD, until the histories in IWM are verified; I fundamentally oppose any further changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Which is the whole purpose of attempting to garner further consensus, and hopefully at some point additional editors can chime in so we can build a consensus on how the articles look.

Watson and Rinaldi, while it would pose a challenge to use moving through the various review steps due to the self-published nature, state that the 1st Infantry Division (the Gazette, for example, implies there was a name change before that year to just 1st Division) was disbanded in June 1960 and then reformed by in July 1960 when the 5th Division was renamed (p.25). It states that the 1st Division was retitled as the 1st Armoured Division in 1977 (p. 74): "Towards the end of the decade, BAOR underwent a major restructuring ... The three divisions ... disappeared, reorganized into four divisions ... 1st and 4th Divisions became 1st and 4th Armoured Divisions ... in 1977". It does not state that it is a reformation of the 1937–1945 division, and the only implied connection is the adoption (in the 80s) of the charging rhino.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the 1st Infantry Division's confirmed existence ends in 1960 (maybe not 1958, should have read W&R more closely). Then 1st Division, which cannot be definitively ascribed to either Inf nor Armd, but if there's no descriptor, all divisions are infantry, is the rule (one would place the text in the 1ID article, without trying to make hard and fast claims beyond the sources). 1st Armoured Division 1937-late 1940s, reformed 1977, existed to 2014. I did know about the 3->4 division reorganisation in 1977-78, the British end of experiment with 'small' divisions, from the time I first got hold of Armies of NATO's Central Front in the early 1990s, and AONCF is quoted all over the place here because I've copied the references in. W&R make not one single statement about division lineages at all, through the entire work, so absence of any comment means nothing. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I have asked on the resource exchange to see if anyone can access the The First Division 1809-1993: An Illustrated History (2nd ed.). Per the OCLC, there is only one public copy and it is in a library in London.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944

Hi, I'm a graphic worker and I have been working on this request Map of the 4th Ukrainian Front advance during the Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944 which was requested by Kges1901. Unfortunately I lost contact with him so the request is not complete. At the time when I lost contact we were working on day 6 out of 8 so it's pretty close. It's one file for each day in SVG.
When requested it was intended for this article here Nikopol–Krivoi_Rog_offensive.
I would really like to complete it as there is a lot of time and effort invested in it both from the requester and me.

So I'm asking if there is anyone here that has the knowledge and possibility to work with me and help completing and finish those maps. It would really mean a lot for me and hopefully also for that article.
 --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hallo,

Is here really no one that could help me out with this. This is a draft of Day-1 so you can see how extensive the maps are. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

US Army Women's Foundation Hall of Fame

G'day all, this has been brought to our attention by the great team over at Women in Red. If you are interested, have a look and think about contributing to an article or two. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Fornovo

Can anyone see what I've done wrong here?

• Theotokis, Georgios; Yıldız, Aysel, eds. (2018). A Military History of the Mediterranean Sea: Aspects of War, Diplomacy, and Military Elites. History of Warfare (118) (e-book ed.). Leiden/Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-36204-8.
  • Birtachas, Stathis. "Stradioti, Cappelletti, Compagnie or Milizie Greche: 'Greek' Mounted and Foot Troops in the Venetian State (Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries)". In Theotokis & Yildiz (2018).

I'm getting harvc error no target. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yildiz is not the same as Yıldız.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahem! Thanks for that....Keith-264 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesian mission in Lisbon Featured article review

I have nominated Rhodesian mission in Lisbon 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesia-related article and WP:FARGIVEN

Several Rhodesia- and military history-related featured articles have been determined to have been problematic with sources used. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roy Welensky/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ian Smith/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence/archive1. Would some editors familiar with African history/Rhodesia be able to look at the sources for Shangani Patrol and William Harper (Rhodesian politician), which have been listed as potentially needing featured article review for almost a year and half, as well as the Rhodesian mission in Lisbon FAR listing in SandyGeorgia's post above? Hog Farm _Talk 07:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Categories by specific rank

Should we categorise military officers by their specific rank? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Category:Royal Air Force wing commanders and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Category:Royal Air Force squadron leaders. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It is probably a bit fruitless, since an individual tends to rise through the ranks and may well be notable for holding a lesser rank than their ultimate rank, though a bio would give their ultimate rank. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I too think it would be a pointless exercise, often senior soldiers are promoted immediately prior to their retirement, or in some cases after. Cavalryman (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC).

Article creations by globally locked sock account

About 200 articles, mostly biographies of Italian military men, were created by now globally locked account Jannizzero1 (talk · contribs). A list of these articles may be found here. Not sure what, if anything, needs to be done about this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Despite being on the receiving end of Jannizzero1 and their IPs harassment/disruptive editing, I would petition that these articles be judged along the lines of notability, using reliable sources and ensuring WP:NOR, and not because Jannizzero1 was a sock. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

British Army Future Soldier re-organization

On 25 November the British Army released a brochure with its future organization: Future Soldier Guide (pdf). Here is the full organization at the end of the reform in 2025-27 copied/edited into wiki format: User:Noclador/sandbox/British Army Future Soldier 2021. Here below follow the graphics. My question is: where to insert this information? New article? Overwriting the existing Structure of the British Army article? Or? Also: how to cite it properly? It's based on one document and I would like to add the pages in the document to each of the divisions/brigades/groups without having to cite the whole url/title/publisher stuff every time. Thanks, noclador (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

British Army

• 
  1st (UK) Division
• 
  3rd (UK) Division
• 
  Field Army Troops

Question: Could the existing information not be moved into its own article? Something like, structure of the British Army between X and X? That way there is no complete overwrite, and the information is still available.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is as it might turn out to be, not as it is. As such detail if anything belongs in an article on the future of British Army and the current structure should only mention a summary of the planned changes. Verifiability requires proper citing. If a single document covers the full structure then it is sufficient to use that cite repeatedly. But it does need proper citing to page numbers etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Cited all the page numbers for the units. An article Future of the British Army redirects to the never fully implemented Army 2020 Refine reform. I think an article titled Future organization of the British Army or Future Soldier reform of the British Army would be better. noclador (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Create Future Soldier (British Army) (short and to the point), and get Future of the British Army deleted (there'll be another review or reform coming along in a few years) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Created: Future Soldier (British Army). Editing it now to remove red links and include the graphics. Also: I saw there is Future Soldier (United Kingdom) and proposed to merge it into Future Soldier (British Army). noclador (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the discussion, but check some of the mil symbology in the Land Warfare Centre, some infantry and engineer units seem to have opposite symbology. Cavalryman (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

Oops! Thank you Cavalryman for spotting these errors. Fixed them. noclador (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A-class reviews needing a little bit of input

A couple of current A-class reviews need only final checks to pass:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty - needs image and source reviews
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Berlin (Atlantic) (my nomination) - needs a source review

Most of the other current ACRs only need one or two extra prose reviews to pass. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Article on Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force sent to draft space

See Draft:Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force which was an article created by HumCoArchivist, but on 28 November 2021 was moved to draft space by Mccapra.

I thought about providing citations so this article could be moved back to main space, but I was concerned about whether an organization this small was notable enough for an article. I reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It certainly is national in scope, but it would hard to find independent reliable sources that would write about CAP-USAF. Perhaps the members of this project have a better understanding of the notability, or lack thereof, for small military units. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Military history of Italy during World War I

Hello, this article is unusually short, given the depth in related articles. Please have a look at it. --190.99.107.218 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2021 are open!

Military historian of the year 2021

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2021 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2021. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2021. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2021 are open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2021

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2021 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2021. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2021. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~