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 (147,400) • only work on referencing and citation (43,150) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,514) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,641) • work on structure (31,787) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,184) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,753) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (11) • assessment as lists (123) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (12) • assessment checklists completed (33) • task forces added (291) • attention to task force coverage (679)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

• OK, I'll kick this off. Hog Farm continues to make significant contributions to our coverage of the ACW. In 2021 he has received three A-Class medals, so at least nine A-Class articles, and many more GAs, and is everywhere. A stellar year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Hog Farm for being civil, pleasant in conversation, supportive, and highly competent. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi Vami_IV, you might want to vote below? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Gog the Mild, for a tremendous output of GA, A, and FA articles across a range of subjects. Finds time to be a Milhist co-ordinator and a FA delegate as well. Zawed (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• EnigmaMcmxc - Many A and FL articles about British divisions. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Zawed - prolific content work, primarily with New Zealand military figures. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Dumelow - An excellent assortment of DYK content. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67 - Among many contributions to the project, the ones to WP:BORA (WWII in Yugoslavia) alone warrant recognition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Nick-D: In 2021, Nick has successfully taken at least six Milhist articles through ACR this year on a variety of topics including military procurement projects, naval operations and a land battle in Normandy. Additionally, he took five articles to FAC. In addition, Nick has been a consistent reviewer at peer review, GAN, ACR, FLC, FAR, and FAC, has contributed as a Milhist co-ord emeritus, editor of the monthly Milhist newsletter, and in an administrator capacity. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7: In 2021, Hawkeye has continued to contribute quality articles, successfully taking nine through Milhist ACR on topics including logistics during World War II, nuclear weapons, military operations, space shuttles and policy debates/disputes. In addition, he has also taken at least seven Milhist articles successfully through FAC this year. Hawkeye has continued to contribute as a reviewer at GAN, ACR, FLC and FAC, as a project co-ord and operator of Milhistbot. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Rickfive, the man, the myth, the legend! Rickfive is done amazing work (especially this year). He started off with the Royal Corps of Signals, and finished with the Royal Artillery. He's not only considerably helped myself, but has made numerous improvements to former pages, and always has something innovative to add up his sleeve. I hereby nominate the amazing Sir Rickfive. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Good nomination, however, can I suggest moving this nom up to Military Historian of the Year section rather than here? Rickfive isn't technically a Milhist newcomer, IMO, as they have been editing Milhist topics since 2007. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2021.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm

1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Absolutely, per my nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Zawed (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

1. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Hard to go past. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Zawed (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Zawed

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Dumelow

1. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)
3. StickyWicket (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67

1. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D

1. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Kierzek (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
3. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
6. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
7. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Rickfive

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~
• Ljleppan, doing fine work in relation to Finnish military history. Zawed (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Argh, you beat me to nomming Ljleppan. I support Ljleppan for the same reasons I gave him the WikiChevrons a while back: Ljleppan does excellent work, is open to criticism and advice, is civil, clear-eyed, and is very dependable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe, significant work in British Navy history. Hog Farm _Talk 07:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

And thorough and insightful reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist: joined November 2020, contributed to a large expansion of Yeoman (United States Navy) and a couple of other related articles; contributions stop at March, unfortunately, but hopefully this nomination might encourage them to continue editing. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• KiwiSpike1: active since 3 January 2021, working on several articles related to the Royal New Zealand Navy; contributions unfortunately stop at March, but hopefully this nomination might encourage them to continue editing. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2021.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ljleppan

1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
2. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
5. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
6. FredModulars (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
7. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
8. Zawed (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
9. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
10. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Kierzek (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
7. Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
8. Zawed (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
9. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
10. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

KiwiSpike1

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Specific meaning of Battles involving X (country name)

Hi, I have a question about Category:Battles by country.
What is the specific meaning of Battles involving X (country name)?

I guessed 3 meanings of involving. For example, Category:Battles involving South Korea.

(1) Battles took place in South Korea territory.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.
- We can not classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.

(2) Battles carried out by South Korea armed forces.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.
- We can not classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.

(3) Battles took place in South Korea territory and Battles carried out by South Korea armed forces
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.

If meaning of involving is (3), I think scope of classification is ambiguous and wide. Footwiks (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The scope of the classification does men "3". One only needs to look at the sub-categories for South Korea. I see no problem given the clarification inherent in the the sub-categorisation in the particular example. Any other example can be resolved by sub-categorisation in much the same way (if it isn't already). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Footwiks. If it were up to me, I'd split all these "involving X" battle categories into "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X". (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That's what I meant to say! I think we chose the wrong scope of the classification in the early days of wikipedia. if possible, I hope that we rearrange category - "involving X" battle categories into "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X".Footwiks (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As something to consider: For "Battles involving Germany", it's quite clear to me that for cases where "Germany" is used in the locale sense, we're talking about the contemporary borders, i.e. I read it as "Contemporary Germany was involved as either the location or one of the combatants" But for "Battles in Germany", I'd be less clear whether we are talking about contemporaneous or modern-day borders or both. Admittedly, I'm a non-native speaker of English so this might be just an idiosyncrasy of mine. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the ambiguity is present in both formulations. I would support assigning the meaning "what the borders of Germany were at the time" to both. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Most country naem have similar territory issue - (Germany means contemporaneous or modern-day borders, China means contemporaneous or modern-day borders.)

But I think this is a side issue. Current category - Battles involving X (country name) is too comprehensive. We have to narrow scope of current category. I have a good idea.
We keep current categories - Battles involving X (country name) and then We created 2 subcategories - "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X" and subdivide the current category
For example
Category:Battles involving South Korea
- Category:Battles in South Korea
- Category:Battles fought by armed forces of South Korea
Category:Battles involving the United States
- Category:Battles in the United States
- Category:Battles fought by armed forces of the United States
What do you think of this idea? Footwiks (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, but I'd phrase the latter subcategories as "Battles involving armed forces of X" to preempt weirdness related to, say, a hypothetical peacekeeper force getting stuck between two more active combatants or something like that. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope that native speaker user polish belows category names convey the same meaning

Category:Battles took place in X country territory.
Category:Battles carried out b yarmed forces of X.
Footwiks (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Any body with a copy of Anderson handy pls

Hi, does anybody have a copy of Anderson handy that you could check at p25 and the date that B Coy 39th Bn arrived at Kokoda. Sources consistently say 15 July but for some reason, I have said (quoting Anderson) 14 July at Invasion of Buna–Gona. This is clearly wrong. I just want to check if it is my error or Andersons. Hawkeye7?

• Anderson, Nicholas (2014). To Kokoda. Australian Army Campaigns Series – 14. Sydney, New South Wales: Big Sky Publishing.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: G'day, I have a copy. I think the relevant paragraph is: "B Company, led by Captain Sam Templeton, was the first sent across the Kokoda Trail to implement the battalion's orders. The men left a staging post at Uberi on 8 July with Kienzle guiding them, and arrived in Kokoda on 14 July". Does that help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert, best wishes. I am pretty certain that Anderson has made a mistake. Brune and McCarthy both give 15 July. I could go back to the NGF war diary. Any thoughts? Have you seen the recent edits at Invasion of Buna–Gona and Battle of Buna–Gona? I have some concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

G'day, it doesn't hurt to check the War Diary, but ultimately I would suggest dealing with the discrepancy between Anderson, Brune and McCarthy with a note as all would be considered RS. I personally probably would try to avoid citing Teague until it can be determined whether or not it is considered an RS. What are his credentials, what is the editorial policy of the website for instance? Anyway, probably best to outline your concerns on the talk pages of the individual articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, the war diaries of both the 39th Bn and 30th Bde give 14 July, so my apologies to Anderson. Yes, I guess I should take my own advice (per Hog Farm above) but the diaries are definitive. I will have to work on it since it affects a couple of articles and it will be one of those complicated notes. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

PS, I'm curios as to what Williams says, if anybody has him handy.

• Williams, Peter (2012). The Kokoda Campaign 1942: Myth and Reality. Melbourne, Victoria: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-10701-594-4.

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

G'day, unfortunately, I only have a photocopy of one chapter of that book and it isn't the relevant chapter, I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I only have an electronic copy; the book is inaccessible at the moment. I can't find anything in Williams about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a hard copy - please ping me if you need anything checked. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all and many thanks. I was able to get my hands on the hard copy. Williams avoids the matter in that his narrative does not touch on how the 39th came to be at Kokoda or when (as far as I can see). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert, could you have a look at Anderson again (probably p25). B Coy departed Ilolo to Uberi on 7 July and Uberi on 8 July. Uberi/Ower's Corner is considered the start of the track. McCarthy and the war diaries are consistent with that. The Teague source says they started on 7 July but it is really a case of where they were considered to have started from. I was just wondering what detail Anderson gave re their departure (from where and when). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: G'day, prior to the paragraph on p. 25 about B Coy departing the staging post at Uberi (on 8 July, according to Anderson), Anderson provides that the full battalion was in a "reserve area within the Port Moresby defences" around 24 June. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Everbody is in agreement on when they left either Ilolo or Uberi except for Teague, who desn't say. Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas from sunny Australia! I hope that all members of the project are able to enjoy a good Christmas and a break over the holiday season, albeit in less than ideal circumstances in many places. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! Merry Christmas (or whatever other celebration floats your boat) everyone! Let's hope for a better 2022! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all from me as well ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Tis the season of surplus gift money for new books with which to write Wikipedia articles. At least, that's how I like to see it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

+1 to Indy's book money comment, I've ordered a couple myself today. Hog Farm _Talk 22:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This is true. Happy Boxing Day book sales everyone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Sunny is a relative term for such a big place but let's not let the damp dampen the spirit (some of us need it). :) Best to all. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

WTS

Is there anyone who has an interest in helping with the cleanup needed at William Tecumseh Sherman per the problems laid out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1#FARC break and on the talk page of that FAR ? Hog Farm and I have done a lot of work, but there is much more to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Post-RfC cleanup?

Hi y'all. Since the WP:RSN RfC regarding theaerodrome.com was recently closed with a consensus of "generally unreliable", something should probably be done about the 1639 articles referencing it (including at least one FA-class article with an indirect reference). At the same time, it's not quite obvious to me what the proper next step is. To wit, any suggestions from the more experienced Wikipedians? -Ljleppan (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

One way of less intrusively diagnosing this problem is to tag all instances of it used as a citation with a "better source needed" tag (see Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup). In instances where it is used marginally or the claim seems out of step with everything else, wholesale removal of the citation and the info it purports to support is probably fine. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this sounds close to what I had in mind before I got concerned about this being seen as WP:TAGBOMBing. I've made a snapshot of the search results (see here in case anyone wants to contribute) and will try to slowly work through the list. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Indy's nuanced approach in this case. With clearly unreliable sources such as axis history etc, I recommend deleting the source and any citations to it, but leaving the information unless it is a quote or could be considered in any way controversial or likely to be challenged. This accords with WP:V, and can help later editors to find more information on the subject in reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been adding an "rs/unreliable source" tag when I can't find an easy replacement (which is maybe a little stronger than the "better source needed" tag - and deleting external links where they havn't been cited and don't add significantly to the references that are already thereNigel Ish (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

At what point did we decide to create all those "List of aerial victories of X ace" articles? Some are so small they could probably fit into the parent ace articles. They're also poorly sourced with improper notes vaguely saying where the information came from, which makes cleanup difficult. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just came here to comment on the "List of aerial victories of..." issue myself. Any short ones should definitely be considered for moving to the pilot article (losing the time of day of the incident along the way IMHO). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It arose out of the insistence of some editors that they were unbalancing the bios (the old excessive detail argument among others), and are not supposed to be collapsed. We should probably have a rule-of-thumb for numbers. Say 20 or 25? If over that figure, then a separate list is recommended? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Very low-quality article

Horizontal escalation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just encountered this wreck of an article that is written in an incredibly unclear, essay/textbook mishmash manner. I've already removed two sections that are about conflict escalation in general, but I'm not sure if any of the remaining content is relevant at all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I've finished removing all the irrelevant content and an essay-like analysis of the Ronald Reagan administration's strategy in the Persian Gulf. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Italian War of 1521–1526

Amitchell125 has almost fully cited Kirill Lokshin’s Italian War of 1521–1526 at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1. If anyone is able to address the three remaining citation tags, and glance over the article, it should be a FAR save. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the remaining tags have now been sorted.Amitchell125 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Then perhaps some MilHist regulars will glance over the FAR in terms of Keep or Delist ... thanks, Amitchell125! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Civilian airports with RAF origins

I've started a discussion re the scope of this category at Category talk:Civilian airports with RAF origins. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#World_War_I

Question about last veteran of World War I. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Epaminondas Featured article review

User:Hog Farm has nominated Epaminondas 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) 23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Peer review requested

I would highly appreciate all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive3. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)