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 April 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 Raynald of Châtillon • Turabay dynasty • John Bullock Clark • Thomas Neville (died 1460) Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Unification of Germany Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Fort McKavett State Historic Site • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Henry Biard • Johann Mickl • Battle of Saipan • Operation Barrel Roll • Fort Corcoran • T-26 • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew Peer reviews Central America under Mexican rule • Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • William, Prince of Wales • Charles the Bold Good article nominees Cezary Ketling-Szemley • Treaty of Rapallo (1920) • Stephen Badlam • Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Statue of Alexander Macomb • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • René Merino Monroy • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Adolf von Rhemen • Masopha • Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Sam Bahadur (film) • Christopher Hill (Royal Navy officer) • The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Japanese aircraft carrier Kumano Maru • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • HMS Tetrarch (1917) • Battle of Meligalas Good article reassessments Fortress of Klis • Crusading movement • Kaunas Fortress • George Rogers Clark National Historical Park Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (146,953) • only work on referencing and citation (43,139) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,042) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,554) • work on structure (31,766) • only work on structure (362) • work on grammar (8,179) • only work on grammar (48) • work on supporting materials (32,653) • only work on supporting materials (1,335) • assessment (1) • assessment as lists (113) • project tags fixed (6) • assessment checklists added (11) • assessment checklists completed (25) • task forces added (325) • attention to task force coverage (680)

64th Group Army and First Battle of Maryang San

Any assistance to add appropriate notations to the Chinese 64th Group Army to reflect its participation in this battle of October 1951 would be welcomed. Mztourist I see you have edited the battle article. Do feel free to make additions to 64th Army should you wish. Cheers and Happy New Year to all!!

User:2.49.34.117

Hello, user:2.49.34.117 is making a large number of edits on the basis of WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. User is tripping a few anti-vandalism filters and removing cited info on ocassion. I thought it would be good to get some additional eyes on the edits and make sure everything is above board. Thanks in advance! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User is correct about the limited scope of the infobox. I checked a few changes at random and they were made in line with the infobox guidlines for military conflicts. If the cited information was put in the infobox to support additional text which was contrary to the guideline, the deletion would be appropriate. If the text is necessary information for the article overall, however, it should be put in the aftermath section with the citations if not already there. A statement to check the aftermath section is included as alternative in the guideline. This alternative can used because there was in fact no victory by either side as part of the operation or event and more text is needed to explain the aftermath. A battle would be expected to have a result, although it might be "inconclusive" in some cases. This would likely be explained in the text of the article not as text in the infobox. Donner60 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The guidance on the use of infobox military conflict explicitly permits the the use of 'a link or note ... such as "See the Aftermath section"' and continues "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms". See the example infobox in the template documentation. Such notes should not be removed and the IP's standard edit summary - 'format should be solely "X victory"' - is incorrect; checking a few, they seem to be aware of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider they were correct in many cases, and additionally, this type of editing is very pointy and not of benefit to the reader and the encyclopaedia. They were warned by another editor and then by me, and I subsequently blocked them as they did not respond but just continued to do it with the same canned edit summary. It is singularly unhelpful to go around changing infoboxes (including on featured articles) and then edit-warring to keep your edits, in some sort of blind obedience to a a part of the MILMOS that did not result from a strong consensus. If I had the energy and time for it, I would seek to improve the way the MILMOS is worded on results, but alas (RW stuff prevails). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

To me the MOS is very clear. If the outcome is not really debatable then it should say X victory. If nuance is required a link should be given with short note. See also discussion at Pyrrhic War. The infobox is nowhere to include extraneous results such as XYZ retreats or End of the Roman Empire. It is not helpful to clutter infoboxes with digressions. From MOS:INFOBOX: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Ifly6 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Interestingly, MILMOS actually discourages this kind of behavior: As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles. --Oloddin (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Oloddin, @Peacemaker67, @Gog the Mild, @Donner60. Do you think the user's edits should be reverted? Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Those edits that are factually incorrect or are definitely not an improvement - yes. Oloddin (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I do, and have where they have been on my watchlist or have come to my notice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Be advised that they're also editing as 94.200.83.10 - I've reverted some of their edits under that IP, but I may have missed some. Parsecboy (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

French ship Molène (B262)

I've just created the French ship Molène (B262) article. Can anyone expand from book on French Navy vessels / Jane's Fighting ships. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

She's in the 1953-54 Jane's, p. 217, but the entry is very brief. It just says 300 tons, Deutz diesels, 500 bhp, 9 kn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

In case you ever need it, here's a list of Janes yearbooks I found on the Internet Archive: User:Schierbecker/sandbox. Schierbecker (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Schierbecker, I've added relevant Jane's to WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375 - 1378)#Requested move 9 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375 - 1378)#Requested move 9 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

French ship Gapeau (B284)

The French ship Gapeau (B284) has been Nominated for deletion. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for US Dep. SecDef Kathleen Hicks

Earlier in the month I posted an edit request at Talk:Kathleen Hicks seeking an editor to improve the article's accuracy, specifically regarding her status as the highest ranking woman to have served at DoD. Although the sourcing is unambiguous, I should not make the edit myself; I have a financial COI because I am working directly with the Hicks family. I'm hopeful an editor from this wikiproject will consider implementing it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that article's talk page. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your client's request seems vain. I once knew a Lance Coolie who was just happy to be a Lance Corporal of Marines. She can (rightly or wrongly) be proud of her career accomplishments. That she's paying you to advocate for changes to an online encyclopedia just to clarify for the audience how important she is certainly makes her out of touch with all those uniformed personnel subordinate to her. I guess getting paid to edit is better than not getting paid, so I cast no stones upon those who monetized their hobby. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Oops. I just fulfilled the request; it seemed reasonable and upheld by the source. I admit I didn't read that^^^ to mean they were getting paid to edit specifically, but rather, that they had a broader connection. So it turns out: I am the fool, and a penniless one at that. ——Serial Number 54129 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making the update, Serial. And I respect your view, Chris. What Wikipedia says matters, including to those it writes about. Perhaps it would be best if there was no need for someone in my role, but my intention is to propose only well-documented changes to content, and I always strive to make Wikipedia a better resource for its readers. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my fees have suddenly gone up. Edits to DoD articles in return for freeing Leonard Peltier, cheap at twice the price. ¡Venceremos! ¡Por vida!"  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing against you, WWB. You were asked to propose a change and you did so. We can debate its relevance or importance but you provided reliable sources and no doubt some people will find it interesting (there wouldn't be reliable sources otherwise!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not there was money involved, Hicks was the first woman DepSecDef, and that is notable. Good point to make clearly, though just saying that she was first woman DepSecDef should have been clear years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:USS Arizona#Requested move 13 April 2024

Your input is requested at the above discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Referencing question

Hello all - I hope to solicit the group's advice on a referencing question.

I'm continuing a small series of articles I'm writing on the interwar Czechoslovak Gendarmerie with one on Jan Klán, a Gendarmerie fighter ace. After WWII, Klán worked for a specialized agency of the U.S. while holding the job description "international sales manager" for Piper Aircraft at the company's offices in South America and Europe.

This (the part about his work for the U.S.), unfortunately, is not documented in any source and, per our WP:V requirements I need to simply say he worked for Piper and leave it at that. However, I happened across an obit (it's a paid obit so is WP:SELFPUB) that obliquely says he "served the United States government in sensitive positions in Europe and South America". Do you think this line from the obit (cited to the obit instead of Wikivoice) is reasonable to just drop in a footnote as I have it here? Or should I omit it entirely? Thanks for your advice! Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I would leave it as it is. Technically, unless he wrote his own obituary, I would not consider it self-published. I think it is not an exceptional claim from a questionable source, which is also shown under this section in the guideline. I can't think of a reason why a survivor would make such a claim if it was bogus. You are not drawing any conclusions by simply citing the text. (The implication that one would presumably make is that he was a spy, but neither the source nor your citation says that outright.) I do think that putting in a footnote in the form which you used is appropriate as full disclosure. If others differ, I hope they will comment. Donner60 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Donner60 - thanks very much for this feedback. It sounds like your line of thought here is parallel to my own. It's helpful for me to get this validation to make sure I'm not cutting some corners too closely. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Resolve the issue

There is a potential edit warring going at Prince Salim's Invasion of Mewar, and I am afraid that I might get involved. The user misunderstood the final outcome of the campaign with the intermediate outcome and reverts the edit continuously. I made citations for the final outcome, the user reverted it claiming that they provided contradiction to the outcome at the talk page, but infact it was the result of the intermediate conflicts. Please come forward to resolve the issue. Thanks Imperial^[AFCND] 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--Imperial^[AFCND] 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kaunas Fortress

Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Arrow-class gunvessel and Bonetta-class sloop

Should ARA Bermejo and ARA Pilcomaijo be added to the respective articles. From The Times of 21 June 1875 ("A Formidable Gunboat". The Times. No. 28347. London. 21 June 1875. col F, p. 8.) - "The Bermejo and Pilcomaijo are of the Arrow and Bonetta class." Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for George Rogers Clark National Historical Park

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a 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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I have a prescriptive/descriptive issue - and how sources can be used

The question is over the use of a term. I could link to the particular issue but I'd like to get an abstract answer that is applicable in other articles.

If a 'thing' has an official name but it is commonly called by another name, then it seems right that if the unofficial usage is commonplace (and significantly so), then it seems right to include this in the article as its probably a term a reader will recognise (or may be looking for or expecting to see). In proving the usage of the unofficial name, official sources are unlikely to be supportive - you're not going to get the navy saying their latest warship is popularly known as the "grey shooty-shooty boat". So majority of evidence would be in the aggregate, here's a book with the term in the title, here's a book with it in the text on page 50, here's this website, that blog etc.

Having written that, the question I think I'm asking is how does one show popular usage of a term?. And how can one reference the usage concisely? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

How about "A (known as B)"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That was how I wanted to phrase it but there was objection that the term was "not official" and used by "fanboys" (the word is used in the title of one of Ray Sturtivant's books FWIW ). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Then try "A (popularly called B)" instead. Common names aren't always official, as anyone dealing with military history should know. There are any number of examples out there, honestly. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You could also try "A, named in some sources as B," and then add a reference for B. If there are objections about references in the lead section, you can mention the alternate name in the article body and cite it there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"A (sometimes called B)" Someone will object whatever you choose. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well. I've tried again with a ref to the RAF Museum that uses the term. Time will tell if it is reverted.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Bathurst-class main gun

The QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XXIII article has been edited to include Bathurst-class corvettes, specifically the museum ship HMAS Castlemaine, citing (in the edit summary) this YouTube video: HMAS Castlemaine - Wonderfully Preserved History by "Drachinifel", in which he reads a plaque on the gun identifying it as a Mk XXIII. However, our article on the Bathurst-class identifies the main gun as a QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XIX. I suspect that the plaque may be referring to the high-angle mounting, but can't find a reference to back this up. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

According to this website Castlemaine's guns were removed post war. When it later underwent a refit to become a museum ship, a new QF 4 inch gun was installed. The new QF 4 inch isn't specified, but that could be the cause of the discrepancy. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction - while the new gun isn't specified, the page does mention an XXIII mounting was fitted in 1943. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)