Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members

Father and son notability[edit]

There's a couple of new articles William Arthur Winter and Draft:Robert Winter (Soldier) about son and father, respectively, who are believed to be the only father/son pair to both be awarded the DCM. Is that enough for separate articles on the two or for father to be a section in the article on son? I moved the article on father from main to draft space as it was unreferenced when originally posted. Nthep (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that the original author has copied Draft:Robert Winter (Soldier) to Robert Winter (CSM, Leinster Regiment & DCM) – which I renamed to Robert Winter (soldier). Sigh. I think this may fall under WP:MEMORIAL; given the author's name User:Wintermike65 and only edits are to William and Robert Winter, there also may be WP:COI. Unless the main point can be substantiated "the only father/son pair to both be awarded the DCM" then I believe that both articles should go. Hamish59 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Assuming this is true, I would say they could both be covered in the DCM article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think this could be covered in the article about the medal itself, as Peacemaker suggests. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I PRODed the one in article space. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 19:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, can you PROD the other one in main space as well, please? Robert Winter (soldier). Not something I have done before. Hamish59 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, done. I use WP:TWINKLE, that way all you have to do is one-click, add your rationale and save. I recommend you install it, because you can also use it for requesting speedy deletes, normal requests for deletion of a range of pages, requests for protection and adding maintenance tags. Great little tool, it's just a pull down menu next to the watchlist star. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Hamish59 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
One has been dePROD'd, so I've AfD'd it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added my 2 cents at AfD. Hamish59 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The second one has been dePROD's, so I've AfD'd it as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For anyone interested, the AfDs are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Winter (soldier) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Arthur Winter. I'm a bit surprised that there isn't more interest in this given the obvious WP:NOTMEMORIAL aspects and highly likely WP:COI of the article creator. The article creator has admitted that they can't "prove" the claim about them being the only father and son to be awarded the DCM, and I've seen more notable people quickly deleted. I hope this isn't the first in many DCM recipients to have articles, we'll end up with 30,000 of them. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronald F. Lewis[edit]

US Army LtGen. Just relieved by the SecDef. Article worthy? Doesn't seem to be one on him at the moment. (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

yes. news reports say he was quite influential. Removals at this level are very rare. Rjensen (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree, particularly since he rose from Brigadier General to Lieutenant General in the last year, Chicago Tribune story says he only became a Major General in January and the Senate confirmed him for a third star in June. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Notable as a general officer no matter what. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for second opinion on article size for Kursk submarine disaster[edit]

G'day all, I have commenced a GAN review of the subject article, but would like a second opinion on its size. At 64K, my concern is that it is probably WP:TOOBIG and needs to be more concise and/or possibly divided into a summary article and a spinoff article covering some aspect of the detail. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking just at the numbers in the article history section, I wouldn't be too concerned. USS Constitution: Revision history and USS Iowa turret explosion: Revision history both show their articles are larger than yours and both are at FA-Class. I say the more information the better, but thats me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
IDK what the guideline says (& don't care ;p ), 'cause I'm with TomStar on this one: it isn't too big until I can't fit it on my thumb drive. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The article does seem overly-detailed to me, and doesn't provide readers with a summary of what occurred. I'm interested in this topic, but find the article rather daunting, especially as much of the detail provided is unimportant or disputed. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that it is too big by virtue of some arbitrary measure of size (word count or kB etc) but I would opinion that it is probably too big for the subject. I found it to be overly detailed and somewhat repetitive. It appears as if the section/sub-sections have been written in isolation of the whole and this leads to repetition of detail. Hope this is useful. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a good summary of the problems with the article. A lot of the material waffles on or is a red herring. Nick-D (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with Cinderella157 regarding size and repetativeness. Hamish59 (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who chimed in here. Lots of good points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, I just read the thread/comments re GA review on the articles talk page. Your point of readability is spot-on - not because of length but because of the issues I identified above. I found it just a hard slog to get through as a result. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
While the article is long, there are others GA articles that exceed 65kb, for example, Wyatt Earp. I suggest a complete review and if this is the only issue, evaluate whether this is sufficient to withhold GA status. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks, but it clearly isn't the only issue. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Anyone know how to do the phonetics that show people how to pronounce people's names? I want someone to add one to Jacob L. Devers. His surname is pronounced Dev-ers and not Deev-ers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We have a Wikipedia Pronunciation Key, see WP:Pronunciation respelling key -- (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If someone is interested, it would be nice to have a {{convert}}-like template that generates WP:RESPELL, SAMPA, X-SAMPA, IPA from each other. That way we could enter a referenced pronunciation, and provide all the common sound representation methods, including the only one that most readers would understand (RESPELL) -- (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

48th Armored and 48th Infantry Divisions[edit]

We have an article for the 48th Armored Division (United States); it's been inactivated, but was a National Guard division in Georgia and Florida. The 48th Armored was created by redesignating the 48th Infantry Division (United States), which had also been a guard unit in Georgia and Florida. The 48th Infantry had earlier been a "phantom division" as part of the U.S. deception operations in World War II. We used to have an article for the 48th Infantry but it was converted to a redirect and the text of its history moved into the article for the armored division. The move doesn't reference any discussions. I think the approach is wrong and that the 48th should have its own article with a cross reference to the 48th Armored and vice-versa. I can do the work but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Comments?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It really is two different formations, and the article looks like two articles pasted together. There is no commonality between them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If they are one formation, ie the inf div was converted into the armoured one, then the usual process would be to have one article using the title of the most recent iteration, and include all the history from its creation. We have German panzer divs that started their life as inf divs, in just one article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It's current incarnation is the 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) as most of the WWII-era National Guard divisions only now survive as brigades of various sorts and have articles under both names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The brigade article indicates a lineage entirely separate from the division. (Aside: other obvious inaccuracies make me question this -- e.g. the statement that few existing units in the US National Guard saw service with the Confederacy). The Center for Military History site does not have a lineage posted for the brigade to check this. On the other hand the armored division article expressly says it was activated in the Guard as an infantry division, so they seem to the same unit, although there may be an issue as to whether the "ghost" division with the same number was the same unit. Leaving that aside, the armor and infantry division articles seem to be short enough that a merger and a redirect would seem appropriate to me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I merged the brief infantry division existence of the 48th AD into the 48th AD article in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, 'the most current name of the formation,' as the 48th had *not* been 'clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names' [48 ID]. In accordance with that guideline, my preference would be to keep the 48th ID brief period within the article about the 48th AD. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm working the article now from the perspective of "48th" being the determining factor. I haven't being able to verify the ghost division's "cover story." I'll leave the brigade alone for now.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

48th (South Midland) Division[edit]

I don't suppose anyone could help source and improve this article, especially in regards to the First World War?

I note that the division took part in some key battles, but little is mentioned in the article and the Great War falls outside of my field. Likewise, would someone be able to vet the OOB for that war? I note it is largely sourced to 'Becke, History of the Great War: Order of Battle of Divisions, Part 2a: The Territorial Force Mounted Divisions and the 1st-Line Territorial Force Divisions'. I do presume this is the Great War's version of Joslen? At anyrate, it is not a work I own.

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There's this: 48th (South Midland) Division, Loegaire Humphrey ISBN 613692868X but it's expensive. Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Becke is the source for British WWI OOB. Like Joslen, but much better (IMO) - lots of footnotes and a good narrative section for each division. I have a copy to hand and will have a look when I get a chance. This is also a good starting point. Hamish59 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Hamish.
Keith is that the official divisional history? If so, it would be nice if someone had a copy to quote from ... although I imagine it may just have to be resigned to a "further reading" list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think so, I had a look on Bookfinder but couldn't find anything else. Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Hamish59 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the edits!
Still, if there is anyone out there who can flesh out the division's first world war activities it would be much appreciated. I can attempt over the long term, but I have very little knowledge of that war and would not want to risk missing something.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

List of military occupations[edit]

Hello, on List_of_military_occupations there is an RFC regarding whether to include East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The lead of the article states that only military occupations, as opposed to annexations, are to be included. Please comment. Thanks. Yossiea (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I am a bit bemused by that statement in the lead. Annexations can be both legal (post-bellum by treaty) and illegal, and some are just military occupations that have effectively become annexations by force. Seems to me that the article scope itself has problems. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The underling notion that hostile "occupations" are always enforced or run by military forces is a bit odd as well. There also seems to be a strong bias towards only "bad" interventions being labelled military occupations: the early stages of many UN-endorsed peace keeping missions, such as that in East Timor in 1999, were effectively military occupations, and the various western Allied military governments of World War II are missing. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Having read the comments on the page, I have little patience with the view that East Jerusalem and Golan be excluded, since the reasons look like pretexts. Hair-splitting about annexation or "annexation" should not disguise the fact of occupation. Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I was expecting to see lists of MOS codes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
So it wasn't just me. Face-grin.svg Gecko G (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I think it should be List of belligerent occupations.
I got that, too--but given the inherent ambiguity, IDK what pagetitle isn't ambiguous... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sand War casualties[edit]

There's a slow-moving edit war going on regarding the casualties in the Sand War regarding what sources to use. Some input at Talk:Sand War#Casualties would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review now open[edit]

G'day all, a peer review is now open for the RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II article. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II/archive1. If you have time and are interested in helping one of our newer editors improve their article, please stop by. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


G'day all, there is a RfC about the scope of the Greco-Italian War article that you may wish to contribute to. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Recommended article split[edit]

I'm seeking input on my recommendation for splitting articles about the Battle of the Bulge here. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

September 2012 Camp Bastion raid[edit]

There's currently an edit war (involving me) on whether the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid should be described as a victory for the ISAF forces. Comments from other editors would be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

MV Boka Star[edit]

There is an AfD discussion re the Boka Star article. This ship was found to be arms running in 2002, so could fall under the remit of this project. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Turns out she was a Yugoslav Navy auxiliary ship. Mjroots (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Percival[edit]

I have nominated Arthur Percival 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. DrKay (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I have proposed the merger of the articles List of military occupations with List of territorial disputes. You can join the discussion here.

Thanks for your participation. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

US Military uniform cuff stars?[edit]

I was doing some reading and came across something about US military uniform accoutrements I've never heard of.

Wyllie, Col. Robert E. (1921). Orders, Decorations and Insignia: Military and Civil. New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, the Knickerbocker Press. 

in chapter XI- Decoration of the Colours, page 208-9 Now for our American system, which has been entirely changed since the close of the World War. ... In addition we have followed the Belgian custom by embroidering on the [regimental] colour the names of battles in which the regiment so distinguished itself as to merit citation in War Department orders. ... In addition each officer and man in an organization which is cited in War Department orders wears a silver star on the cuff, a second star is added for a second citation. For a third citation the two silver stars are replaced by a gold star, etc., a gold star being used for every three citations, and a silver star for each intermediate one. This is purely a regimental decoration, and not in any sense personal, it is a part of the uniform of the organization and must be removed when the individual is transferred elsewhere..

Is this some sort of predeccessor to both the Silver Citation Star and unit awards? Anyone know anything more about this?

Gecko G (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Having disambiguation for GIGN article[edit]

Going to raise the point that Djibouti has a GIGN unit. Not sure on which jurisdiction it falls under. But I know that it likely falls under its gendarmerie branch, closely based on the French. There's not much English articles on this, so I'm using Marine Corp articles on it as a basis for its existence. Ominae (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For the moment I would suggest expanding the Djiboutian National Gendarmerie article with a note. Once there's more data, the GIGN article could be modified to note that following the French example, GIGNs have been formed elsewhere. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Bell islands[edit]

Can someone take a look at this page? Only has an infobox. Was there a battle of this name? Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd imagine that it relates to what's at Bell Island (Newfoundland and Labrador)#World War II in some way (though the mention of a Japanese officer who found in the Aleutians is confusing). But without any content the article should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Even with the content from that page (I considered copy-pasting), IMO it fails notability. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
PROD it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

PL-15 please[edit]

Can we get a PL-15 article please? Carlisle says outmatching the Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile in particular is an “exceedingly high priority”.

Hcobb (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Operation Rah-e-Nijat[edit]

Operation Rah-e-Nijat is in need of updating. References 2, 3 and 4 are dead links (yahoo2, yahoo3, yahoo4). New references needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

So what's stopping you?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft lists again[edit]

More discussion on the finer points of tabulated lists of aircraft for military operators here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC about the Duke of Windsor (Edward VIII) article[edit]

There arose a dispute about the proper extent of the Duke of Windsor's wartime activities in regards the German Nazi regime. An editor feels that the pro-Nazi sympathies and activities, including one act of treason, is not reflected with the appropriate due weight in the article, and believes that the insertion of an extract of a German embassy cable should be added, as a footnote. Another editor feels that quoting the entire text of the cable is overkill, and that overall the article is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse and presents them with due weight and cites them to reliable sources. The question is now being put forth to Wikipedia editors whether to Support the addition of the contested material in a footnote or Oppose it. Anyone interested to participate in the relevant RfC is welcome. -The Gnome (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Titanic (1943 film)[edit]

This article, about the flop propaganda "blockbuster" commissioned by Nazi Germany's Josef Goebbels, has just been through a pretty nasty patch of edit warring, which included personal attacks and the use of sock IPs. The editor responsible has been blocked fo 2 weeks, but it might be a good idea if folks were to add it to their watchlists to make sure things don't start up again when the block is over. BMK (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)