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

Star fort[edit]

A very happy New Year to you all. I'm afraid I have reopened an old argument at Star fort, which I am convinced is the wrong title for this article. I have gathered as much evidence as I can and look forward to your comments at Talk:Star fort # Is star fort really the correct title for this article? which will be gratefully received, either for or against. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge on the topic, which I find to be decent and of high quality, I have added my 2¢ on this argument. Voting in favor of your decision to change the name of the fort from 'star fort' to 'bastion fort' or even possibly 'cavalier fort'. Star fort does not seems to be an appropriate name for something so blatantly obvious as to not be in a star shape. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 20:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
So what happens now, @Alansplodge:? UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Not too sure really. We seem to have two votes in favour, one against and one equivocal. Is this enough support to go ahead and change? Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I would say not, maybe a wider community AFC is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably would be best to start a Requested move discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll open a discussion up now. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What are we renaming this thing? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
LOL, I think that is what we need the RFC to decide.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I seriously need a name, I was thinking either bastion fort or, if not the first, a cavalier fort. In agreement. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
My money is on "bastion fort" which seems (with minor variations) to be widely used in published sources - see my list on the talk page. Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Authors of Germany and the Second World War[edit]

Hi, I've recently been adding articles on German historians who are also authors of this seminal work. The vast majority have articles, but not here on

I'd like to invite interested editors to participate. This template may be helpful:

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A great idea. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added seven articles so far; additional contributions are welcome, especially to expand the articles as more sources are very likely to exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics lists[edit]

My list of missing topics about military military history and military units have been updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Skysmith. Just a quick query, how are the lists generated? Are they compiled through a tally of red links, or some other way? I only ask because I notice on User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Military Units there is Royal New Zealand Infantry; however, we already have an article on this topic at Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. Thanks for your work. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Could these lists be useful for March Madness? For instance, could we award points for "killing red links" on these lists (as well as potentially the requested article lists that are maintained on the individual task forces)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of including the lists in the March Madness drive; it would add depth to the drive. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have collected these list from various sources, including hardcopy dictionaries and nonfiction books. If there is alternative (or out of date) name for something, redirect would be appropriate. And as far as I am concerned, the more reasons to create more links and articles the better. So if somebody does want to use these link the March Madness, go ahead - Skysmith (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Having a quick look if there are any in my area, I see a couple have been generated by typos. War of Chioggio should be War of Chioggia, Battle of Spurs should be Battle of the Spurs. Do you want these notified on the article talk page or just here? Monstrelet (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments in the page itself are fine - Skysmith (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review for Transformation of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

G'day all, please be aware that the Transformation of the Ottoman Empire article, which appears to be within this project's scope, has been listed for peer review. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Transformation of the Ottoman Empire/archive1. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion to determine further improvements to the article. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Round towers has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Round towers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC notice[edit]

Here is a link to an RfC that relates to this WikiProject: Talk:Philip J. Cohen#RfC about the use of a blog as a source on Philip J. Cohen's book Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No notices of deletions here?[edit]

Is there not an Article alerts section in this Wikiproject? Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_4#Category:Aces_of_the_Deep. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: Yes there is - it's under the "automated lists" sub-section of the "resources" section of the project navigation bar at the top of this page. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


I just wanted to remind everyone that WP:Tanks still exists, and we still need members and help. Anyone who is proficient in armored vehicles is free to join us. We are in a dire need of members and would respect anyone that cares to join. We are related projects, after all, so someone is bound to be interested. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about article title at Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1895)[edit]

There is a discussion about the article title at Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895)#Rename_the_article_title. It could benefit from more input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The question should have been posted in WT:LAW instead, in my opinion, because it has a lot to do with territorial sovereignty. But let's see how the discussion goes at here first. And I would like to briefly explain the background of this topic.

The reason that I proposed using "conquest" instead of "invasion" in the article title is because the regime (the Republic of Formosa) did not own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, which belonged to Japan. Therefore the use of "invasion" can mislead readers into believing that Japan invaded other people's territory.

The historical fact was that, China ceded the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to Japan. And before Japan went to Taiwan to take over Taiwan, the said regime formed, on Japanese territory Taiwan, in order to rebel against the takeover of Taiwan by Japan. The rebellious regime only existed for about 150 days and did not even manage to rule or administer Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "Japanese takeover of Taiwan" sounds more neutral than "Japanese conquest of Taiwan". But "takeover" also sounds a bit too peaceful and is not able to reflect the existence of a war. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification of AfD Discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Dunn[edit]

Greetings all. There is a deletion discussion taking place HERE that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RS and the truth question[edit]

I'm doing an article on the Gheluvelt Plateau 31 July – 31 August 1917 and wonder if anything has changed in the last few years about discrepancies between the RS and the facts? I'm describing events as recorded in the RS but don't know if I can be explicit that every hack that's written on it since 1948, has followed the wrong details in the Official History instead of the right ones (on the next page and in the appendices). Prior and Wilson get it right (for once) and J. P. Harris almost does (p. 357).Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth is our keystone.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that but as I pointed out, there has been discussion about it by Wiki in the last few years, I'm asking if anything has come of it.Keith-264 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the latest policy on it, so this is also the outcome (it is still enforce).Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The actual policy page is Wikipedia:Verifiability. I believe the truth wording there was adjusted some in the past few years. However, Keith-264's comments above states multiple verifiable sources. This is really a matter of the sources disagreeing and there are various ways of handling that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; sadly not, all but P&W follow the wrong bit in the OH. I hope I can find a form of words that works but it's going to be difficult. So far I've described the verdict in the OH but put the contradictory info from the next page first. I think I can mention something in a Note that there are two findings though. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Star Fort II[edit]

There is currently an ongoing discussion on Talk:Star fort relating to a name change. Anyone is free to contribute and vote on this issue. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alansplodge:, you haven't voted yet. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been busy - now done. Many thanks for your efforts on this. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Battle of al-Bab - Syria[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Battle of al-Bab#Death reports about the inclusion of death reports, which are provided daily by the military and calculated as totals for this battle beginning November 6, 2016. A suggestion has been made to create a separate timeline article to get into that kind of detail. Would you please take a look at this and weigh in with your opinion. Thanks!—CaroleHenson(talk) 17:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification of AfD Discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward H. Ahrens[edit]

There is a deletion discussion taking place here that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. In particular, I can't remember whether having a warship named after you makes you notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion: Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service[edit]

Input would be appreciated:

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RFA Wave Baron[edit]

Does anyone have a copy of Rottman, Gordon L (2002). Korean War Order of Battle: United States, United Nations, and Communist Ground, Naval, and Air Forces, 1950-1953. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-275-97835-4. ? I've created RFA Wave Baron (A242), which served in the Korean War and won a battle honour. The book should prove useful for filling in missing details covering that service. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan under Japanese rule - Previous administration in infobox[edit]

There is a dispute at Talk:Taiwan_under_Japanese_rule#Infobox_preceding_entity_-_Qing_vs._Republic_of_Formosa about the previous administration in the infobox - should it be Qing Empire or Republic of Formosa. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The question should be posted in WT:LAW instead, imo, because it has a lot to do with territorial sovereignty. But let's see how the discussion goes at here first. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)