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

Decisive Battle[edit]

I'm sure this has come up before but can someone point me to the guidance on the word "Decisive" when desribing victories in info boxes? Low key edit warring on this at Battle of Agincourt and it would be useful to point to any agreed definition. Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict
  • result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

      • Yes, I must admit I'm dubious about the idea of a battle decisive in strategic terms. This seems very much a historian's perspective. However, a battle it seems to me can be decisive in that it allows the victor to achieve a campaign objective. Agincourt's strategic impact is complex (see the Aftermath section) but its decisiveness in campaign terms isn't in doubt. After it, the French could not prevent the English from reaching their objective, Calais. I'm just not convinced editors at the article are arguing from the same definition of decisive, or that a casual reader would understand the same meaning. Probably better off without the qualifier in this (and most) cases. I'll check the talk page and comment there on the solution proposedMonstrelet (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This comes up repeatedly, and editors continuously argue over the definition of "decisive victory" (Pyrric too), and then try to make cases for why it should be applied for the article in question. This is original research.

Wikipedia should only reflect what sources say about each article subject. The only thing that matters is whether reliable sources conclusively state that the subject of the specific article was a decisive victory. If there is significant disagreement among sources, or it's complicated, include that disagreement in the article body.

I think editors should be careful about trying to find many sources supporting their particular POV - you'll find what you search for. Instead, see what the most seminal sources say - For instance: Peer reviewed, published military historians, in their specialist subject, who are widely cited - in preference to journalists writing about something they found interesting that week. (Hohum @) 11:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

But then we risk arguments about what the most seminal sources are and why Prof. A's view is more significant that the opposing view of Drs B & C. I'd go with no qualifying adjective unless clear consensus among reliable sources, if only to reduce editorial disputes. (sorry edit conflict ) Monstrelet (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It is the editors role to argue about sources (but they still need to use evidence), it is unequivocally not their role to interpret a definition of decisive from one source, and apply it to information from another source. I agree that when RS's don't have consensus, don't use the term in the infobox. (Hohum @) 12:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I´d argue a victory in battle (or siege, or campaign) to be decisive if one side surrenders, like e.g. the Appomattox Campaign. Decisive in so far as that enemy army is off the table. Same is even more true if civilian leadership elements are involved, like e.g. the Battle of Sedan with Napoleon III involved. Also if one side is virtually annihilated, like e.g. the Battle of "The Saw". But yes, there are more complicated cases like Agincourt with arguments for or against. And sadly here on wiki the question of being decisive or not often becomes a question of personal (or national) bias ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that our opinion is irrelevant and we should follow Clausewitz, that a battle is decisive if it is war determining. This makes Smolensk 1941 the decisive battle(s) of WWII. Decisive oughn't be used as a superlative or a synonym for big. Keith-264 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Without getting into a major debate, not all wars are determined by battles. Therefore, trying to insert this definition into a WWII battle info box may just be courting trouble. I agree on the superlative point though. In the particular case in question, we lack a really strong consensus that the battle was decisive, in part because of insufficient care by authorities to define what they mean. As we do not, in guidance, define a wiki definition of decisive, we should be very cautious in using it. We should as always think with an info box, does this clarify for the reader or obfuscate, IMO Monstrelet (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there's a difference between hack writers and pop-historians flinging decisives around and proper historians using the Clausewitzian definition. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I generally find that "See Aftermath section" is the best way to handle results in an infobox. Battles rarely have a simple clearcut short phrase that describes the result, it is usually nuanced and complex. Also, IMO some editors focus far too much on what is in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree on the over emphasis on info boxes. But wikipedia does encourage them and they are designed, I presume, as a summary or overview for the general readership, so they should be clear and, IMO, summarise the information in the article (some editors seem to feel they are entirely separate). Monstrelet (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem with "see aftermath" is that it can be regarded as a dispute resolution option, and we end up with attempts to represent a clear victory as something other than a victory for the sake of a relatively semantic detail. My feeling is that we need only two options for the result parameter: victory or see aftermath. The infobox is not the place for nuance, and having just the two options would remove the source of a lot of conflict.FactotEm (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that's true but a structural change won't stop arguments only move the goalposts. It seems to me that the criteria don't work well for C20th battles of exhaustion which took weeks or months and amounted to what in the C18th and C19th would have been called campaigns. The Battle of the Somme had tactical, operational and strategic effects on the war and also changed the structures of the British and German armies. Depending on emphasis, writers and historians label it a victory, defeat, Pyrrhic victory, stalemate etc blah, with some justice according their terms of reference. See Aftermath seems to me to be the only criterion baggy enough to fit these battles.Keith-264 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The concept of a decisive battle was popularised by Creasy in The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World back in 1851. Nineteenth century military historians concentrated on battles to the exclusion of all else. The prevailing theory of warfare was that you sought a decisive battle. Bringing the enemy to battle was considered all-important. So in the Second Battle of Gaza the British claimed victory because they had brought the enemy to battle. (By attacking with an inferior force.) As you say, even determining victory or defeat is not always clear-cut in the 20th century. Indeed, the whole concept of decisive battle took a battering by the end of the Second World War. Give me a decisive battle, and I can give you someone arguing that it was not decisive. This is pretty common these days even for battles like the Battle of Châlons or the Battle of Tours, to say nothing of more controversial ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should modify the guidance for use of the info box to narrow the acceptable options and exclude "decisive"? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
PS, while I am not tied to qualifying a "victory", can I suggest that "conclusive" might be a more acceptable "qualifier" than "decisive". The Battle of Agincourt was (IMO) a conclusive victory for the English to the extent that one could not reasonably conclude that it wasn't an English victory without any doubt. This is different from a result of say, 70:30 or such, but are not "conclusively" in favour of one - immediately (or in the immediate future) and would be described as a "victory" but is not "conclusive". This is distinct from an outcome that is equivocal - both sides withdrew with a bloodied nose (or something closer to 50:50) or something which needs to be explained in the "Aftermath". Even then, with only three choices, it might be appropriate to refer a reader to further discussion (in the Aftermath) - particularly if "the devil is in the detail". Regardless of anything I have said, what is put in the info box must be consistent with the sources and not conjecture or WP:OR. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
There are two issues with qualified results. One is they are rarely unanimous even among reputable sources, as already mentioned, and the other is whether the reader will take from the simple phrase the meaning intended. "Conclusive" could mean definite, beyond doubt or it could mean something like emphatic. I'm wondering whether sticking with "victory" unless there is doubt over who won (result = disputed see aftermath ?) is the advisable route. Monstrelet (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
As I said. I am not tied to qualifiers and, having said that, if we must have them, then perhaps there is a better solution? On what you say, I do not disagree. "If" a qualifier must be used, it must most certainly be uncontroversial per sources and within what might be "narrowed" guidance. As I read things, Agincourt was a "walkover" without dispute. It is a case of how we want to quantify this or if we want to quantify this at all in an info box? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Another typical instance is the Battle of Samarra, an inconclusive skirmish where the emperor died from his wounds but nevertheless the Roman army continued retreating. Surely Julian's death accelerated the eventual conclusion of that failed campaign (but not before the failed attempt of Julian's successor to cross Tigris). However the "battle" itself had no importance in tactical or strategic terms (historians usually refer to this battle without naming it, since they are only interested in Julian's injuring and his last moments). There was some edit warring, esp. from Iranian-pov users who insisted on the decisiveness of the battle (a case of 100% OR, imo). In general, I would be happy to see the qualifier using only two values: "victory of x" and "inconclusive", the rest being mentioned in the lead and discussed thoroughly in Aftermath section.--Dipa1965 (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You might also want to consider what Wilmott said about it: unless it ended the war, it ain't "decisive". (Yeah, I know, it's usually meant to indicate "clearly won by a given side", but...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
War determining, not necessarily the same as war ending. Perhaps Willmott was having a bad day.Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The Battle of Austerlitz didn't end a war, it did bring an end to the Russian-Austrian coalition, leading to the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. I would imagine that eliminating one or more enemies from a conflict could be considered "decisive" if it determines the outcome of a theater of war, in a war with several fronts or independent theaters (just as WW2's Battle of Berlin defeat of the Germans didn't "end the war" with Japan). So I'd have to disagree with Wilmott too on that point, his theory would seem to only apply to conflicts with a small scope and possibly one theater where a major defeat for any one side concludes the war. All that reasoning made my head spin... — Marcus(talk) 08:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Samarra is the key conflict in Julian's Persian War, primarily because it eliminated Julian himself, made Roman victory unlikely, and triggered political changes across the Roman Empire. This was based not on what the Sasanids did, but on the conditions of the Empire at the time. Julian was the last emperor of the Constantinian dynasty, having survived his uncle, his cousins, and his half-brother. Julian was a widower at the time of his death and never had any children. He did not have a suitable heir.

The army on campaign elected Jovian (emperor), the comes domesticorum, as the new emperor. His first task was to withdraw his army from areas deep within the Sasanid Empire, while harassed by the Sasanid Army. To be allowed to retreat, Jovian signed a peace treaty with humiliating terms for the Romans. "In exchange for his safety, he agreed to withdraw from the five Roman provinces east of the Tigris conquered by Galerius in 298, that Diocletian had annexed, and to allow the Persians to occupy the fortresses of Nisibis, Castra Maurorum and Singara. The Romans also surrendered their interests in the Kingdom of Armenia to the Persians. The Christian king of Armenia, Arsaces II (Arshak II), was to stay neutral in future conflicts between the two empires and was forced to cede part of his kingdom to Shapur. The treaty was widely seen as a disgrace and Jovian rapidly lost popularity."

Jovian had a brief reign, and reversed most of Julian's policies. Jovian died in February, 364, under suspicious conditions. The official cause of death seems to have been -in modern terms- carbon monoxide poisoning, but several 4th-century sources considered him murdered. His son and potential heir Varronianus was bypassed from the succession, and the army was asked to elect a new emperor. The result was the election of Valentinian I, a recently discharged military officer. He named his brother Valens as his co-emperor. Neither was particularly popular, and they had to defend the throne against the revolt of Procopius (a maternal cousin of Julian, who claimed that he was the deceased emperor's intended heir). Dimadick (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Notification of discussion per revision of conflict box documentation[edit]

Please see discussion stared at Module talk:Infobox military conflict#Revisions to general guidance and "Result" and my recent revision to Template:Infobox military conflict/doc to discuss this revision, in consequence of this discussion here. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Backlog of Good Article Nominations[edit]

G'day everyone, the GA list is longer than it has been for a long time. If you can spare the time to grab one and review it, that would be great. It helps to watchlist Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Warfare to keep track of what is already under review and what isn't. It is especially important to contribute to reviewing if you are nominating GANs yourself. As they say, while there isn't a quid pro quo requirement for GANs, what goes around comes around. If you haven't done much reviewing of GANs before, feel free to contact me or one of the other coords, we'd be glad to talk you through it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken one (yours, in fact), as I've been quite slack with GAN recently. I'm a bit stretched at the moment, though, with a new baby and a new role at work, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Rupert. It's easier for those of us who are semi-retired... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The GA Review banner on the talk page says that "Anyone who has not contributed significantly..." can conduct a GA review. Are we, during the course of a GA review, permitted to copy edit the text, or does that then disqualify us as GA reviewers?FactotEm (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the key word is "significantly". I don't think I've ever reviewed an article without copyediting it at the same time, but I would only recuse myself from passing (at GAN) or supporting (at ACR/FAC) if my copyedit was so extensive that it altered the thrust of the article in a major way -- copyediting for grammar, spelling, etc, isn't in that territory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Common sense, but thought it best to check first. FactotEm (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd think copyediting should be fine. An example where it'd not be ok for me to review an article is Ersatz Zenta-class cruiser, which Iazyges initially wrote and nominated and I significantly expanded. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've taken on the review of Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. At the moment it's on hold, waiting for responses from the nominator, but as the article currently stands I'm inclined to fail it. As this is my first attempt at a GA review, would someone with experience of GA reviews be willing to do a quick scan of my efforts and let me know if I'm on the right track? I'm not looking for a detailed appraisal, just a quick look to see if I've made any obvious mistakes. FactotEm (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, dead links are allowed for GAs if you did not know. So you can comment that they should fix them, but I usually add that they are not required to fix them. Make sure you check the licensing on all the images if you have not (is that one really non-free?). They should have a short summary in the Accidents and incidents section. Other than that, the review seems fine. Usually nominators will want specific feedback, like which images specifically should be removed, but it is up to the reviewer on how they want to do it. Kees08 (Talk) 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
That's grand. Thanks for your help. FactotEm (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I've taken one too for a start. Alex ShihTalk 09:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft article that could possibly be developed[edit]

G'day, I was looking through Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and came across Draft:Japanese-American Women During WWII. I have done a little clean up work to stave off deletion for the timebeing, but it still needs quite a bit of work. I think it is ultimately a viable topic, but it isn't really a topic I can do much with I'm afraid. As such, I wonder if someone else here on the project might interested in improving it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to get my Karl Strecker rewrite out within the week but I'll take a look after I finish. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, LR. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, I looked up "Nisei" from the lead in that draft, which lead to Nisei#World War II service and it seems we have a decent Japanese American service in World War II article. It seems the Draft and the live article focus on different things – the Draft being about women only in both civilian and military roles, and the article more focused on military service of both men and women. I would propose that someone could merge the Draft material into the article, if necessary, since the experiences of women could be put into a sub-heading without controversy, rather than as a standalone article that might draw less attention (by which I mean putting women under the same heading strengthens their wartime role, whereas having a separate article might be seen as removing them from mainstream history into an "aside" article, though that's just my thoughts given political correctness today, and not a judgement on these articles being developed separately). Unless you think it better to have these as separate articles? I think they're too closely related to be developed apart... but that's just my 2 cents. Regards — Marcus(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day Marcus, yes, that is a good suggestion. I think there is definitely scope to merge some of it into the Japanese American service in World War II. However, I also believe that ultimately an article titled Japanese American women during World War II (which would be the eventual location of the draft, or thereabouts) would potentially have a broader scope than just military service as it would probably encompass aspects of work/life on the home front, internment (possibly) and probably other aspects that are beyond my knowledge to even identify at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it seems a very niche topic... likely to be a very tricky position to fill, finding someone with an interest in the subject and good sources, given that it's about a teeny percentage of the population, I'd be very surprised if there were many books or websites dedicated to the matter. says: "According to the census of 1940, 127,000 persons of Japanese ancestry lived in the United States, the majority on the West Coast. One-third had been born in Japan, and in some states could not own land, be naturalized as citizens, or vote." So the article is really about, what... 20–30,000 or so women, at a rough estimate? Might be worth giving WP:WikiProject Japan a heads-up, see if anyone there would like to contribute, even though they're a small group, they might have some insight based on cultural studies. — Marcus(talk) 02:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Historians have done a lot of work on the civilian side, and a fair amount on the military side. see Matsumoto, Valerie. "Japanese American Women during World War II' Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 8#1 (1984), pp. 6-14 online and the studied cited at,27&sciodt=1,27&hl=en On the military women see,27&sciodt=1,27&hl=en Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

First Battle of Passchendaele[edit]

Another editor thinks that the article should have measurements in metric then imperial and denies that the UK exception or national ties apply. Opinion? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sort of new and haven't formally added myself to the list yet, but if acceptable I've got an opinion. As I understand things, the adoption of metric units was not formally mandated within the United Kingdom until 1965; the battle of concern occurred nearly half a century prior. This battle having been conducted as an offensive operation of units from the British Empire against those of the German Empire, planning would thus have likely been conducted using imperial units. It seems likely then that much discussion of the battle would also use imperial units, referencing, I assume, various primary sources which would, if British or ANZAC, invariably use them. I've no doubt some sources make use of metric units, but the more details available regarding British/Empire involvement from British sources seems more than sufficient to establish a national tie to the UK and justify the primacy of imperial units in discussion. After all the metric units are still given, and changing every entry just to reflect a contested preference seems unnecessary to effectively convey the information. Darthkenobi0||talk 01:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

All comments are welcome, Darthkenobi0. And welcome to Milhist! You might like to make a comment about this issue at Talk:First Battle of Passchendaele#RfC on measurement issues. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Question Re Scope[edit]

I have a query regarding your scope, how old does a military topic have to be to fit into 'history'. Is it anything that isn't a current event, or is there a set time frame? Dysklyver 09:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Our scope is pretty broad. I'd estimate we cover a significant percentage of articles. Current military-related events are certainly within scope. For example, we have articles on many serving personnel and units, and articles like Operation Temperer, which was very much a 'current' event a few weeks ago. It'll all be history one day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I suspected that might be the case, I was just asking because I noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military redirects to this project. Dysklyver 10:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
In effect, this project doubles as a WikiProject Military - current and future military-related issues are in scope. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Harrias/Myrtle Maclagan[edit]

I wondered if one of you kind people might take a look at this article I'm working on in my sandbox: User:Harrias/Myrtle Maclagan. Maclagan was one of the first prominent female cricketers, but as with most of her era, she served during the Second World War. Unlike most, she later was awarded an MBE for her work in the Women's Royal Army Corps. I've got a "Military service" section, which mentions what I've found of her service. I was hoping someone here with a bit more expertise than I might be able to take a look over it and check whether I've made sense of it all correctly. Feel free to edit the draft directly. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 14:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harrias. Nice article. I dug around in the Gazette a bit more and expanded it a little. Her rank history is fairly confusing due to the changes in the ATS rank structure, change to WRAC, retirement and mix of emergency commissions, war substantive ranks, honorary ranks and a regular commission. I have put the bare facts in there but it might warrant some further explanation or else cutting-out/simplifying, let me know if you want me to assist. Hope I was of some help! - Dumelow (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Viewing articles not assessed for B-class[edit]

Hi all. Is there some way to view a list of articles which have not been assessed for B-class? I know there is the incomplete B-class checklist category but that only shows articles where the template has been part-filled. Looking at a random sample there are quite a few start-class articles that have never been assessed (eg 1, 2, 3, 4). I figure it could be a nice little side task that I could dip into and out of when I don't have the time or will to write article. All the best - Dumelow (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well Category:Unassessed military history articles could help? Dysklyver 22:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that shows articles which have never been assessed for class - which I will look to work on also. However I was looking if there was a way to show articles which have an assessment of class (stub, start, C) but not any assessment against the B-class criteria. Maybe not, unless there is some tool that can do it? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin might know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
How about Category:Military history articles by quality? From there on you can select quality-related subcategories like e.g. C- and STUB-class articles. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It sound like we might need to create a tracking category that would be populated by certain parameters in {{WPMILHIST}}. Which is probably doable, but I have no idea how to do it myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am going to hop in here a little late. All start class articles that didn't have their B-Class checklists filled out used to populate the Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists category. I think Kirill changed it a couple years ago to only show pages with half filled checklists. I would support reverting back to the old way, you'd just have to expect a backlog with 15k+ articles. --Molestash (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That sounds interesting. As far as I can recall the Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists has been without a backlog since we cleared it during the February 2014 backlog reduction drive. I would support changing it back to include unassessed articles. Perhaps we could even mark the occasion with a new drive to assess a load of them - Dumelow (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
In that case would that appear as a subcategory ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
A subcategory might be best. We should have some way of distinguishing partly filled checklists from articles that have never been assessed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree a subcat would be best if possible. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've created Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists and updated the banner template to automatically generate it as appropriate. Please let me know if you see anything not working as expected. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, Kirill! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill, that's perfect - Dumelow (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added this category to the backlogs list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, so it can be easily accessed - Dumelow (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest[edit]

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers to buy books and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women in the military during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women or the military for your project to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the appropriate sub list Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Audie Murphy (again)[edit]

Sigh !!! ... Notifying you all that I have changed the protection level of Audie Murphy to full protection. The old editor is back who caused so many problems before we got this to FA. Apparently he has now decided that "for the good of the article" to rename sections, rearrange the article, and change the wording around. — Maile (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Maile. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide - Biographies[edit]

G'day all, as discussed elsewhere, I've had an initial crack at adding some guidance on military biographies to this page. Feel free to jump in and add, subtract or suggest changes here on this thread. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, PM, I've expanded the content guide a little more to include vehicles, aircraft and other equipment also. Any feedback on those changes would also be greatly appreciated, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Created page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit/Content guide for talk and to record audit. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
That guide might benefit from some guidance on how to include relevant supporting materials, such as paintings or photos of commanders, battlefield art or photos, photos of equipment, uniforms or hardware, and where possible maps are always very helpful, especially topographical maps showing the positions of army elements during campaigns or battles. I've always been of the opinion that the best way to enjoy history is not through reading text, however detailed and wonderfully written it might be, but to see it through images, recreations, and surviving artifacts and that, in many cases, it is the text which accompanies the visual evidence... i.e. "seeing is believing". — Marcus(talk) 12:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
G'day, Marcus, definitely a good idea. I think that would potentially be best covered as one of our Academy articles, though. Potentially, one titled Using supporting materials. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be productive to establish a general criteria for biographic and operational detail. What's too much? For commanders, what belongs in unit articles and what belongs in bios? For bios in periods of controversial conflict, especially WWII, how much coverage of accusations of war crimes should be covered and how much should the accusations of war crimes against their units be addressed in commander bios? Should we include accusations against larger parent cmomnads? I.e. should general accusations against Army or Branch level organizations be included on bios of people who served under those units? Also, I've been incorporating notable Awards into drop downs. See also Karl Strecker and Helmuth Groscurth for examples. I think it's a lot cleaner and engaging for the reader. Thoughts on that? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with notability[edit]

Hi, I am considering making articles about fairly obscure historical military-type people. For example pre-1921 Lord Lieutenants in England, these were royal officers which were 'responsible for organising the county's militia.' Some Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall are already done, How does this this fit into WP:MILPEOPLE if it does at all? Dysklyver 09:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I recommend not. They were civilians -- very high status aristocrats--and played a role something like a modern US governor who is also nominally in charge of the state's national guard. Do they also belong? I think not. Rjensen (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense, thanks. Dysklyver 09:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The individuals may or may not be sufficiently notable for their own page. The office is notable but may or may not have sufficient material to warrant (probably a pun) individual pages - though I think they may. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Some of them will certainly be notable, though you might have to do a lot of digging to turn up the source material. I'd approach them one by one and try to find as much information on each as you can rather than creating lots of shot articles in quick succession otherwise someone is bound to nominate them for deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor milestone reached...[edit]

Just to note that the Fortifications task force has now reached a total of 200 Good Articles - a small but nonetheless meaningful milestone in terms of content development. Thanks to everyone who's reviewed or contributed material so far! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well done, everyone involved! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
That's some very impressive work. Would be great to showcase it in the next Bugle (paging @Ian Rose and Nick-D:). Not to step on their toes, but you could perhaps write something up for it. It reminds me that I really must revisit Caludon Castle; there's an FA to be had there, and there can't be many FAs on bits of wall! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Well done! - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


Is there a bot that's supposed to clean up sections like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military#Military-related_Redirects_for_Deletion? The decision was "keep."--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I'm pretty sure that part of the page is manual. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)