Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

	Please use this page to start discussions that either affect the project as a whole or several task forces. For discussions about individual existing task forces, please use that task force's talk page instead.
	Skip to table of contents • List and scope of task forces • Add new section

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list
News and announcements The 2024 coordinator election has begun with voting open until 29 September. The September 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 Battle of Saipan • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • The Motherland Calls • Battle of Lake Providence • Jochi • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Robert Poore • Chagatai Khan Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Henry Clay Work • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark	Good article nominees Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Felek al-Din Dündar • Roswell incident • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Eleanor of Castile • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Sack of Delhi (1757) • Black and Tans • Diaspora Revolt • Peruvian cruiser Lima • Castlereagh–Canning duel • Ottoman minelayer Intibah • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Piri Reis • Eunus • Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain) Good article reassessments Battle of the Yarmuk • Battle of Plataea • Siege of Szigetvár • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Hezbollah • Manley Power • USS Texas (BB-35)
Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,508) • only work on referencing and citation (43,237) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,820) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,890) • work on structure (31,871) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,174) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,932) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (7) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (4) • task forces added (5) • attention to task force coverage (655)

Proposed changes to Campaign Box for the Battle of the Somme

The Campaign box template for the first Battle of the Somme (1916) (campainbox can be found here) currently lists the following battles:

• Battle of Albert (1916)
• Battle of Bazentin Ridge
• Battle of Fromelles
• Battle of Pozières
• Battle of Mouquet Farm
• Battle of Guillemont
• Battle of Ginchy
• Battle of Flers-Courcelette
• Battle of Morval
• Battle of Thiepval Ridge
• Battle of Le Transloy
• Battle of the Ancre Heights

The official British nomenclature as published in the Report of the Battles: Nomenclature of the Somme differs slightly from the above. I recommend the following adjustments to the campaignbox to align the template with the official record:

1. Rename the Campainbox to "First Battle of the Somme" (the fact that the campaignbox title is "Somme 1916" is to distinguish it from later actions on the Somme).
2. Make the following changes to the list of battles:

• Battle of Albert (1916) If we change the name of the campaignbox as recommended by 1 above, this battle should be renamed to "Battle of Albert"
• Battle of Bazentin Ridge
• Add: "Battle of Delville Wood"
• Battle of Fromelles
• Battle of Pozières Rename to "Battle of Pozières Ridge"
• Battle of Mouquet Farm Remove this item, as the Battle of Moquet Farm was as secondary action to hold the farm which stretched accross the battles of Pozières, Guillemont and Ginchy
• Battle of Guillemont
• Battle of Ginchy
• Battle of Flers-Courcelette
• Battle of Morval
• Battle of Thiepval Ridge
• Battle of Le Transloy Rename to "Battle of the Transloy Ridges"
• Battle of the Ancre Heights

I have a hard copy of the actual nomenclature report - but I have not been able to find it on-line to include here as a soft-copy reference. Refer transcribed copy of official nomenclature here.

Views?

Farawayman (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Two (mostly logistical) questions:

1. Is the idea to rename the underlying articles themselves, or just change how they're linked to from the campaignbox? Ideally, we would want to do the former, to minimize confusion for future editors; is there any reason why moving the articles wouldn't be feasible?
2. As regards the Battle of Mouquet Farm, I generally take the view that campaignboxes exist primarily as navigation templates rather than precise chronologies of a conflict, and thus leaving articles out (and therefore with no easy way to navigate to or from them) isn't a good idea. Are you planning to merge the article somewhere, or move the link to a different campaignbox? If not, I'd retain it for completeness, even if its placement doesn't exactly match the official breakdown of the engagements.

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I think it would be correct to re-name the items in the campaignbox and to move the articles.
2. Perhaps instead of deleting items, we could in fact add all secondary actions to the campaingbox in italics

Farawayman (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Using italics might be somewhat confusing, since that's commonly used in other infoboxes to distinguish between labels for geographic battle names and explicitly named operations (see, for example, {{Campaignbox Tunisia Campaign}}). Perhaps something like what {{Campaignbox Waterloo}} does, with the auxiliary engagements split onto a separate line, would work? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this will work. First one is the existing Campaign Box. There are two new options - New1 shows the Campaign Box containing a list of all the battles and secondary actions as recommended above - for which there are Wiki pages. New2 lists all battles and actions, even if there is currently no page available for a listed action. I'm not sure red-links are acceptable for a Campaign Box banner though. Perhaps its best to leave all battles and actions in the campaign box but mask out the one's for which there are currently no pages.

Also, having looked at it again, there is no need to move or re-name any of the existing pages - we simply reference them according to their current names, but use the "official" name in the Campaign box. Farawayman (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks are definitely acceptable (and perhaps should even be enouraged—a number of people at Wikimania this year mentioned that fewer redlinks led to fewer new editors), so I'd go with the second variant. I'd suggest "engagements" rather than "incidents" in the description, though. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done: Modification done iaw above. Comments and reference to the above discussion added to template page. Template tested. Farawayman (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we go through all this with the Imperial Campaign Nomenclature Committee at the time? Wasn't there a Donnybrook about this, resulting in the compromise you see before you?

1. You can call the battle Pozieres Ridge if you like but all Australian accounts refer to the Battle of Pozieres. There is also no such ridge though. Nor is there any other battle that it is likely to be confused with that I am aware of. I suggest leaving it as the "Battle of Pozieres".
2. Mouquet Farm should be retained. It was not part of the battles of Guillemont and Ginchy at all - as the articles themselves (all them) make clear. It just happened at the same time. There is a clear demarcation between Pozieres and Mouquet, the latter starting on 8 August. People typing in Mouquet Farm will expect to see an article on the battle. The battle is important in Australian military history, and the article should be retained.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, I’m afraid I don't know the "Donnybrook" history, or the decisions forthcoming from those discussions! If the intention was to "lock" the Somme Campaingbox, so be it and lets revert it and put a notice to say it should not be edited!

However, after making the changes, the end result is slightly different from the above discussions, because when it came to implementing what was discussed, it was not so straight–forward and I decided it better not to move or rename pages. Maybe as a first step, take a look at the campaignbox as modified here. You will notice:

• Pozières – It is called "Battle of Pozières Ridge" in the campaignbox but it links to a page called "Battle of Pozières." The page was not changed or moved. If you believe "Battle of Pozières " and not "Battle of Pozières Ridge" (as defined by the Imperial Campaign Nomenclature Committee) is preferred, I have no objection to you reverting it in the Campaignbox. I was trying to "standardise" the naming conventions.
• Mouquet Farm – The Campaingbox refers to "Mouquet Farm" and, if you select that link in the Campainbox, it links to "Battle of Mouquet Farm." The page was not re–named or moved. Also, people who type "Mouquet Farm" will still see the article on the Battle of Mouquet Farm page. Take a look at the campaignbox and the associated links, and if you disagree, edit or revert. Again, the article was not changed, only the naming conventions in the campaignbox were "standardised."

I trust this is no longer an issue! Farawayman (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New article Inuit weapons

I realised that there's very little info on this subject online, and even a handful of folks asking about it on various answer websites with no replies. I found a GB limited preview with a lot of content, basically all saying that various Inuit groups used hunting tools as dual-purpose weapons. I've found references to "war hapoons", "war clubs", and using spear-throwers in war, but if anyone has anything else to add, or better cats, it'd be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I regret I can't be of any help with material, but I've copied your above note across to the Weaponry TF talkpage (here); someone there may be able to help. Good luck! EyeSerene^talk 17:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidacy for Boxer Rebellion image now open

Just an FYI for all you folks, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Beijing Castle in the Boxer Rebellion is now up, my first image restoration on an image WP:MILHIST may be interested in. Just letting you know. Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rough Rider

Edward Jennings VC rank is given as Rough Rider. Does anyone know what this term meant? Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I beleive that working with the regimental Riding Master the Rough Riders broke in newly bought troop horses, and taught recruits to ride, but that's an impression I've formed from reading Allan Mallinson's novels so I don't think it entirely counts as a reliable source, despite his military credentials. David Underdown (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the external links or refs say anything, but I'm afraid the legacy section of the article looks like a possible copyvio of this page, judging by the dates. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Werner Mölders now open

The featured article candidacy for Werner Mölders is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!  Roger Davies ^talk 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks Roger. I thought it was an interesting article about an intriguing fellow. It's been up for FAC for a while now, and only 2 reviews (both supports). Not sure that will get it through the process. Please take a look at this article! Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Midshipman now open

The peer review for Midshipman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle off Texel now open

The peer review for Battle off Texel is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone in Northern Virginia?

I'm in a discussion with Durova, here on her talkpage, and she's mentioned that she would really like a MILHIST volunteer in or around northern Virginia who could show a number of her image and photo restorations to an historical society in the area. They really are excellent images, especially the one she's highlighted in the discussion, and it would certainly be a boon for Durova if this could happen. So, if anyone is in that area and can help out Durova, could they drop her a line on her talkpage? Skinny87 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an FYI: it's not so much about showing her images, it's getting societies to upload images under a free license to the Commons. The restorations are just a way of showing them why donating their images could be beneficial to them. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops on that and the he/she thingie :( Skinny87 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It happens, I'm sure she understands. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gregzeng

Would someone who knows how to deal with such things take a look at the activities of User:Gregzeng please? He has edited 14 articles so far today, most of them within the scope of this project, usually adding plausible-sounding but unhelpful sentences. At best they are unreferenced additions, and if I were not assuming good faith I might think worse. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've taken a look-see. They're all WP:AGF additions, but usually poorly written and sometimes nonsensical. I've reverted some, rewritten a few others, and left one or two that seem okay, albeit uncited. Skinny87 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Air Force Regiment Special Force

Can someone check this new article out? - it looks a bit hoaxy to me.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{hoax}} and am toying with tagging it with {{db-hoax}}; Somalia operating F-15 Eagles, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and Mitsubishi F-2's? Yeah right. Also, a google search brings up just Wikipedia... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed all the images from the gallery section as those aircraft obviously belong to other forces. Also, I'd suggest the speedy deletion of the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since it's well known that Somalia doesn't operate F-15s and F/A-18s, but B-2s instead :), I've taken the liberty of deleting the article. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to tag it with db-hoax now; Global Security has no mention of this "special force", let alone aircraft flown by the SAF—"None of the squadrons have been operational for some time." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that was weird. No edit conflict? Thanks Buckshot. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And now the original editor has re-created the article - complete with hoax tags!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion. I got a kick out of {{hoax}} on there too. ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we please get contributors to help create Somalian B-2 procurement scandal - very important but littleknown aviation event? :) Buckshot06(prof) 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more than just the B-2, Buckshot. I think that a title of Somalian F-2, B-2, F-15 and F/A-18E/F procurement scandal would describe this entirely factual topic much better. ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Recreated, deleted for the third time, and salted. This editor has obviously got a master copy saved somewhere, so now they can't recreate the article using that page, those who are watching this may like to keep an eye out for similarly-named articles appearing. If this turns into whack-a-mole, we may have to apply the mole hammer. EyeSerene^talk 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Xdamr has blocked the editor responsible for this article for being a vandalism only account. Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr. now open

The featured article candidacy for Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr. is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oldest current MilHist FAC - think we missed announcing it on the talk pages first time round so pls have a look when you get a chance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group now open

The A-Class review for Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!  Roger Davies ^talk 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Scott Sather

This USAF airman was awarded the Bronze Star in the early stages of Iraqi Freedom. Does this make him notable? I thought even Silver Stars didn't confer automatic notability. Buckshot06(prof) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but the claim that he was the first airman killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom probably puts the article out of the range of speedy deletion. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably it is non-notable enough to Prod and see if anyone contests. – Joe N 00:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree that he's not really notable, though one could make the argument that since Sather Air Base was named after him, he has somewhat more of a claim than your average Bronze Star recipient. It may be worth considering that we have Lofton R. Henderson, the namesake of Henderson field, though he did win the Navy Cross for his actions. Parsecboy (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This could be redirected to Sather Air Base; the last sentence of the article pretty much covers his main claim to notability. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I think I'll Prod it in about 12 hours, taking Joe N's suggestion, unless anyone has any other thoughts. Cheers and thanks for your input people. Buckshot06(prof) 04:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The_ed17's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, The_ed17, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of The_ed17's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Anders Örbom

Can people take a peek at the article Anders Örbom, its a translation from the Swedish Wikipedia, but the English version is up for deletion, you can help improve the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of the Alamo now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of the Alamo is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!  Roger Davies ^talk 13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Bien Hoa (1968) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Bien Hoa (1968) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Belligerent

In the Operation Sealion page ithere is a list in the info box of beligerents, but as fighting never occured this does seem a bit odd. Especialy as we cannot say (beyond those forces actualy deployed either for the invasion or in the defence of the UK (in September 1940)) who would ahve taken part.Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree, the infobox suggests a conflict that didn't happen. I'd say an Operation Infobox would be much better. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice about maps please

I'm back to tweaking Battle of Dunkirk, and I think it'll benefit hugely from some maps showing which units were where, but I'm a bit daunted by the possible need to draw them myself. (I don't have relevant software.)

Can anyone who's added maps to an article offer advice?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I reckon just about any conflict article benefits from maps, they detail a huge amount in a simple way and make visualising positions/movements much simpler for the reader, so I'd definitely recommend trying to get some in. I'd suggest that it's best if someone who knows the battle can do the map, that way it's easier to check sources etc.. and get it right. Small details can be important (depending on scale and number of units), and because the map is equally important to the factual accuracy of the article it should be based on as many sources as possible (or existing maps). There might be some guidelines on wikimedia about keys. I put them onto the maps I did for Battle of Arnhem, of course it occurred to me afterward that makes them kinda en.wiki specific. That said, Operation Market Garden uses foreign language maps! I'd definately use a scale, try and keep north at the top and include a title within the image. Just my 2 pence. I'd offer to have a go, but I don't really think I have the time and I'm not an expert on Dunkirk! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to what Steve's said, I've been asked to take keys off maps I've made before now as it does indeed prevent them being used on other 'pedias. Unit labels are fine though. If you're having problems finding anyone, feel free to drop me a note - I quite enjoy the chance to work on something different from my other on-Wikipedia activities :) EyeSerene^talk 07:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What software do you use to create maps?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Try "Inkscape" - its a free open-source application and generates SVG and PNG output files. Farawayman (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I use Photoshop. I have trouble with Inkscape on my mac, although it is much cheaper than Photoshop. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is PNG an acceptable file type for maps? I need to sort out the JPG versions I used. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I use Inkscape; much cheaper than Photoshop indeed! PNG is good when there are lots of colours, but I think SVG is preferred (and JPEG is a lossy format so discouraged). SVG is certainly easier to edit at a later date, and Wikipedia has got better at displaying SVG files that it once was. The only problems I've had with Inkscape SVGs rendering incorrectly on Wikipedia are with imported images such as national flags (have to remember to embed them); and getting text to render properly (it works ok if you convert it to a path though). EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

JPG files are simply image files – a set of pixels optimised to view at a certain image size (100%). If you enlarge the image beyond this 100% optimisation, the image blurs. SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) images are much better as the individual components in the map all scaled correctly as the image size is increased (in fact I think the image is stored as a set of XML data, as opposed to a set of pixels) - keeping the content crisp. Not all image viewers can view SVG, that’s why once created – the map is normally saved as a PNG file. Although there is some loss of crispness, its still far better than JPG and is scalable. Take a look at WikiTravel -a good tutorial on drawing SVG / PNG based maps: [1]. Farawayman (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army departments

I'm cleaning up some U.S. Army stub articles. Can anyone give me the first date departments were introduced as organisations within the U.S. Army, and a source? A list of all departments ever active would also be useful (again sourced). Please direct all responses to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force#U.S. Army departments. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(prof) 07:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)