Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The April newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Turabay dynasty • John Bullock Clark • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Henry Biard • Johann Mickl • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • T-26 • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew Peer reviews Central America under Mexican rule • Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • William, Prince of Wales • Charles the Bold Good article nominees Stephen Badlam • Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Adolf von Rhemen • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Christopher Hill (Royal Navy officer) • The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • HMS Tetrarch (1917) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Japanese destroyer Take (1944) • Zeppelin-Staaken L • French destroyer Fougueux • Gubir shootdown Good article reassessments Crusading movement • Kaunas Fortress Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,056) • only work on referencing and citation (43,150) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,159) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,581) • work on structure (31,767) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,179) • only work on grammar (48) • work on supporting materials (32,680) • only work on supporting materials (1,333) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (115) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (11) • assessment checklists completed (27) • task forces added (317) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Military history WikiProject Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy Core work areas Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives Special projects Majestic Titan talk Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1346 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 32 Featured pictures 473 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 683 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,397 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships edit · changes Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012. This project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: David Stahel (18 July 2018). "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Retrieved 1 April 2019. Noam Cohen (September 8, 2021). "One Woman's Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia". Wired (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. Shortcut WT:MILHIST

Hi all, the Wikipedia:Featured articles page is a huge failure in terms of providing actual use to readers (to be clear, the page it self, not FAs in general). Huge, long lists of tangentially related articles, thrown together. There seems to be some consensus on the talk page that it needs reform, but little participation. I would very much appreciate ideas on how to more properly set up the Warefare section of the page. The main issues are finding a balance between massive indiscernible lists, and too niche-small of divisions. The main issues I see are:

• The top of the Warfare section is a pile of random articles; surely a "Military Units" or something section could be made out of it? I attempted to begin editing this myself, but am not well versed enough (I think) to do it properly
• I have no idea what "Warfare matériel" means (and what's with the accent?). And I struggle to understand how readers could find use in having "M249 light machine gun" in the same section as hundreds of ships? Any ideas here?
• It would be nice to split up the massive "Wars, battles and events" section as well, but I don't know that there are any obvious divisions there. Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like what Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare does more - "Armies and military units", "Battles, exercises, and conflict", "Military aircraft", "Military decorations and memorials", "Military people", "Military ranks and positions", "Warships and naval units", "Weapons, equipment, and buildings".

This exact setup won't work as well with the FAs, because there are much fewer of them, but maybe a division of something on the lines of:

• "Military units"
• "Military equipment"
• "Warships and naval units"
• "Wars, battles, and events"
• "Military biographies"
• "Military memorials and structures"

That still leaves a few loose ends to divide up, like We Can Do It! and United States war plans (1945–1950), but the proposition above would probably be more useful to the reader than the current state. Hog Farm _Talk 20:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those could go in a Misc or top section if no-one comes up with anything better -- I think we'd want to guard against very small sections -- but generally I think HF's suggestions make sense. Anyone else? Cheers, 02:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank HF, these are really great. And yes I agree that the random ones could just be put directly under the Warfare section Aza24 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why not start with the broader categories from the larger FA list. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

wikt:matériel just means military equipment and materials (ammunition, uniforms, cam stick, telephone wire, rations, etcetera); the accent comes from its French origins and makes it clear it’s not just a misspelling of material. —Michael Z. 13:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article materiel. The accent is somewhat archaic. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford dictionaries give it as an also variant, so presumably less common, but they do not label it as dated or archaic.[1] Google Books Ngram shows it has been gaining in relative frequency in recent decades. —Michael Z. 15:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aza24 Hog Farm I made some changes to Wikipedia:Featured_articles. IMO there aren't enough military structures or memorials to justify a separate category (if it makes sense to lump these together), so I left them in the top level category. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loads better, thanks Buidhe. Aza24 (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool. Nice work Buidhe. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I suggested

Hi. I found this site thanks to the editor, above, and added my draft "The Dury, Compiegne and Abbeville Meetings" to the list of pending stories. Has there been a reformatting of the screen? I can't find my draft or the pending list of WW I drafts (~100). Lord Milner (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC). FYI: This story is about one of the greatest mysteries of World War I: The role of General Douglas Haig at the most critical time of the War, and whether or not he deserved notoriety, acclaim and a huge financial windfall from King George V after the war. Lord Milner (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, though maybe renamed/reformatted at

Draft:Dury, Compiègne and Abbeville Meetings. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thxs. Lord Milner (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's only 13,000 bytes. Why isn't this great text part of the Michael or Spring Offensive articles? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no comment or objection to my proposal in #Name and scope of “Russian, Soviet and CIS” task force, above, nor to my rewrite of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force § Scope.

So in following up, I propose replacing the task force’s image. It is currently the coat of arms of the Russian Federation (adopted 1993). It is inappropriate considering the scope is the military histories of twelve or thirteen modern states, overlapping with others in their region, and including scores of historical countries, nations, and polities.

I would use a satellite image showing all of the states mentioned in the scope. Such an image is used for other regional Mil-Hist task forces, including the African, Asian, Balkan, European, Middle Eastern, North American, and South American. I would probably crop it out of File:Asia satellite orthographic.jpg.

A couple of regional task forces use locator maps instead: the South Asian and Southeast Asian. This would allow the twelve or thirteen modern states to be pictured, but some will be extremely tiny or unidentifiable in the small image, and this would only represent the map as of the last three decades.

Other ideas? Objections? —Michael Z. 19:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the TF image, using File:Post-Soviet satellite orthographic.jpg. —Michael Z. 21:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These series of articles seem all jacked up to me. There's little organizational structure like we would see in another article. I can't tell how these organizations are connected even thought they clearly are. There are also some questions I have. According to my primary sources:

[2] and [3]

• FAST and MCSFs are listed as part of MCSFR

• Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) - MSG is part of MCESG

• MSAU is under MCESG [4]

But the Regiment article doesn't list MCESG at all, and i'm just completely lost here. So we have MSG's and MCSF, both fall under MCSFR, maybe? FAST, RTT, MSAU are all MCSF I think. 03's can become MCSF and have a career through MSAU I suppose rather than going back to 03 (i've heard), MSG is a b-billet open to everyone. Even though MSAUs are MCSF they report to MCESG instead of SFR... I don't know, i'm having a stroke thinking about this... If anyone can help me figure this stuff out, lmk. Working on rebuilding the MCSFR page on my talk subpage. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the Navy, the answer would be to look at the Standard Naval Distribution List (or actually, the Administrative Organization of the Operating Forces of the USN). Can you find separate overall organization lists/charts from the higher commands that will avoid you having to deal with confusing, potentially sometimes out of date, individual unit websites? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

Noticed that people are being moved from Category:Royal Air Force officers to sub-categories by rank for example Category:Royal Air Force squadron leaders. I can see that categories for air officers like air marshals is not a problem but putting everybody else into lower order ranks doesnt seem to be of much encyclopedic use and doesnt help finding people. Particularly if the trend continuies into all the military officer categories. I assume that this will be last or highest rank held alhtough that is not explained - as they all started as Pilot Officers then somebody of Air rank could in theory be in up to six rank ctegories as they climb the rungs of the ladder. Before I do something rash like propose deletion of the lower rank categories can anybody explain why these are a good idea, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, I don't think we usually categorize any rank below general officers for the reasons you say, so I'd go ahead and nominate for deletion. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's been our practice. As has been the practice of categorisation based on the highest rank achieved. This should be documented somewhere. Many categories have ambiguous and sometimes contentious names and what is in and what is out should be clearly explained on the category page.

WP:SUBCAT says: "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second." Large categories are normally subdivided into subcategories, but I'm uncertain as to what qualifies a category for subcategorisation based on size. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse MilbourneOne, Buidhe. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Categorising officers by specific rank except the general category for air marshals and the category for Marshals of the Royal Air Force is a terrible idea. And that applies to any country and any service. See also Category:Colonels by nationality and its subcats, almost all of which should be deleted. Also Category:Australian brigadiers, Category:Argentine brigadiers, Category:Argentine Air Force brigadiers, Category:New Zealand brigadiers, all the subcats of Category:SS generals, Category:German air force generals by rank and its subcats, Category:German army generals by rank and its subcats, most of the subcats of Category:Prussian generals, the subcats of Category:National People's Army generals, the subcats of Category:Reichswehr generals, most of the subcats of Category:Generals of the German Army (Wehrmacht), most of the subcats of Category:Luftwaffe generals, the subcats of Category:Württemberg generals, Category:German admirals by rank and most of its subcats and sub-subcats, Category:Iranian admirals by rank and its subcats and sub-subcats, the subcats of Category:Georgian generals in the Imperial Russian Army, Category:Imperial Russian major generals, Category:Colonel generals and its subcats, Category:Lieutenant generals and its subcats, Category:Major generals and its subcats, Category:Brigadier generals and its subcats, Category:Vice admirals, Category:Navy commodores, Category:United States Navy commodores‎, Category:Four-star officers and its subcats, Category:Three-star officers and its subcats, Category:Two-star officers and its subcats, and Category:One-star officers and its subcats, plus any others I've missed. It's a pernicious problem and it seems to be spreading. I see no value whatsoever in categorising officers by their specific rank unless that rank was "five-star" (e.g. marshals, admirals of the fleet). The highest rank grouping (i.e. generals, admirals, air marshals) should be categorised, as reaching that group is clearly defining, but not specific ranks within it. It's pure overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, I've never liked the definition of rank in

What would that mean for people similar to David Lindsay, 27th Earl of Crawford? Lindsay prior to World War One was a captain, but enlisted in the war as a private. Are people who provide considerable service in their later, lesser, rank still referred to by their less notable earlier rank? (Not the best example I'll admit) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or Major General Percy Hobart, who was forcibly retired in 1940, and served in the Home Guard as a lance corporal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in general it should be the highest rank achieved. Personally, I think that should usually apply even if reduced by disciplinary action. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone identify the UK naval gun depicted in c:Category:T.S. Leopard, in order to add a suitable category, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I wouldn't want to put a lot of money on it, but I think this is a QF 12-pounder 12 cwt naval gun - the pictures on Commons in c:Category:QF 12 pounder 12 cwt Mk V show some very similar mountings. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; there's another Sea Cadet 12-pounder at Tooting, seen here, and another one at southall, File:Naval Gun Southall AF83.jpeg, which someone has annotated as a "QF 12 pounder 12 cwt Mk V gun". Not sure how you distinguish the different marks, but the Mk. V was the last produced. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray and Alansplodge: Thanks, both, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this Featured GA on pl wiki (pl wiki Features GAs on the main page in a separate section): pl:ORP Żbik (1959). Not a stub on en wiki yet... Would anyone like to collaborate on the translation? PS. Hint: google translate does wonders these days... and I can probably help with any Polish terminology that the MT will have trouble with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ldavid1985 - Special:Contributions has been adding army service awards to infoboxes and in some cases to the body of the article. Sometimes we have a source many times we do not...and sometimes we have a source but does not contain what he/she has added. Can we get a review of some of their edits to see if we should be looking into this more. A few of us have tried to talk to them to no avail. Example of concern with source...Montel Williams: Difference between revisions ....we have a source but not for all that they are listing? Or is it that there is a normal medal when you leave or something? Asking because we are not sure.--Moxy- 21:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting discussion on deletion of Zangezur Corridor article, relevant to Armenia-Azerbaijan topic. Members of this Wikiproject are very welcome to participate in the constructive discussion and diversify it. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that France during World War II be renamed, merged, or deleted. Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:France during World War II#Rename to outline article or delete. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have been adding new content to the pitched battle article and was hoping for a review of the edits. I will continue to be adding amendments over the next few days.

Cheers.

The Battle of Tigranocerta article is currently a GA but I believe that its ripe for delistment as it did not meet GA criteria at the time of promotion and neither does it meet them now (imho). I nominated it for reassessment but the reviewer did not address any of my comments and kept it at GA status. What is the next step to get it reassessed if any?--Catlemur (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catlemur, follow the community reassessment procedure detailed here. Note also the guidelines at the bottom of that page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't trawl through the article alerts:

• Talk:Battle of Greece#Requested move 29 May 2021
• Talk:Battle of Belgium#Requested move 29 May 2021 with a related move for the 1914 German invasion of Belgium
• Talk:Battle of the Netherlands#Requested move 29 May 2021
• Battle of France at Talk:Battle of France#Requested move 29 May 2021

GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia uses "Battle" for World War II invasions far more often than reliable sources do. Terms like "invasion" are used much more. (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some events are just plain known as "Battle of..." eg Battle of Crete not "German invasion of Crete" , and in symmetry Battle of France is followed by Battle of Britain (eg The RAF in the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain: A Reappraisal of Army and Air Policy 1938-1940, Baughen 2016). There are six invasions of France outside WWII, and four (if you count the Italians) during WWII. Some invasions are over once the army crosses the border and there's only skirmishes (Denmark). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some poor references/problematic links in related articles. Some suggest it was the

Sample warning at talkpage in last week: "I have just rolled back this edit. I have never found an authoritative source saying *where* HQ 56 Brigade was located, and was initially surprised and pleased to find that you had appeared to find a source for its location at Chelsea Barracks. I was NOT happy to find that all there was at Drenth page 10 was the rough formation and disbandment dates for 56 Brigade, probably sourced from where I got it from, Beevor, Inside the British Army - the information was *exactly* the same. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A BRIGADE HQ LOCATION!! DO NOT INSERT FALSE REFERENCES!! "

You will note that this Grenadier Guards history, accessed via Google Books, gives the brigade HQ location as Horse Guards.

I do not wish this user to continue editing on this site. Can people provide inputs, please?

@

wolf 13:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the link and the contribs etc template addition. Further thoughts from others welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: It would help if (i) J-man would acknowledge that his/her editing style is still causing irritation and / or is disruptive and (ii) he / she were to agree to address this as a matter of urgency. I am still waiting for J-man to respond to a couple of requests in this thread where the underlying problem had also been caused by excessive reliance on primary sources. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to

wolf 17:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It would seem he's paying attention, as he's just now replied to the thread that Dormskirk mentioned above... -

wolf 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What on earth does ArbCom think it is doing? I too blocked J-Man11 early on, and I will block him/her again shortly if this is the same behaviour as before. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Parker Bowles 215,464 7,182 Start--Coin945 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]