Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Nomad in topic Endorsements


The subject of "Military history" is one of the most vital concepts in human evolution. As they say, "Human conflict is a part of growing, and that is how we grow as a civilization", it very important to support this are, when we talk of sum of all human knowledge. Since its inception WikiProject Military History is one of the largest, most successful, and as well as most active projects on English Wikipedia. Similar WikiProjects do exist on other language Wikipedias, for example WikiProjekt Imperialismus und Weltkriege and WikiProjekt Pazifikkrieg on German Wikipedia, Histoire militaire Projet and Terrorisme Projet on French Wikipedia etc. However, these projects never had a common platform to share their best practices, neither they had financial and logistical support for their activities individually. This is problem and a solution, has been raised a few times in past on English Wikipedia (from my knowledge). The first ever proposal to take grants from Wikimedia Foundation to support Military History Project's activities was made in 2011, can be seen here. Again in 2014, it was proposed to form a affiliate, can be here. But both of these discussions never materialized due to several reasons. Again, a couple of months ago, the discussion was started again, between the coordinators and members of Military History Project on English Wikipedia. Initially the idea was to form something like "Wikimedia Military History Group", but after inputs from various editors, there has been a consensus that representing all Wikimedia projects would be pseudo representative, because, projects like Wikispecies and Wikivoyage may not be a part at all, Wikiquote and Wikibooks, which may have very minimal scope etc. Also the objectives of projects like Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata is completely different, and so is the editor/contributors' orientation. So it would also become difficult to form a stable organization. So now, the proposal is to form a user group representing all the contributors interested in military history from Wikipedias of all languages. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

General idea[edit]

To form a user group representing contributors interested in military history from Wikipedias of all languages. However contributors from other projects can also participate. A few quick wins are as follows:

  • Partnerships would be a vital outcome. Since Wikiprojects are online, are not formally affialiated to any body, it would be vague to approach any institution for partnerships. As a user group is formally affiliated to the Wikimedia Foundation, and has a physical presence, we can approach organizations working on similar lines and collaborate with them to use their resources for encyclopedic development.
  • We'd be aiming to form a subject specific Wikipedia library i.e. Wikipedia Military History Library on the tracks on The Wikipedia Library.
  • We'd be aiming to conduct a cross-wiki military history contest, similar to Wikipedia Asian Month.
  • We'd aiming to have a global meet-up of editors working in the area of military history on all Wikipedias. This'll help us to strengthen the community relations in long-term.
  • Financial and logistical support can be given to editors as required.


I request the international community to give their feedback and suggestions on this proposal Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 10:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: That would be great to form a harmonic movement in Military History content, across the global WM projects. The least thing we could win is formation of a group where the users can discuss their issues, exchange materials (such as photos, resources and etc), exchange their experiences and etc. Said that, Wikimedia Commons would have a common area with the group, too. Although, I think there should be more discussions to develop a richer goals list. --Mhhossein talk 12:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • I would like to hear from members of existing user groups,, 83 groups in all but with an unclear membership (at first blush), how having formed a user group facilitated better main space edits. To me, main space edits is the what justifies overhead. Military history edits as such (on any Wikimedia project) are a defining criterion here. --Mareklug (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Mareklug: I've started to inform the user groups, and as well as various chapters. Thanks for the comment. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 13:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: The idea and the purpose are great. I would love to be part of it although real-life obligations could prevent me from participating full time. In any case, I hope it gets of the ground. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: I also like the idea of common platform, where we could share some experiences and materials (Photos, sources etc.). I remembered few years ago, when german Bundesarchiv shared a huge ammount of photos on wikimedia. It could be very useful, if someone could arrange the same thing with USMC military history division or french, italian, australian institutions. -AntonyZ (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: A great idea. Somewhere to co-ordinate policies , guidelines etc.--Petebutt (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Was there any online meeting for this UG yet? If not, we should start planning one. Amqui (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Amqui: Thanks for the comment. This is just a very basic discussion, we'll definitely plan an IRC or some hangouts call, as we build upon. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 13:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: The scope of this undertaking may be ambiguous. Military history may be broadly perceived as encompassing the threat or use of force by an organization of uniformed personnel under the command of a recognized government; but would absence of one or more of those factors place a weapon, individual, organization, tactic, or event outside of the scope of this undertaking? Since the mid-20th century, confrontations between conventionally identifiable armed forces have become less common as one or both sides find it useful to operate in semi-concealment of their fighters and leadership. As extreme examples, the history of confrontations between rival criminal gangs, political parties, or sports teams might be perceived as having enough parallels to be within the scope of this effort. Alternatively, if use of conventional military forces against labor unrest, terrorist organizations, drug production and distribution businesses, ethnic minorities, or those of non-conforming religious practices is within the scope, should this undertaking include ostensibly non-military police or civilians pursuing similar goals? Thewellman (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment IMO, Thewellman makes some really good points on scope. My first reaction, thinking "military history", is clash of armies; doubtless that's the first thought of most. It's not anything like so simple anymore... Besides which, we've omitted mention of cyberwar, which is more & more the "theatre of operations": is hacking in-scope? (I'd be disturbed if soccer hooliganism turned out to be.) Trekphiler (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment I do not agree with Thewellman, but as a veteran I have a broader view of what military history is but no so broad as to encompass crime fighting or union busting. To me, it includes war (of course) but also uniforms, flags, organizations, leadership, doctrine and many other things, from a historical perspective. That said, it would be good to have a common vision. CsikosLo (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@CsikosLo, Trekphiler, and Thewellman: Thanks for the comments. I agree with CsikosLo, if you see WPr Miltary history on English Wikipedia, they're a wide range of subject that we deal, and are actually mistook by some that they come under its scope. It not just involves war, but also each every aspect related to war; weapons, technologies, agreements, reigns, military biographies etc. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 13:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. Let's see how it works. I'm not sure about the outcomes. Everyday needs like finding sources, subscriptions etc. are already handled by various library projects, and there's always that magical person-to-person communication. Harmonic movement in contentious areas is unattainble (try to harmonize Hebrew and Arabic wikipedias, for a start... no way). Retired electrician (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Retired electrician: Thanks for the comment. I agree with you, we can never achieve 100% harmony in any case. But we can always try as far as we could. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 13:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Maybe this project could be usefull in the streamlining of Wikidata items. An example is naval ships. Apart from the most widely known units, you can see (sometimes widely) differing accounts of size, armament, speed and so on, often arising because measurements have been translated (English/metric etc.) and because primary sources have not been consulted. An international cooperation could put some of these issues to rest. --Rsteen (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • I also like the idea of a common platform, where we could share some experiences and materials (Photos, sources etc.). Hope it helps to do more work on Militry history reladed work for several sister project of Wikipedia. My full support for this initiative. -Hasivetalk 10:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: I've heard/seen that for example the Meta-Medical group is working very well. Across all language projects. They regularly translate medicine and chemistry articles into the involved languages. We should look what they're doing and implement it here. So i think if we wish this to function well on a meta-level, that -translation- (into different languages) component of the story has to work well --Ivan VA (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply


Please endorse if you're supportive of the general idea
  1. Endorse by all means. -The Gnome (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  2. I am engaged in the development of knowledge of the Polish military history in Wikipedia in Russian language. It would be desirable to receive assistance in this from the participants of the Polish Wikipedia. --ЯцекJacek (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  3. Endorse, great idea.DPdH (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  4. Endorse As above!!--Petebutt (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  5. Endorse!!! -AntonyZ (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  6. Endorse - The more collaboration the merrier.--Catlemur (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  7. Endorse I like this idea, and have done from the outset. Arthur Kerensa (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  8. Endorse Like tears in rain (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  9. Endorse. Happy to be involved, I have some experience of running Wikimedia organisations ;) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  10. Endorse, I'd be happy to contribute; it would be great if we could add material to Wikisource as part of the group's work. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  11. Endorse: From the Albanian Wikipedia. It is useful, as it would enrich the articles across wikis by having a coordinated global group. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  12. Endorse: The more collaboration, the better, I think. Miyagawa (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  13. Endorse: Petter Bøckman
  14. Endorse: From Romanian Wikipedia --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  15. Endorse: From Canada. I created several "good articles" on French Wikipedia about Canadian military history. I have hosted a workshop about military history with the National Archives of Canada and am in contact to continue partnership with the military archivist and looking for possible partnership with the Canadian National War Museum. It would be good if we could share lessons learned, ideas and good practices from around the world about creating such partnerships about military history. Anybody had successes with formal partnerships with military institutions in their countries? Also, I'm the current Vice President and Chair of the Board of Wikimedia Canada and would be happy to bring my experience to set up a formal board for a Military History User Group. Please do not hesitate to email me. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  16. Endorse Although I am only at this point an occasional contributor to military history articles, I welcome this idea. Btphelps (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  17. Endorse: Ulf Larsen
  18. Endorse: I like the collaboration idea. Otr500 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  19. I inform the Italian users, they work really hard on this topic.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC) [1]o%3AGuerra&type=revision&diff=93385101&oldid=93224517 done]--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  20. Endorse--Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  21. Endorse, great idea! --M11rtinb (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  22. Endorse Also from Canada. Not sure if I'd be actively involved, but certain to do "drivebys" now & then. ;p Trekphiler (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  23. Endorse I think this is a great idea. I'll be as involved as my schedule allows. CsikosLo (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  24. Endorse Has my blessing. Buffs (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  25. Endorse From the view of the Filipino military history community, I believe this will be helpful. Arius1998 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  26. Endorse , I'm not a military nor history geek XD, but someone says "Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it". Veracious (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  27. George Santayana. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  28. Endorse My work has been heavily focussed on Yugoslav military history topics on en WP, and I'm sure there is more that can be done to collaborate with Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Bosnian, Croatian, Macedonian and Serbian WP on military history topics. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  29. Endorse Thumbs up from a Danish colleague. --Rsteen (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  30. Endorse From Belarusian wikipedians. --Artificial123 (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  31. Endorse Je pense que c'est une bonne initiative (I like this idea). Alcide talon (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  32. Endorse From the Bulgarian wikipedia, Project "Military history of Bulgaria" founder. --StanProg (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  33. Endorse - I am a military at the Portuguese Air Force and editor in the portuguese wikipedia, always working on military history topics related to aviation. I will be glad to help. Tuga1143 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  34. Endorse Hailing from the English MilHist. This is a great idea. I would love to share experiences and best practices with the other wikis (especially from the Hebrew Wiki since I focus a lot on Middle East / Israeli MilHist.). Yosy (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  35. Endorse from Bangladesh. I'm happy to involve. -Hasivetalk 10:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  36. Endorse from israel. i am a contributor to military history on hebrew wikipedia. i wrote several featured articles on military history om he. wiki. i will be glad to share my experience with others and learn new techniques myself. Gilgamesh (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  37. Endorse Occasionally write military history articles on serbian wikipedia. Happy to involve. --Ivan VA (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  38. Endorse - Very interested to be a part. On a side note, Wikimedia Netherlands is organising a writing month about "resistance in the second world war" in May 2018. Prize money has been donated so we have some nice prizes for global contributions. Might be a nice first undertaking for the project. All the best, Taketa (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  39. Endorse As a user from Japanese Wikipedia who occasionally translates military history-related articles, I am delighted to see this happening and would like to take part in it. --ネイ (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  40. Endorse This is great idea. I support it! --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  41. Endorse I will be happy to participate in this project. By using Turkish Vikiproject Soviet Union, I can make extensive contributions to the military history of the Soviet Union. --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  42. Endorse - Per the above reasons; also, this is a great idea. The creation of a new user group would allow much greater collaboration and synchronization of the information we already have available. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  43. Endorse --StarkeySuper64 (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  44. Endorse - I'm in, for better or for worse (or both, as is usually the case). TomStar81 (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  45. Endorse from Chile, I write and translate military history articles on Spanish Wikipedia and I'll be happy to participate. Mercurio (Talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  46. Endorse -- a definite plus for the Wiki projects. Moriori (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  47. Endorse-- Absolitely vital to survival of our species on this planet. Rewriting history will not prevent repeating it. WWIII is upon us, but it's a cyberwar between reality and fantasy. Those who can be trusted to know the difference ought to seek council and make sure the whole story is told from the neutral zone. Here's an Amen. -- CQ (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  48. Endorse-- Even if I am definitely more active on, I am also a member of Italian Wikipedia, and I used Italian sources in several articles on English Wikipedia. Confronting account of the same events using different sources (in different languages) is a key opportunity that I do not want to miss. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  49. Endorse. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 03:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  50. Endorse. Good idea. Gonzolito (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  51. Endorse. I support the idea and will be glad being helpful. --VoidWanderer (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  52. Endorse. I don't edit the field of military history myself, but I've been consistently impressed with the english Wikipedia MILHIST project in terms of their productiveness and retention of editors which some other projects struggle with. I can see definite potential in a user group. InsaneHacker (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  53. Endorse wholeheartedly. Ed [talk] [en] 01:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  54. Endorse. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  55. Endorse. Asiaticus (talk) Asiaticus (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  56. Endorse. RekonDog (talk)
    09:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  57. Endorse. Nomad (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Group name[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As there is enough support to form a user group, I propose following titles for the planned user group. Endorse maximum two titles by a simple support vote by 15 January 2018. The title with highest number of votes will be adopted. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 11:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Consortium of Wikipedia Military Historians[edit]

  1. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  2. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 11:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  3. --ЯцекJacek (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  4. Tuga1143 (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  5. Like tears in rain (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  6. This is perfect: A consortium is an association of two or more individuals, companies, organizations or governments (or any combination of these entities) with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources for achieving a common goal. Amqui (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  7. --Artificial123 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  8. Oppose Only two reasons for this. Firstly consortium is a rather complicated word, not everyone knows what it means, although it sounds good, and people can look it up, so perhaps this is not an issue. Secondly while I understand the English Wikipedia WikiProject is "Military History", I feel that this usergroup should include all Military related topics within its scope. Many people will see the word "Historians" and think current/recent military events, equipment, personnel etc are not included. For these reasons I personally prefer a simpler and less spefic title like the one I proposed below. Arthur Kerensa (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  9. A good name, as it stresses the importance of the people - the Historians - involved in the project. Without them the articles would suffer. It might even be called the Fellowship of Wikipedia Military Historians, but perhaps that would make people think it was a LoTR thing. Rsteen::I would second this Veracious (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  10. Alcide talon (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  11. --Ivan VA (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  12. Support -- Lord Ics (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  13. -This may be the best name. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  14. --Mhhossein talk 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  15. Oppose Oppose The term "military historians" suggests that only military historians can participate in this user group. I'm a wikipedian & an engineer, not a military historian and yet 99% of my contributions are on military history. We could have graphic designers that can help us standardize the military maps for example. These people are not military historians. May be we should concentrate on the term "military history", not on the profession. --StanProg (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
    The title is not Military Historians but Wikipedia Military Historians that, in my opinion, refers to those editors that act and write as military historians on Wikipedia, irrespective of their real life profession or qualification. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  16. Support -Hasivetalk 13:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Military History Consortium[edit]

WikiProject Warfare[edit]

Project Military[edit]

This name is short and easy to translate, it works well in multiple languages. "Wiki" or "Wikipedia" can be added in front if desired or it can be left as is.

This name isn't clear enough for the naming conventions of Wikimedia affiliates. Amqui (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Appending Wikimedia to it could be an easy option in externally fronted contexts, Wikimedia Project Military / Project Military (Wikimedia) or its language equivalent. With Project Military used in internal situations where it is obviously ours. Arthur Kerensa (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Project Military - Военный проект - Proyecto Militar - المشروع العسكري - Project Militair - Projekt Militär - プロジェクトミリタリー - परियोजना सैन्य.

Wikipedia Military Historians[edit]

Military History User Group[edit]

  1. --StanProg (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  2. --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  3. Like tears in rain (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  4. As a second choice for me, Amqui (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  5. Gilgamesh (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  6. also my second choice. Arthur Kerensa (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  7. Support Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  8. --Artificial123 (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  9. Support DPdH (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  10. Support AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  11. Second choice Alcide talon (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  12. --Mhhossein talk 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  13. Needs to have the name Wikimedia in it somewhere, per the naming conventions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Militorian WikiProject[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Let me know if you want to be in this. Add your name with a # in front of it.[edit]

German Military Historians

  1. GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  2. --Artificial123 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply