Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

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 Raynald of Châtillon • Turabay dynasty • John Bullock Clark • Thomas Neville (died 1460) Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Unification of Germany Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Fort McKavett State Historic Site • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Henry Biard • Johann Mickl • Battle of Saipan • Operation Barrel Roll • 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 Cezary Ketling-Szemley • Treaty of Rapallo (1920) • 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) • Statue of Alexander Macomb • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • René Merino Monroy • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • Boot Monument • George II of Greece • HSwMS Niord • HSwMS Oden • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Adolf von Rhemen • Masopha • Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Japanese destroyer Ume (1944) • Supermarine Spiteful • Sam Bahadur (film) • Christopher Hill (Royal Navy officer) • The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Japanese aircraft carrier Kumano Maru • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) Good article reassessments Fortress of Klis • Crusading movement Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (146,920) • only work on referencing and citation (43,140) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,011) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,546) • work on structure (31,764) • only work on structure (363) • work on grammar (8,182) • only work on grammar (48) • work on supporting materials (32,647) • only work on supporting materials (1,335) • assessment (15) • assessment as lists (113) • project tags fixed (6) • assessment checklists added (10) • assessment checklists completed (26) • task forces added (317) • attention to task force coverage (680)

64th Group Army and First Battle of Maryang San

Any assistance to add appropriate notations to the Chinese 64th Group Army to reflect its participation in this battle of October 1951 would be welcomed. Mztourist I see you have edited the battle article. Do feel free to make additions to 64th Army should you wish. Cheers and Happy New Year to all!!

Capitalisation of 'war' in article titles

It's my understanding that 'war' is usually capitalised when referring to a specific war (e.g. First Punic War, Pyrrhic War), but uncapitalised when referring to a series of wars (e.g. Roman–Gallic wars, Carnatic wars). In the first case, capitalisation is supported by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Military_terms, but that guideline doesn't specifically say anything about the second case. A fair number of article titles don't conform to the pattern though e.g. Anglo-Mysore Wars, First Anglo-Sikh war. Should the capitalisation of these titles be brought into line with usual practice? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalisation of these titles should be brought into line with whatever the consensus of reliable sources is in each individual case. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I dunno, I've recently seen a lot of usage of titles, usually noble ones, and proper names presented as king of England or battle of Hastings. That's not the grammar I was taught, back when I had to chisel my assignments onto stone tablets. Is this something taught nowadays? I'm wondering if I need to get my cane out and yell at all you kids to get off my lawn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Many academic historical presses have moved towards a minimal-capitalisation style. That's been noted at least by the Oxford Guide to Style (2002) p 77: Historians may impose minimal capitalisation – particularly in contexts where the subjects of their writing bear titles – the duke of Somerset, the duke; the king of Spain, the king... This practice, common in the discipline, avoids a profusion of capitals on the page... Ifly6 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A profusion of capitals?! Why should anyone care? A title like king, lacking a disambiguator, should not be capitalized because it's not a proper name unlike the full title or rank. Thanks for the info, though, I had no idea that the profession had descended into such silliness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User:2.49.34.117

Hello, user:2.49.34.117 is making a large number of edits on the basis of WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. User is tripping a few anti-vandalism filters and removing cited info on ocassion. I thought it would be good to get some additional eyes on the edits and make sure everything is above board. Thanks in advance! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User is correct about the limited scope of the infobox. I checked a few changes at random and they were made in line with the infobox guidlines for military conflicts. If the cited information was put in the infobox to support additional text which was contrary to the guideline, the deletion would be appropriate. If the text is necessary information for the article overall, however, it should be put in the aftermath section with the citations if not already there. A statement to check the aftermath section is included as alternative in the guideline. This alternative can used because there was in fact no victory by either side as part of the operation or event and more text is needed to explain the aftermath. A battle would be expected to have a result, although it might be "inconclusive" in some cases. This would likely be explained in the text of the article not as text in the infobox. Donner60 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The guidance on the use of infobox military conflict explicitly permits the the use of 'a link or note ... such as "See the Aftermath section"' and continues "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms". See the example infobox in the template documentation. Such notes should not be removed and the IP's standard edit summary - 'format should be solely "X victory"' - is incorrect; checking a few, they seem to be aware of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider they were correct in many cases, and additionally, this type of editing is very pointy and not of benefit to the reader and the encyclopaedia. They were warned by another editor and then by me, and I subsequently blocked them as they did not respond but just continued to do it with the same canned edit summary. It is singularly unhelpful to go around changing infoboxes (including on featured articles) and then edit-warring to keep your edits, in some sort of blind obedience to a a part of the MILMOS that did not result from a strong consensus. If I had the energy and time for it, I would seek to improve the way the MILMOS is worded on results, but alas (RW stuff prevails). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

To me the MOS is very clear. If the outcome is not really debatable then it should say X victory. If nuance is required a link should be given with short note. See also discussion at Pyrrhic War. The infobox is nowhere to include extraneous results such as XYZ retreats or End of the Roman Empire. It is not helpful to clutter infoboxes with digressions. From MOS:INFOBOX: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Ifly6 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Interestingly, MILMOS actually discourages this kind of behavior: As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles. --Oloddin (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Oloddin, @Peacemaker67, @Gog the Mild, @Donner60. Do you think the user's edits should be reverted? Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Those edits that are factually incorrect or are definitely not an improvement - yes. Oloddin (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I do, and have where they have been on my watchlist or have come to my notice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Be advised that they're also editing as 94.200.83.10 - I've reverted some of their edits under that IP, but I may have missed some. Parsecboy (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

German U-boat GAs

It looks like a few dozen German U-boat GAs written by an inactive editor rely substantially on the fan site u-boat.net. So do a handful of A-class articles and even a featured article. One of the GAs, which is a part of a good topic, was just delisted after a nomination that elicited no discussion. What is the best way to go about reassessing these without overwhelming the GAR/A-class review process?

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Schierbecker (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that u-boat.net has been deemed reliable at least up to GA-level. The most recent discussion I found was in 2019. We probably ought to start with determining whether the site is RS or not, before we get to delisting any more articles. Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, it is almost hard to believe that that RSN discussion you linked took place so recently. How can a source be considered reliably only up to GA? It would be pretty tough to argue that source is reliable today IMO. We don't know the providence of the content on that website. Schierbecker (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

GA is less strict about sourcing requirements. A-class and FA require high-quality reliable sources, which is a higher bar. Maybe it's time for another trip to RSN? Would be good to get a form consensus before we start talking about delistings, and whatever the decision is should apply to all articles using that source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We should think of GAs as potential featured articles. If a GA primarily relies on sources considered unreliable by FA reviewers, then that article is no closer to FA than a C-class article. Schierbecker (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

GA is also an area for those articles that can be brought up to quality but aren't FAC-able for various reasons though. Looking through some of my more recent GAs for instance - CSS Junaluska isn't FAC-able due to gaps in the existing sourcing, USS Glide (1862) is I believe as comprehensive as possible and there are no major gaps in the sourcing, but sending a 600-word article through the FAC process isn't a good use of the FAC system IMO, Simpson Harris Morgan is about a subject where so little is known that the gaps are too grant for FAC, First Battle of Springfield would be a difficult sell at FAC because none of the sources agree with each other on many aspects of the battle; etc. I personally think all of those examples meet the GA criteria but would not pass a FAC (with the possible except of Glide, which I don't think is worth FAC), although if you disagree I'm open to a GAR to settle the matter. I think we do well to see GA as an area for articles that can't effectively be brought up to FAC but still meet a certain level of quality. Hog Farm _Talk 01:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've long considered uboat.net to not be a reliable source. It is the definition of a fan site, acknowledged on their own about page. You can't even call it an expert based source, because those involved aren't experts. They are enthusiasts with no stated academic background in any related subject matter. The fact that the site is cited so much by other sources is more to the latter group's detriment in their own reliability, I feel. It negatively dings them all because of that. Silverseren^C 22:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about U-boat articles, but I do know that some British ship articles on the site are quoting from Admiralty documents, with file numbers, so I think that those articles are RS. Plus I've got more than a few U-boat books that cite info from U-boat.net for what's worth.

I'm not willing to judge GA article sourcing by FA standards. GA maybe a stepping stone to FA, but plenty of FAs bypass GA entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There are, of course, plenty of GAs that will never go to FA for one reason or another, as Hog Farm points out above. I've written a fair few myself.

I also disagree with the idea that because some editors use GA as a stepping stone to FA, that's how we should view the process. Many GA writers never take their articles to FAC. I haven't nominated anything to either process in probably years, though I'm still writing when I have time. Going through the review process is not everybody's goal. Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The GA criteria should stand on their own. A GA has to be "good", not "outstanding". Sturm, if it's citing official documents but the authors are not recognised experts, it can be treated as a primary source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

True, but since I'm only generally using them for movement and activities of the ships in question...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

French ship Molène (B262)

I've just created the French ship Molène (B262) article. Can anyone expand from book on French Navy vessels / Jane's Fighting ships. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

She's in the 1953-54 Jane's, p. 217, but the entry is very brief. It just says 300 tons, Deutz diesels, 500 bhp, 9 kn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

In case you ever need it, here's a list of Janes yearbooks I found on the Internet Archive: User:Schierbecker/sandbox. Schierbecker (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Schierbecker, I've added relevant Jane's to WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus#Requested move 2 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus#Requested move 2 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Retreat=Surrender?

The article Siege of Panhala (1660) has been cited by unreliable and non-accessible sources, though it has been removed but I'm still cautious about some sources as if all are reliable or not therefore I had asked it at RSN [1] but it's not concluded yet. Most of the sources cited by the author of the article are by keyword searching, the only accessible and reliable source I found Shivaji His Life and Times. call it a retreat rather than surrender so please tell me what should be done here? Sudsahab (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375 - 1378)#Requested move 9 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375 - 1378)#Requested move 9 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

French ship Gapeau (B284)

The French ship Gapeau (B284) has been Nominated for deletion. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for US Dep. SecDef Kathleen Hicks

Earlier in the month I posted an edit request at Talk:Kathleen Hicks seeking an editor to improve the article's accuracy, specifically regarding her status as the highest ranking woman to have served at DoD. Although the sourcing is unambiguous, I should not make the edit myself; I have a financial COI because I am working directly with the Hicks family. I'm hopeful an editor from this wikiproject will consider implementing it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that article's talk page. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your client's request seems vain. I once knew a Lance Coolie who was just happy to be a Lance Corporal of Marines. She can (rightly or wrongly) be proud of her career accomplishments. That she's paying you to advocate for changes to an online encyclopedia just to clarify for the audience how important she is certainly makes her out of touch with all those uniformed personnel subordinate to her. I guess getting paid to edit is better than not getting paid, so I cast no stones upon those who monetized their hobby. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Oops. I just fulfilled the request; it seemed reasonable and upheld by the source. I admit I didn't read that^^^ to mean they were getting paid to edit specifically, but rather, that they had a broader connection. So it turns out: I am the fool, and a penniless one at that. ——Serial Number 54129 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making the update, Serial. And I respect your view, Chris. What Wikipedia says matters, including to those it writes about. Perhaps it would be best if there was no need for someone in my role, but my intention is to propose only well-documented changes to content, and I always strive to make Wikipedia a better resource for its readers. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my fees have suddenly gone up. Edits to DoD articles in return for freeing Leonard Peltier, cheap at twice the price. ¡Venceremos! ¡Por vida!"  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing against you, WWB. You were asked to propose a change and you did so. We can debate its relevance or importance but you provided reliable sources and no doubt some people will find it interesting (there wouldn't be reliable sources otherwise!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not there was money involved, Hicks was the first woman DepSecDef, and that is notable. Good point to make clearly, though just saying that she was first woman DepSecDef should have been clear years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:USS Arizona#Requested move 13 April 2024

Your input is requested at the above discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Referencing question

Hello all - I hope to solicit the group's advice on a referencing question.

I'm continuing a small series of articles I'm writing on the interwar Czechoslovak Gendarmerie with one on Jan Klán, a Gendarmerie fighter ace. After WWII, Klán worked for a specialized agency of the U.S. while holding the job description "international sales manager" for Piper Aircraft at the company's offices in South America and Europe.

This (the part about his work for the U.S.), unfortunately, is not documented in any source and, per our WP:V requirements I need to simply say he worked for Piper and leave it at that. However, I happened across an obit (it's a paid obit so is WP:SELFPUB) that obliquely says he "served the United States government in sensitive positions in Europe and South America". Do you think this line from the obit (cited to the obit instead of Wikivoice) is reasonable to just drop in a footnote as I have it here? Or should I omit it entirely? Thanks for your advice! Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I would leave it as it is. Technically, unless he wrote his own obituary, I would not consider it self-published. I think it is not an exceptional claim from a questionable source, which is also shown under this section in the guideline. I can't think of a reason why a survivor would make such a claim if it was bogus. You are not drawing any conclusions by simply citing the text. (The implication that one would presumably make is that he was a spy, but neither the source nor your citation says that outright.) I do think that putting in a footnote in the form which you used is appropriate as full disclosure. If others differ, I hope they will comment. Donner60 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Donner60 - thanks very much for this feedback. It sounds like your line of thought here is parallel to my own. It's helpful for me to get this validation to make sure I'm not cutting some corners too closely. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Resolve the issue

There is a potential edit warring going at Prince Salim's Invasion of Mewar, and I am afraid that I might get involved. The user misunderstood the final outcome of the campaign with the intermediate outcome and reverts the edit continuously. I made citations for the final outcome, the user reverted it claiming that they provided contradiction to the outcome at the talk page, but infact it was the result of the intermediate conflicts. Please come forward to resolve the issue. Thanks Imperial^[AFCND] 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--Imperial^[AFCND] 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kaunas Fortress

Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Arrow-class gunvessel and Bonetta-class sloop

Should ARA Bermejo and ARA Pilcomaijo be added to the respective articles. From The Times of 21 June 1875 ("A Formidable Gunboat". The Times. No. 28347. London. 21 June 1875. col F, p. 8.) - "The Bermejo and Pilcomaijo are of the Arrow and Bonetta class." Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for George Rogers Clark National Historical Park

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)