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 June 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 Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Charlemagne • World War I Good article reassessments Galatian War Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,506) • only work on referencing and citation (43,142) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,637) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,666) • work on structure (31,800) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,191) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,780) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (19) • assessment as lists (116) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (12) • assessment checklists completed (36) • task forces added (283) • attention to task force coverage (658)

Milhistbot B-Class assessments

G'day all, Milhistbot has now been run over the unassessed article categories, and has thrown up about 1,800 articles that it thinks are B-Class. As agreed, we need human eyeballs to check these ones. Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox6 and check a few of Milhistbot's B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria, and provide feedback on any trends at User talk:MilHistBot. Please also delete any that you have checked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What I've noticed so far, at least on the articles I've worked on, is that it checks B2 fairly easily, even when the "coverage" probably wouldn't satisfy the necessary level of quality for B. Kinda hard to automate that process though, since bots aren't exactly good at knowing what it is they don't know about a subject if all they can examine is the article text; and what counts as good coverage for, say, German submarine U-153 (1941) (random hypothetical example), is probably way less than for Mengistu Haile Mariam. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That is clearly one of the limitations of Milhistbot in doing this sort of assessment. I think once we've worked our way through the backlog, the dozen or so articles thrown up each month will be manageable. Hawkeye is posting them so they can be checked. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness Question

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2020

Colonel = general?

Quick question, sorry to bug you guys. WP:NSOLDIER provides that generals are inherently notable, as well as their historical equivalents. What does that mean for modern armies where the top rank is colonel, rather than general - do they get lumped in as "historically equivalent"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think highest ranking officer might still be a pass "Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces".Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well...it concerns the Military of Suriname. Colonel is the highest-possible rank in their system, but there's more than one person with the rank colonel. There's the Commander of the Armed Forces - Military Chief, Colonel Robert Kartodikromo, who I think would be considered to have the top-level military command position, but there are other colonels with "lesser" positions, such as Colonel Jerry Slijngaard, Director of the Coast Guard. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff)". So any heads of departments count under that criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

RfD notification: Military preparedness

Hi all, your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Military preparedness would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Free War

This new article (started in September) is basically just a translation of the short Fria kriget article from the Swedish Wikipedia. This article needs help to fit here, but in what direction? I'm even unsure about its name. While Google Translate has Fria kriget as "Free war", I'm not sure this is correct. Should "War" really be capitalized? Is it better identified as "warfare" rather than "war"? Should "Free" be better translated as "independent", "detached", "irregular", or even "guerrilla"? I understand that it's a defined subject in Swedish, but is it recognized in English enough to merit its own article? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure the sourcing is enough for this to be a stand alone. This is just the Swedish military's doctrinal name for (basically) Asymmetric warfare.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be a little more than just asymmetric warfare; it's something regular soldiers were trained for -- acting on their own initiative to disrupt or harass after being cut off from their chain-of-command by an invading enemy. But, as noted, the sources are poor; they are primary sources, in Swedish, and -- if the article text is an indication -- may be poorly translated. I agree we need something better to salvage this. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Frankly I just this this as a merge, not a stand alone (at this time).Slatersteven (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Read like Auxiliary Units, a Stay-behind formation.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

References from an e-book question

I did a spring clean of Attack on Convoy BN 7 and realised that the page numbers for O'Hara were different to earlier edits. I have it on Adobe and when alter the text size (varies from small to ultra large) the page numbers for a piece of text vary. Does anyone know which settings I need to use to avoid giving misleading page references? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not familiar with Adobe, but GBooks sometime allows books to be read with original pages (and therefore page numbering) rather than flowing text with its variable page numbering. My only suggestion would be to use the default page size for Adobe. It might also be a good idea to add a duplicate entry in the article's References section for the E-Book version of O'Hara's work and specifically cite that where it is used. The Cite Book template has a type= paramater which I set to E-Book when I'm referencing such a work. You could then format the refs in the article with something like O'Hara E-Book. Factotem (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve used representative sentences, enough for a search engine, to handle this in personal note keeping; would it be possible to work this way here? Qwirkle (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks that's really helpful I didn't know about parameter=. I don't suppose you know how I can find the default settings? I've looked at the Adobe settings and the browser settings. I'll have another look. Regards @Qwirkle: Not sure what you mean. Keith-264 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know Adobe. I would assume that the default text size is whatever it's set to when first opened, but if it remembers that setting after closing then who knows? Factotem (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

For certain electronic references, it is easier to give up completely on conventional page numberings. On some, chapter, paragraph, and sentence doesn’t even work well, because of inconsistency in paragraph notation. If the thing is searchable, the easiest way to tag it is with a unique sentence, phrase, or clause nearby. Qwirkle (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; it might be easier to buy the %(*"er. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Help on establishing consensus about duplicate wikilinks

Can we get some help on establishing consensus about duplicate wikilinks over at Talk:Gloucestershire_Regiment#Duplicate_links. No drama, and not hugely fussed either way myself, but it's a Featured Article, so standards are high. Any comments welcome; even a drive-by yay or nay would be most helpful. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Victorian-era corvettes of Germany

The scope of the Category:Victorian-era corvettes of Germany is currently "for corvettes designed, built, or operated by Germany during the Victorian era (approximately 1837–1901).". The problem is, the German Empire did not exist before January 1871. Therefore I propose that the category's scope be changed to "for corvettes designed, built, or operated by Germany during the Victorian era (1871–1901)". Other similar ship type categories to be treated in the same way. Vessels not in service in 1871 to be removed from said categories. Discuss. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_28#Category:Victorian-era_naval_ships_by_country that may result in this being changed to "19th-century [ships] of... [nation]" for all non-British Empire nations - Dumelow (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In which case, "19th-century ships of Germany" would only cover those vessels in service during the perion 1871-1900. Ships in service before then would be in a category for the relevant country, such as the Kingdom of Hanover, Duchy of Oldenburg, Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Kingdom of Prussia etc. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "19th-century ships of the German Empire" would be more specific? Before 1871, the words "Germany" and "German" were used to define a cultural and linguistic area. Alansplodge (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ministry of Defence (Somalia)

Can some coding whiz help me with the defence ministers' table here? I would like the first column removed and the second row lined up with all the other rows. Many thanks in advance for your help. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: G'day, Buckshot, I hope you are well. I had a go at this. This is my change here: [1]. Is that what you were hoping for? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Seems to be fixed. Good luck to you all amid this COVID crisis. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Source review requested

G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Rösselsprung (1944)/archive1 (my nom) just needs a source review to get over the line. If you have a few spare minutes please take a look. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Good article review needed for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States

I nominated Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States for a Good Article Review. WP:MILHIST is an interested WikiProject for the article. If you (anyone reading this) could conduct the GA review, that would be awesome! :0) I nominated it under the Culture, sociology and psychology subtopic. If you have not conducted a good article review before, take a look at the good article reviewer instructions to see what is involved. If you decide to conduct the review (thank you!), please be sure to read Markworthen/Veterans-benefits-GA-nom where I provide some important history/background info about the article, e.g., 2015 SME (subject matter experts) review; WP:MILHIST's very helpful advice, including superb suggestions from AustralianRupert; 2015 GA nomination feedback; 2019 Peer Review; 2020 Guild of Copy Editors review, etc. Much appreciated   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

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: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Notability question

Does Caspar Goodrich pass notability? All I see is that there was a ship named after him and his father, and he was only a lieutenant, doesn't seem to have gotten wide coverage anywhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem notable to me. I vote for PRODing or AfDing the article. I question if a ship would be named for both his father, Rear Admiral Goodrich AND for Lieutenant Caspar Goodrich. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

DANFS confirms it was named after both, but I don't think that confers notability on the son, the father is notable due to rank. I would PROD it in the first instance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Help re-assessing Milhist Indian task force articles copyedited by the GOCE

G'day all, GOCE are conducting a one week blitz focussed on our Indian task force articles with b4=n. They are making big inroads in the 63 articles in that category. Their progress is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2020. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the ones that have been done and re-assess them, particularly against b4, but more generally. I've done the the articles completed up to now, but another couple of editors taking a look each day would be great. The blitz ends on the 18th. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft inventory table on air force pages

Air Force pages (or it's derivatives such as list of aircraft of xxx air force pages or equipment of xxx air forces pages) usually contain "Current Inventory" table. As an air force editor along with FOX 52, both of us have history on updating those table. Recently, I have disagreement with him regarding whether aircraft "on order" status should be included on that table or not.

I propose not to include aircraft "on order". The main rationale is name of table itself, which is "Current Inventory", So it put heavy emphasis on "Current" fleet. Not future. Not "soon will be" inventory. Those "on order" aircraft can be added once they are delivered. And most of the time information on aircraft "on order" already covered on other section (sometimes named "Plan" or "Future" section), so there is possible redundancy on that topics. I also used to add "on order" aircraft into that table, but got my edit reverted due to above reason [2]. FOX's edit also have history to get reverted for the same reason [3]

Since discussion between only two us may not reach any conclusion. I hope I can have other insight on this issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree partly as it's done on the air frame pages themselves ie: Bell UH-1Y, AH-1Z, CASA C-295, AW139, CH-47, JAS 39 Gripen... -Based off WP: AIR OPS it states in part "Do not place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production" Those air frames are in these tables, making the two points interchangeable. I agree when it comes to "potential" or "planned orders", that goes to far. FOX 52 (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO, WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS only applies for aircraft/airframe pages. Lead section of that guidelines essays even says This is a set of suggested guidelines for articles on specific aircraft types. Therefore it should not applies to Air Force pages (and its relatives) and lead to discussion here. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Tom Moore

Many of you will have seen Tom Moore (soldier) in the news; he is fundraising for NHS charities and has (so far) raised £7.85 million. Perhaps some of you can flesh out his military record, and add the medals he is seen wearing in [4]? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

1939–1945 Star, Burma Star, War Medal 1939-1945. Woody (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have added a few wikilinks to the article. Some details of the 9th DWR are in Valentine Infantry Tank 1938–45 (p. 92)]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

But there's conflicting information in The Fighting Tykes: An Informal History of the Yorkshire Regiments in the Second World War which says that the 9th (146 RAC) didn't arrive in Burma until "the end of 1944" and took part in the Battle of Ramree Island, too late for our Arakan Campaign 1942–43 article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Article amended per the "Fighting Tykes" article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added some detail from the Gazette relating to his early career with the Duek of Wellington's Regiment, but have found nothing from after his transfer to the Royal Armoured Corps - Dumelow (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing medal entitlements from photographs is essentially OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Destubathon

Would there be interest in a military history destubathon contest sometime in the future? It would be along the lines of Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon , that might help the project cut down on the 51,000+ military history stubs... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely. In my areas, there are dozens of American and Russian military unit and person stubs that can be expanded. Kges1901 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, sounds great. There are plenty of stubs that could be easily brought up to a higher class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• We did a backlog drive in September last year and again in March this year, maybe a stubathon this September? Might be nice to mix it up a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• That sounds good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , any contrary views? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

None here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was already wondering when this idea will pop up here. We have over 50,000 stubs and it might be time to reduce them like our missing B-class checklist campaign last year. It also can be a great ending of our terms before a new term would start. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)