This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I notice that the women in red project is creating articles on WASP aviators but I am not sure that most of them are not particularly noteworthy. An example Gwendolyne Cowart created this week, she did some good stuff ferrying aircraft around not unlike the other 1000 wasps but I dont see anything outstanding. A lot of these article shows she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal but it was a collective award and not actually awarded to individuals. I didnt want to prod some of these articles without some other opinions because we dont want to discourage the WIR project which is doing some good stuff but do they really meet mil his notability guidelines ? MilborneOne ( talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I created USS Harrisburg (LPD-30) given that ship was named today. As admittedly military and ship articles are not my prime area of expertise, leaving a note here for anybody who wants to take a look and tidy it up. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 02:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The article 1959 San Diego F3H crash has been created on an accident which may have hit things and killed sombody, but like thousands of such accidents it didnt, one question is that the pilot was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal would this be enough to pass the notability threshold for the accident. thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, it has been years since I looked at this, and cannot see what is going on here. If you look at Talk:Battle of Calais you will see in our banner a redlink for "passed" an A-Class review. The article history is fine, and the reason is probably something to do with the fact that the article has been moved since its ACR, but what is the fix? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
|oldtitle=
, and setting it up in the code. Alternatively, we could move the A-class review page itself.
Harrias
talk 06:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
|
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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I posted on the talk page of Gregory_A._Feest, but no response. The article seems to be copied entirely from a military website. Is this standard practice? Daundelin ❁ 20:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The article for Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet includes what appears to be a brief discussion of the effectiveness of area bombing as practiced by the Bomber Command under Harris as compared to the effectiveness of targeted attacks as practiced by the Americans. That paragraph ends with the sentence:
The American history also includes information from Albert Speer, in which he points out Bomber Command's night attacks were the most effective.
This seems to conflict with a quote from Defence of the Reich:
After the war, Minister of Armaments Albert Speer was asked by both British and American interrogators on separate occasions which air force had a superior bombing strategy. The exact wording of the question was "Which, at various periods of the war, caused more concern; British or American heavy bomber attacks, day or night attacks, and why?". In both cases, Speer replied: "The American attacks which followed a definite system assault on industrial targets, were by far the most dangerous. It was in fact those attacks which caused the breakdown of the German armaments industry."
Can someone with more knowledge about this issue resolve this apparent conflict? .froth. ( talk) 00:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
What is the true identity of the Imperial Brazilian Navy's war steamship Magee, lost off the mouth of the River Plate in June 1858 with the loss of about 400 lives. Was she an iroclad, a corvett, or something else. The only other info I have is that she was built by Laird's of Birkenhead. Mjroots ( talk) 10:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I want to tell you that there are two proxy conflicts that has not been covered by Wikipedia yet. These are the Draft:Russia–United States proxy conflict and Draft:China–United States proxy conflict. If anyone who is interested in helping editing these draft articles then you are welcome. If you are wanted to edit the whole drafts then you can leave a message in my talk page to let me know that you are editing the articles because these two proxy wars are important when it comes to military history. I did add them to the News & open tasks section. SpinnerLaserz ( talk) 17:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
This RM discussion could benefit from a few more opinions: Talk:Bouncing mine#Requested move 13 October 2019. PC78 ( talk) 08:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
So in rewriting SMS Amazone, I've come across a reference to a "Luftschiff M IV", but I can't find any airship designated M IV on the List of Zeppelins, List of Schütte-Lanz airships, or List of Parseval airships. The closest I can find is Zeppelin LZ 27, which was an M-class Zeppelin with the tactical designation of L4 - does anybody know if that's right, or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear military experts: Here's a draft that may be of interest. Please take a look!— Anne Delong ( talk) 14:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to fill in
Thanks, usable then but sparingly and with caution. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I have about 111 photos from the Gettysburg battlefield to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Most of them are of memorials, like in List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield, but a lot of them are better than the photos there. There are some photos of the battlefield and some of cannons, etc.
I'm ready to upload them but I don't have the time or knowledge to add descriptions or put them in categories. Can someone help with that? I will upload them as a batch, but I need to have a title, category, and initial description for the set - what should I use? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I've uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. They have names Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US.jpg, Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (2).jpg, etc.
To do it the easy way, I put all of them in the Gettysburg Battlefield category and the memorials are also in the Battle of Gettysburg memorials category. A bot will come through and remove the general category for the ones that have the more specific category. Over half of them had to be rotated. Many of the landscapes are underexposed (because of the bright sky). I can fix that.
I would appreciate it if someone could put some details in the description and move ones to subcategories, if they exist. Also, ones that are worthy could go in articles like List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, well besides lack of references, this article has errors where it talks about the capped armor-piercing shell. That APC was introduced in WW2, when I know it was used in the Battle of Jutland. That the capped cushion the shock when it dispersed it radially (in soft capped types), and on. I am not a subject matter expert on the matter but if errors were made on this then I have little faith that there is not a lot of other errors as well. Is there anyone around that does have a background on this? Tirronan ( talk) 04:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because I carefully added the relevant articles to it. It appears to have been probably been emptied without due process [1], and I can easily readd the articles that should be in it. It appears that Ssolbergj is systematically removing this category (which meets WP:CATDEF, all articles within it are military formations) and inserting a category which does not meet WP:CATDEF (all articles are not Allied Command Operations, which is one singular article). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
There are currently three military history portals in portal space:
You may know that there is also currently a substantial winnowing of portals going on, particularly targeting portals with low viewership. None of these portals is likely to make the cut in that process. At the same time, Portal:Military history has always been a redirect to Portal:War, although the subjects are not necessarily identical. I propose merging the three portals noted above into a single Portal:Military history, under the operation of this WikiProject. bd2412 T 01:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this article seem weird to anyone? Lines like "[he] distinguished himself by the firmness with which he dealt with cases of unrest in the army in the midst of the Dreyfus Affair." Feel... excessively positive to someone who's clearly, historically proven to be in the wrong. I'm not an expert on this; just... between that and the dismissal of any controversy over his repression of the Paris Commune, it feels a really positive-leaning portrayal of a man who's at best controversial. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 03:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Mikołów was brief but probably should have an article. What about the mopping up operation of the nearby city? Defense of Katowice, Katowice massacre, and Parachute Tower Katowice? All three describe the same event: kids taking potshots at Germans entering the city the day after Mikołów, and their capture and execution. Highly partisan and low quality sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.171.213 ( talk) 12:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey. I clicked the "currently undergoing" link that appeared when I changed its staus to A-class=current... but somehow it created "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/importance". Sorry for the mess...[I think the Importance article should be deleted anyway, WP:NOTDICT... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
( ←) Ah, one editor unilaterally changed the rating. Can do, or needs to go through Reassessment? i thought it was the latter... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this and assessing it for notability? It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG or WP:BAND, but maybe there's another guideline it satisfies. Currently, the own source(s) cited is Facebook which is a WP:SPS at best and not really helpful for establishing the band's Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I was looking to get some advice if the below source would be acceptable for a FAN, if only used for OOB information. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 01:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)There is an article in the german Wikipedia about one Harry Adams, who was an officer on Richard E. Byrds ship during his artic expedition in the late 1920s. Although the sources who report on Adams seems to be scarce, the Wikipedian who did the research on Adams lists some astonishing facts - apparently based partially on this article in the "Meridan Record" from 1932. The Meridan-article states, that Adams won the MoH for wartime service twice - which I wasnt able to confirm. If thats just made up, the source may not be credible. Can someone help to confirm or deny this guys MoH ? Alexpl ( talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article has a LONG section at the bottom about how Graf is part of the surname as of the end of WWI, which would be great... IF he hadn't died decades before that... Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 03:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: Is there policy about small printing references? Parsec's taking them out and I think it needs consensus. regards. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Keith, here's my question for you: what value do you think the templates provide as you're using them? Parsecboy ( talk) 17:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't for me to justify the status quo; if you want to alter a long standing practice, I suggest that the onus is on you. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Claiming not to be bound by the limitations of paper is a two edged sword, just about any browser allows you to change text size to your own preference. Also a 10% change in text size seems like an odd thing to argue about with much passion. ( Hohum @) 00:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: Come off it you want change not me, I think it needs a discussion, you're getting a bit too defensive. If you have point to make, make itopenly. I'm not opposing your view but I want a debate, not you unilaterally deleting them. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 00:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Like most templates, the template documentation sucks. But this works: {{refbegin|normalfont=yes}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 03:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
your conduct has ben high-handed, defensive and apt to infer my motives. I've told you why I want this debated and all I get from you is gamesmanship. Stop it. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Links at http://www.civilwar.org ( Civil War Trust) now redirect to https://www.battlefields.org/ ( American Battlefield Trust). Special:LinkSearch/www.civilwar.org currently shows 433 links in all namespaces. The links I tested are currently redirecting to the right page, e.g. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/chantilly.html to https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/chantilly. American Battlefield Trust is an umbrella organization for the Civil War Trust so I guess the pages were just copied to the new domain. Redirect sites often go dead or change to only linking the new domain so I recommend you check and update the mainspace links while there are working redirects. See also WP:ELDEAD and Wikipedia:Link rot. I'm not in your project but answered a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#An external page redirects to a different website - should it be updated? ( permanent link). PrimeHunter ( talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I wrote an article on Jedediah Sanger, who served in the American Revolution from the first engagement at Lexington/Concord for the duration, as private, 2nd Lt., 1st Lt. I put everything I could find about his service into the article, which isn't much. He is notable for his later life. Just wondering if he should have a military infobox added to the main one? If so, and anyone wants to do it, please do so. MB 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
As the originator of Robert J. O'Neill (Navy SEAL) doesnt appear to be active just to notify interested parties that I have proposed this article for deletion as "Clearly only noteworthy for one event of which mostly self-proclaimed, coverage presently in Death of Osama bin Laden is sufficient", thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The article Punjab War is a stub describing a conflict between the British East India Company and the Sikh Empire between 1810-1820, in which the Sikhs were victorious. I found it via List of wars involving the United Kingdom. However, best as I can tell, it never happened, at least in the way it is described. I also haven't found any sources calling it the "Punjab War", which seems to be a title invented just for the Wiki page.
According to reliable tertiary sources, there were a series of wars in the Punjab between 1809 and 1820, but they involved the Sikhs consolidating their rule and fighting with the Afghans over Kashmir. The British were uninvolved, it appears to me. Does anyone have any information about this war? Is it possible the British were involved (maybe fighting alongside the Afghans)?
Some sources: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ranjit-Singh-Sikh-maharaja
https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Amritsar
https://books.google.com/books?id=h5_tSnygvbIC
Thanks for the help! Ganesha811 ( talk) 14:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia#Requested move 28 October 2019. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The HMS Vulture (1843) article states with unreferenced text that she was recommissioned in December 1859. Could this be in error for 1858? The Hampshire Advertiser and Salisbury Guardian of 12 March 1859 states that Vulture arrived at Malta on 21 February in a leaky condition, having been ashore on the Barbary Coast. Mjroots ( talk) 09:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Liberté-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate more eyes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carlos Castillo Armas/archive1. It has two supports, and completed source and image reviews, but is foundering for lack of attention. It passed an A-class review here not long ago. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm new to WikiProject MilHist and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms Task Force and have recently written an article about the Battle of Muster Green however it was reviewed when the only thing in the article was the sentence long lede and the half filled out info box. I have extended the article since then and even though I'm not yet finished, I'd like it if anyone could re-review it and give a list of things wrong with the article/missing from the article that I can then follow to improve the article with. Thanks in advance, TheBestEditorInEngland ( talk) 04:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, there are about a dozen unreviewed GANs at WP:GAN#WAR if anyone has a bit of spare time to look in on one. If you are not familiar with the GA criteria, it can be found at WP:GA?. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The HMS Jaseur (1857) article gives a wrecking date of 26 February. However, contemporary press reports give a date of 4 March. Mjroots ( talk) 12:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I had good success getting help with my Gettysburg photos, so I've uploaded my Vicksburg photos. There are only 53 this time. They are all in Wikimedia Commons, category Vicksburg National Military Park, with the title Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi, US (nn).jpg, (e.g. File:Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi, US (53).jpg) where nn is 2 to 54. #1 doesn't have the sequence number and #39 is up for deletion.
We didn't get to the Confederate ones, I think the road was washed out. (I hope no one wants to remove them.) There are a lot of Ohio ones because my brother-in-law is a buff in Ohio.
So I would appreciate help in photo descriptions and some categorization. These are not as well documented as the Gettysburg memorials. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been watching these roll past on my list. I don't think I've seen one yet i violently disagree with (I'd have changed it if i had) but some certainly I think contestable by a stricter judge. Forgive me if i missed it but I don't remember this project being discussed or explained previously, so I don't know how it is set up and what sort of quality assurance process is in place on this project? Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks Monstrelet ( talk) 11:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I've queried the reliability of two sources recently added to the featured article Royal Gloucestershire Hussars over at WP:RSN#Opinions_sought_on_two_websites, if anyone here is interested in weighing in. Thanks. Factotem ( talk) 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|
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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion about shipwreck lists is taking place at WT:SHIPS#Lists of Shipwrecks. Mjroots ( talk) 07:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
What's the modern name? Baqiqi? Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Would some others mind talking a look at this? It's probably something that can have an article written about it, but currently is has more a news feel to it than anything else. It's also starting to turn into one big long list of single entries, which would probably would be better written as prose. Most of the content was added within the past few days, but it might be a good idea to try and establish a consensus on the direction the article should take before any more gets added. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This website is being used in rather a lot of articles so I am hesitant to go on a mass-removal spree without at least discussing it first. I can find no evidence the website's administrator (John Robertson, Ayr, Scotland) is an established expert in the subject area, despite his claimed 40 years of research. Do other editors have any comments on the reliability of this website? FDW777 ( talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War which may interest participants at this Wikiproject. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I'm seeking feedback on the World War II Memorial along The Fens in Boston, at Talk:World War II Memorial (Boston). The original memorial, which is likely independently notable, was later expanded with neighborhood, much smaller Korean War and Vietnam War memorials. I'm curious how these should be covered; some sources describes them collectively, others separately. Any feedback welcome, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of the French schooner Turquoise, which rescued the crew of Shah Jahan in the Indian Ocean in August 1859. Reported by the Daily News of 15 September 1858 as "H.I.F.M. schooner Turquoise". I'm taking H.I.F.M. to mean "His Imperial French Majesty". There was an Iris-class schooner of that name, but she was struck in 1831. I've added entries for the two at French ship Turquoise, but the second needs identifying and linking. Mjroots ( talk) 08:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I am surprised to see that this project has an interest in the Michelin Guide. ( [6]). Is this correct? The Banner talk 11:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
{{hsp}}? I've tried to find it but no luck. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 12:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I’ve suggested that the article Canary Girls be merged to Munitionette. If you have thoughts on this proposed merge, please comment on the Merger discussion. This is my first proper merge request so any help or advice is welcome. Thank you! Zeromonk ( talk) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The Apollo 13 article is open for peer review in anticipation of the 50th anniversary, any additional eyes on it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Kees08 (Talk) 16:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
A proposal to move Yom Kippur War to 1973 Arab–Israeli War is being discussed here. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to see the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland (second request, so scroll down, through the first one is of some relevance as well). To be clear, this ArbCom name is somewhat misleading, and it remedies are applicable to the entire topic area of Poland in WWII and The Holocaist. As a content creator active in this topic area who was not the party to the related ArbCom case, nor was named in any findings, I am nonetheless scared now to edit articles in said topic area. In effect, adding a single problematic source could get one banned or topic banned for an extended period of time, with no need for a prior dedicated warning (as has happened to one editor just recently). I think this is something that editors of this project should be aware of. I explicitly quote there User:Nigel Ish who recently told me "I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article [related to that topic area] impossible.". I first thought he was exaggerating, but now I concur he might have been scarily correct. Even if you don't edit Polish WWII topics, it is worth nothing that if this is accepted as a norm, it can be adapted to future topic areas such as other controversial wars and so on. Is this the direction we want to go? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to note that an arbitrator replied to my small clarification request at User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#Minor_clarification and noted that he thinks newspapers are not acceptable (which is at odds with the admin who ruled at AE that they are). Joy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I am unsure whether John D. Whitney should be tagged with the military wikiproject templates. He served in the U.S. Navy and had an interesting (DYK-worthy) experience that shaped the rest of his life. However, his service in the Navy was otherwise unremarkable. Ergo Sum 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 12#The Gordon Infantry Brigade would be appreciated. It looks like there are at least two units this could've referred to, though there's only one isolated use of the phrase in the encyclopedia right now. -- BDD ( talk) 16:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I've written an article about the 1942 Axis capture of Tobruk, (see User:Alansplodge/sandbox/Second_Battle_of_Tobruk) but would like some guidance on the title before moving it into the mainspace. "Second Battle of Tobruk" seems to be the official British name but also has very little usage. "Fall of Tobruk" is much more common, the subject is already covered by a brief subsection under that name at Battle of Gazala#Fall of Tobruk, but is it maybe a bit POV? Also Tobruk had previously fallen to the Australians in January 1941, so do I need a year to disambiguate it? Comments on the draft article also welcome. Alansplodge ( talk) 20:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2019. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
CFB Shilo was a heliport but they have both closed down. I take it the base is still in operation. It needs the infobox updated/replaced. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § "She" vs. "it" for ships
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
A deletion discussion has been underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gettysburg Address (film). Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know who MacDonogh 1999 is? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I miss articles about "C" device and "R" device!-- Falkmart ( talk) 23:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the articles on the Finnish Army corps and divisions of World War II split them into two series - the first for the Winter War (e.g., Finnish 3rd Division (Winter War)) and the second for the Continuation War (e.g. Finnish 3rd Division (Continuation War). There are then two different listings of divisions - List of Finnish divisions in the Winter War List of Finnish divisions in the Continuation War and {{ Finnish formations WW2}} also uses this split. I don't know a great deal about the lineage of the Finish Army during the World War II era, but this doesn't look right. Does anyone know whether it's correct to treat these formations as being entirely separate, or should they be merged into articles such as 3rd Division (Finland)? Nick-D ( talk) 23:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy of Noclador [12] [13] The Italian language versions are all on. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
[14] Text for the Capture of Tobruk section of Operation Compass has been removed as a new article is being written.Can someone direct me to the templates so I can put one up? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 17:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
Under construction}}
?I think we need to keep an eye on the articles Hussar and Light cavalry. A user with specific methods of working with sources began to edit on them-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 17:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion about the inclusion of comments about Eli Cohen (brought on by the recent Netflix series about him) here: Talk:Eli_Cohen#RfC 22:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Would some MILHIST members mind taking a look at this article? I came across it while doing some image-use cleanup and noticed a few things that might need attention. The first thing has to do with the abbreviation of the words "second" and "third". I think that "2nd" and "3rd" are commonly used when abbreviating the words, but perhaps the military does things differently. Anyway, both "2d" and "2nd", and "3d" and "3rd" are being used throughout the article which seems inconsistent. The next thing has to do with the images being used for some bullet point entries. They seem a bit gratuitous in this article since the same images can basically be seen in the same articles about each individual unit. Generally, this type of use isn't really recommended for corporate logos (even freely-licensed or public domain ones) per MOS:LOGO but things might be different for military related articles. Images are not supposed to be used in section headings per MOS:HEAD and MOS:ACCIM, but things aren't as clear for bullet list items. The page may actually be easier to load and read without the images in the bullet points, or maybe converting the lists to tables would be better if the images are to be kept. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Byzantine–Ottoman wars, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Wdford: appears to be on a crusade of his own on Battle of Gazala and Operation Crusader (see talk pages over the last few days). It's getting beyond a joke. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 15:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I hope to avoid the blunt instrument of WP:ANI (having refreshed my memory of what it entails) but I will sleep on it. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 16:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Lets lay of commenting on users integrity shall we?
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyone interested in collaborating to bring a WWII-related article to GA status? If so, please leave a message on my talk page or ping me here. Thanks all! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 06:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thomas M. Montgomery has recently attracted edits by some who might be former associates of his; as is often the case with well-meaning, new editors who personally know the subject of a BLP, this spiraled out of control and the article was semi-protected. This lightly edited article, overall, is not in very good shape and I'd like to start getting it there but, as a first-step, am hoping to resolve the outstanding question of how much detail should be included about the "Bloody Monday" incident during Montgomery's command of UNOSOM II. If anyone has an opinion either way, I've opened a discussion here. Chetsford ( talk) 04:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone help to find any estimate for this? Ideally, with breakdown to losses per occupied territory (as in, German losses to partisans in France, xx, in Poland, yy, in USSR, zz...). I tried and couldn't get anything outside German_casualties_in_World_War_II which has a table stating that "Home front" casualties amounted to 64,055 (but methodology and reliability of the linked German source is unclear), and even the very term is a bit ambiguous ( Home front during World War II...) and I am not sure it is correct to interpret this number as 'losses inflicted by partisans'; it could include accidents or wounded who perished in home hospitals, for example). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe this article is notable, but could someone improve this article, particularly the referencing? PatGallacher ( talk) PatGallacher ( talk) 19:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Has the Spanish cruiser Isabel II article got two vessels mixed up? The infobox history section seems to relate to an 1847 ship and the article itself to an 1889 ship. Came across this whilst trying to discover the identity of the "steam frigate Isabella II" lost at Algeciras on 8 January 1860. Mjroots ( talk) 04:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 30#Fielding Hurst would be appreciated. This is an American Civil War figure, FYI, since the task force doesn't have its own talk page. -- BDD ( talk) 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering whether there is any chance of the Sir Charles Asgill page getting a better rating than "C class - of little importance"? Few people get the opportunity to change history – to do so one must prove that history is wrong. This I have done for Charles Asgill by bringing his hitherto hidden letter of 1786 to the world’s attention in the “Lancaster Historical Society’s Journal” of December 2019. This shows that George Washington's version of “The Asgill Affair” was not entirely true, and establishes the importance of Timothy Day and his tavern (in Chatham, NJ) in terms of his imprisonment (hitherto unknown information until my research trip to the US in May 2019). I feel confident that once the word gets out, not only in America but in the UK too, this will become a much bigger story. I have some very good contacts who will, I feel sure, do quite a lot on both sides of the pond.
So far as James Gordon is concerned I don't know if this 1. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met tag was decided before or after the efforts I went to to try to find out more about the man? Certainly I know that no image of him can be found. At least Katherine Mayo (in her book, “General Washington’s Dilemma”) gives a very good verbal description. Having recently tracked down the Lord Lieutenant of Fife, Gordon’s relative and the grandson of the man Katherine Mayor consulted, plus also having had direct communication with Bruce Jamieson, the author of recent books written about the family, I know that I am not going to be able to find out more. I have really done the best I possibly can. Gordon means a great deal to me, so I am sure you understand that I have pulled out all the stops to get as much information as possible. I would simply request that the “coverage and accuracy” tag be removed please.
I visited Trinity Church (Manhattan) in May this year, where Gordon was buried in an unmarked grave in 1783, and the Vicar was so impressed by what a wonderful man Gordon was that they are planning to erect a grave marker for him once renovations to the church have been completed. I am hoping that the Lord Lieutenant of Fife, and other members of Gordon’s family, will come to NYC with me for the occasion.
I would be grateful if these matters could be considered. Arbil44 ( talk) 11:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
So I just re-stumbled across this article. After some poking around, I found that it was all the way back in 2008 when an initial consensus was reached to merge and redirect several overlapping/duplicating articles into the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II. What is the best course of action on proceeding with this? I still believe that they are unnecessary duplicates of one another. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Modern Sub Machine Carbine that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! PI Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Would appreciate a third opinion on this at Talk:Battle of Hel/GA1, where we have a slight disagreement (maybe just a misunderstanding) about the usage of units. Polish and German armies used metric units but I think the reviewer is requesting the use of English one and that is leaving me confused. Could anyone comment if there is a problem with the units in the article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I wonder if someone would be able to identify the medal that RN Lt. Comm. John Manners was recently decorated with by Norway? This describes it as the Norwegian Medal of Honour but I can't seem to find any such medal. Any help much appreciated! StickyWicket ( talk) 15:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed some nav boxes from Richard Haine which doesnt mention him, including Template:World War II and Template:RAF squadrons. User:Lightburst argues that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is only a guideline but I cant see why Haine is an exception. Other views welcome, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.Lightburst ( talk) 21:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
More often then I would like, there are errors at WP:OTD displayed on the main page. I believe these errors stem from date pages without citations (such as December 16). In October 2017, consensus was determined to include citations in these articles. Because of how long they went without citations, the amount of work required to cite all the material is substantial. I often find numbers do not match the sources (like number of people killed in an event), for example.
Many articles in the list are related to military history. I try to cite the spaceflight articles each day I remember, and was seeing if I could find any support in this group. The milhist project does substantial good work, has access to excellent sources, and always strives to put the overall project in the best light it can. If you can try to cite even one or two articles in the current day of the year (or any day!), it will help solve the problem that propagates into WP:OTD. Bonus points if you find citations for the births/deaths lists on the same page :). If anyone has questions on what needs done I would be happy to clarify. Happy editing! Kees08 (Talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know how to sort out the external link? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This was deleted a few days ago as a copyvio, but I've started a new one at User:Ww2censor/Daniel O'Neill and maybe some editors who know this topic better can assist. ww2censor ( talk) 15:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Loads of modern scholarship.
As far as I can see, this is not a copyvio. By deleting it for what appear to be dogmatic reasons we have also deleted its substantial edit history, which is not just by the blocked user who created it. This seems unnecessarily heavy-handed and pointless. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
|
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) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey guys. I came across Category:Moskalyev aircraft with two planes (and others not listed, but apparently no article about the company/designer. It's not my area, perhaps someone would like to take it on over the holidays? Le Deluge ( talk) 14:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this vast new article would benefit from review by other editors. It seems to sprawl all over, and around, its purported subject and reads like an essay. The huge number of inaccurate referrals to the USSR as being "Russia" raises some red flags for me. The topic likely has merit, but I'm not sure this article currently covers it appropriately (@ Maxaxax:). Nick-D ( talk) 23:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Nazi Germany was able to focus all its resources on its Western frontpresumably would come as a surprise to the people of Denmark, Greece, Norway, Iraq, North Africa, Yugoslavia…) I won't do it myself as I have previous history with its long-term-disruptive creator. ‑ Iridescent 07:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
There is an IP who is insisting that France has an independent space force. I have started a discussion at Talk:Space force#French independence?. It would be great if individuals would add their thoughts to this discussion. Garuda28 ( talk) 00:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
There are comments at Talk:CSS Shenandoah#Article assessment for anyone interested. Otr500 ( talk) 08:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7: or anyone else who can give me some insight, but how exactly does the MilHistBot judge criteria for article rating? It just ran through Herman Lupogo, which I wrote yesterday, and said that the criterion for referencing and citation was not met. I know the bot is not perfect and not meant to replace human assessing, but clearly the article doesn't suffer from a lack of citations, since outside of the lead every standalone paragraph ends with one citation and has several interspersed throughout. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
An Rfc has been opened on Talk:Space force#Rfc on title of current Space force article to get feedback on a proposal to change the title and redirect the term space force to United States Space Force. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from MILHIST mind taking a look at this? There seems to be some weird centering happening mid-way through the article which probably is a syntax error, but I can’t seem to find it. Also, I’m wondering about the personal section since it’s unsourced, but the part about where he wants to retire seems more like it’s written a bit more as if this is a personal profile than a Wikipedia article. — Marchjuly ( talk) 09:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) (my nom) is good to go less a source review. If someone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, if you haven't voted, refer to the threads at the top of this page. Voting closes today. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC) for the coords.
Apart from being a bit of pile in and blame everybody article the NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War doesnt appear to be anything to do with NATO. Should it be moved ? anybody have any suggestions what to do with it ? MilborneOne ( talk) 09:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2019. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
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.
Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2019.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2019. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
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.
Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.
All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2019.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I created an article on the above, he had a long and distinguished career in the British Army, in addition to very briefly playing first-class cricket for the forerunner of Lancashire County Cricket Club. I've filled out the bare bones of his military career, but can't find much else published online. So leaving him here incase anyone fancies expanding what looks like a noteworthy military career. Cheers. StickyWicket ( talk) 10:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
What date was this ship transferred to the Ottoman Navy? According to Clydeships, it was in 1856. However, the Morning Chronicle of 16 October 1860 reports that Baroness Tecco was damaged by fire at Constantinople on 11 October. She is listed in Lloyd's Register, 1860 as Baroness Tecco. According to the List of non-combat vessels of the Ottoman steam navy, more info might be found at Bernd Langensiepen, Ahmet Güleryüz, The Ottoman Steam Navy, 1828-1923, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1995, ISBN 1-55750-659-0, p. 172. Mjroots ( talk) 07:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, she was still Baroness Tecco at that time, but under the Ottoman flag. Mjroots ( talk) 19:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It may be worth reassessing the oldest articles on our lists of requested articles. I was going through the ones on Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Military biography and of the first seven, only George T. Rheam seemed to be remotely notable. Thoughts? Should I just remove them? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
So I've got three sources telling me slightly different things. So there's this Transylvanian town, taken by the Romanian Army in the first days of the Battle of Transylvania, on 29 August 1916. But I've got conflicting sources as to when the Romanians evacuated it...A recent book says 18 September, two old books from that time period both say 20 September, and a post-war Austrian military map says 19 September. So...what do I do? Personally I think I should go with the Austrian military map, to be honest. But...what do you think? Transylvania1916 ( talk) 07:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
There is some disagreement I'm having with another editor over whether all the medals someone won should be listed in their article. [25] What is normally done with these sorts of articles? All five of the medals listed have their own Wikipedia articles for them. Richard_Haine#Honours_and_awards Dream Focus 16:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I generally include them in the prose if they can be reliably sourced (I tend to avoid lists these days, but used to do them), and have never had anyone query them except with Nazi bios. The infobox should be kept for only the highest (generally gallantry or distinguished service) awards. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
My tuppence worth: First and foremost, obviously all content needs to be verifiable. Ideally, all medals should be fluidly listed in the prose where appropriate. If a medal doesn't seem significant enough to mention naturally in the prose, then it probably isn't notable enough to be included in the article at all. I'm not keen on the idea of a list at the end of an article, unless it provides sufficient context as to what each medal was awarded for. I am strongly opposed to the sole inclusion of ribbon pictures for each medal, as this is not accessible at all. Harrias talk 10:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I for one am all for including all awards, and for including them in a list belowe the article. Why? Simple, because they are well suited for them, below the main text is the best place for that and military awards are part of a military biography (if applicable) and information. If the information is known why shouldn´t it be used? We´re not forced to make short biographic entries with a limited format, we can expand. Of course that doesn´t mean infobox, which should only include the top level. The inclusion of ribbons in the lists is, in my opinion, totally optional but I think "ribbons only" is suboptimal. As for the matter being brought up time and time again it usually means another deletionist has a deletionist issue again, or somebody comes with a national POV. In the end, as all editors are free to edit or not, the matter is really simple: You want to include the awards - do so. You write an article and don´t want to - then just don´t. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 15:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
As long as they are verifiable, I have no problem listing all medals. I agree we should not assume any medals are earned based on service, and I also agree that ribbon images is probably too prominent for inclusion in a recipient's article (they are perfectly acceptable in the medal's own article if it exists). CThomas3 ( talk) 23:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned before, the precondition for inclusion is verifiability. In the case of Audie Murphy, the article includes an inline listing of some of his awards and decorations but must rely on a standalone article named Audie Murphy honors and awards which currently is a featured list. That said, this indicates some level of acceptance for full inclusion on Wikipedia. The award section in the article Dwight D. Eisenhower seems rather lengthy to me and takes up space. Maybe an acceptable compromise would be full inclusion but in a collapsible table. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I would limit inclusion to honours and awards but exclude other decorations (eg service medals). Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Lithuanian resistance. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Since military history isn't my bailiwick, I'm opening a thread here. The article appears to have been created and edited mostly by the battalion's commander, which isn't necessarily a negative. But many, if not most of the footnotes don't appear to refer to WP:RELIABLE sources, which makes me wonder if the content really belongs here, as opposed to the battalion's website. I suspect a lot of it can be cut. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Good afternoon. While not a "new user", I have limited experience with Wikipedia beyond the page in question. If you could advise which references need additional sources, I can provide these - There is a large Battalion archive that most of this information has come from. If there is some sort of "best practices" that I should be using, I would be happy to review these.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pboyle094 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am currently working on a series of articles about British naval activities off the Belgian coast in the First World War. I was intending to link to articles about the German defences they faced but have struggled to find an article about them. Is there a WW1 equivalent to the Atlantic Wall or German coastal battery Tirpitz articles? Judging from the period being missed out of the Coastal artillery article, I suspect we don't have anything yet. However, I wanted to check if anyone was aware of any orphan articles on the subject that I could expand on rather than start from scratch. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 00:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There was a naval action at Fort Jackson, Louisiana during which the blockading schooner Preble was sunk. Was she a Union or Confederate ship? - "America". The Times. No. 24076. London. 29 October 1861. col E-F, p. 7. template uses deprecated parameter(s) ( help) Mjroots ( talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow project members. I don't normally like soliciting people to perform reviews of my noms, but I've lodged a good topic nomination for Battle of the Uganda–Tanzania war here: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War/archive1. Good/featured topic noms aren't very visible, so they often don't get timely reviews, so I'd appreciate it if some members—particularly those who have already reviewed portions of it and are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the content—would give a little bit of their time to expedite the process. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Home Army/Archive 6#Request for Comments: German casualties: watchers here may comment.-- JoeZ451 ( talk) 16:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
With the recent death of Soleimani, I wanted to contribute to the Isoroku Yamamoto page after hearing that Soleimani's death is the highest profile U.S. military assassination since Yamamoto's death and I sourced NYT, and this was referenced in WaPo as well. TJRC has approved of it, though an anon user has been highly against it and has reverted my edit, and TJRC's restoration of the edit. Both of us think that this fact provides context into U.S. military engagement targets of high profile.
Attached discussion is here Talk:Isoroku_Yamamoto#Qassem_Soleimani
Many thanks. NeverBeGameOver ( talk) 05:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Given the possibility the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was shot down by the IRGC, it would be appreciated if some editors with expertise in Iranian/Middle Eastern military matters would at least keep a weather eye on the article. Expert opinion at talk page also welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ba Congress; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! (NB: my nom) Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for USS O'Flaherty; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, I was clearing out Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging, and struck a hurdle with Talk:The Red Badge of Courage. There was a red portal link which I deleted, and I tried null edits, so can anyone see what else might be astray with it? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.
we welcome your input. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 20:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
For instance, the Confederate Medal of Honor (Sons of Confederate Veterans) and all here except the 1964 one:
Doug Weller
talk 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.
we welcome your input. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 01:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello
From Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe GLAM in WikimediaPoland received this photo (there are many more photos in commons:Category:Images from Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe – needing category). Description Ciężkie działo kolejowe 280 mm używane przez Niemców w czasie walk w Normandii. Widoczny żołnierz ładujący pocisk. equals heavy railway gun 280 mm used by Germans in fights in Normandy. Visible soldier loading shells. As there was not so many 280 mm railway guns maybe someone will be able to recognize what exactly gun it was? PMG ( talk) 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a dispute on the template over the bold IP edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Denial_of_mass_killings&type=revision&diff=935209507&oldid=935193882&diffmode=source I would like to hear your opinion. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I have an article at FAC that hasn't had many reviews and may be archived soon as a result. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/archive1 and see what needs fixing, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I've never talked to anyone in this fascinating Project! I have been reviewing new articles and came across a user that has created several articles of the following nature: Texas Cold War Medal, Texas Border Security and Support Service Ribbon. Note I am not judging this user's contributions, quite the opposite as the articles are quite decent and they're a good effort. My question is whether these awards can in fact be considered notable? I mean, the latter doesn't even exist yet, and the article actually states it would be the "tenth highest campaign/service award" (my own emphasis). Not only that, but the sources used are primary ones. It seems to me these are fringe medals of questionable eminence. Your thoughts on this? Thanks! PK650 ( talk) 02:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at the name and page location of Charles Carroll Wood. The current page content supports the middle name Taylor, but there is a source that supports Carroll.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the correct way of displaying these vessesl. Is the pennant number italicized or not? German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6 or German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6? Mjroots ( talk) 08:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
{{ship|German trawler V 1502|Wiking 6}}
→
German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6.
De728631 (
talk) 02:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear members of the Military History Wikiproject,
I am part of a research project at the University of Westminster, London that looks at contentious Wikipedia articles. I have come to this page in order to find volunteers who would be willing to participate in a semi-structured interview on the subject.
This interview would be a part of a research study which analyzes discursive practices in conflict and how it is represented through editing and discussion within controversial Wikipedia articles about on-going wars and international conflicts, where members of this Wikiproject are assumed to have expertise. To explore this, I would formally like to request a semi-structured research interview regarding your perspectives on contributor relationships, motivations for participation and collaboration practices.
Your contribution would be highly valuable to this project. If any of you would like to participate, or have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me through e-mail or my personal talk page.
Best regards and thank you in advance.
Etchubykalo, doctoral researcher at the communication and media research institute (CAMRI), University of Westminster, London. Etchubykalo ( talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I notice that the women in red project is creating articles on WASP aviators but I am not sure that most of them are not particularly noteworthy. An example Gwendolyne Cowart created this week, she did some good stuff ferrying aircraft around not unlike the other 1000 wasps but I dont see anything outstanding. A lot of these article shows she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal but it was a collective award and not actually awarded to individuals. I didnt want to prod some of these articles without some other opinions because we dont want to discourage the WIR project which is doing some good stuff but do they really meet mil his notability guidelines ? MilborneOne ( talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I created USS Harrisburg (LPD-30) given that ship was named today. As admittedly military and ship articles are not my prime area of expertise, leaving a note here for anybody who wants to take a look and tidy it up. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 02:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The article 1959 San Diego F3H crash has been created on an accident which may have hit things and killed sombody, but like thousands of such accidents it didnt, one question is that the pilot was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal would this be enough to pass the notability threshold for the accident. thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, it has been years since I looked at this, and cannot see what is going on here. If you look at Talk:Battle of Calais you will see in our banner a redlink for "passed" an A-Class review. The article history is fine, and the reason is probably something to do with the fact that the article has been moved since its ACR, but what is the fix? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
|oldtitle=
, and setting it up in the code. Alternatively, we could move the A-class review page itself.
Harrias
talk 06:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
|
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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I posted on the talk page of Gregory_A._Feest, but no response. The article seems to be copied entirely from a military website. Is this standard practice? Daundelin ❁ 20:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The article for Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet includes what appears to be a brief discussion of the effectiveness of area bombing as practiced by the Bomber Command under Harris as compared to the effectiveness of targeted attacks as practiced by the Americans. That paragraph ends with the sentence:
The American history also includes information from Albert Speer, in which he points out Bomber Command's night attacks were the most effective.
This seems to conflict with a quote from Defence of the Reich:
After the war, Minister of Armaments Albert Speer was asked by both British and American interrogators on separate occasions which air force had a superior bombing strategy. The exact wording of the question was "Which, at various periods of the war, caused more concern; British or American heavy bomber attacks, day or night attacks, and why?". In both cases, Speer replied: "The American attacks which followed a definite system assault on industrial targets, were by far the most dangerous. It was in fact those attacks which caused the breakdown of the German armaments industry."
Can someone with more knowledge about this issue resolve this apparent conflict? .froth. ( talk) 00:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
What is the true identity of the Imperial Brazilian Navy's war steamship Magee, lost off the mouth of the River Plate in June 1858 with the loss of about 400 lives. Was she an iroclad, a corvett, or something else. The only other info I have is that she was built by Laird's of Birkenhead. Mjroots ( talk) 10:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I want to tell you that there are two proxy conflicts that has not been covered by Wikipedia yet. These are the Draft:Russia–United States proxy conflict and Draft:China–United States proxy conflict. If anyone who is interested in helping editing these draft articles then you are welcome. If you are wanted to edit the whole drafts then you can leave a message in my talk page to let me know that you are editing the articles because these two proxy wars are important when it comes to military history. I did add them to the News & open tasks section. SpinnerLaserz ( talk) 17:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
This RM discussion could benefit from a few more opinions: Talk:Bouncing mine#Requested move 13 October 2019. PC78 ( talk) 08:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
So in rewriting SMS Amazone, I've come across a reference to a "Luftschiff M IV", but I can't find any airship designated M IV on the List of Zeppelins, List of Schütte-Lanz airships, or List of Parseval airships. The closest I can find is Zeppelin LZ 27, which was an M-class Zeppelin with the tactical designation of L4 - does anybody know if that's right, or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear military experts: Here's a draft that may be of interest. Please take a look!— Anne Delong ( talk) 14:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to fill in
Thanks, usable then but sparingly and with caution. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I have about 111 photos from the Gettysburg battlefield to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Most of them are of memorials, like in List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield, but a lot of them are better than the photos there. There are some photos of the battlefield and some of cannons, etc.
I'm ready to upload them but I don't have the time or knowledge to add descriptions or put them in categories. Can someone help with that? I will upload them as a batch, but I need to have a title, category, and initial description for the set - what should I use? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I've uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. They have names Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US.jpg, Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (2).jpg, etc.
To do it the easy way, I put all of them in the Gettysburg Battlefield category and the memorials are also in the Battle of Gettysburg memorials category. A bot will come through and remove the general category for the ones that have the more specific category. Over half of them had to be rotated. Many of the landscapes are underexposed (because of the bright sky). I can fix that.
I would appreciate it if someone could put some details in the description and move ones to subcategories, if they exist. Also, ones that are worthy could go in articles like List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, well besides lack of references, this article has errors where it talks about the capped armor-piercing shell. That APC was introduced in WW2, when I know it was used in the Battle of Jutland. That the capped cushion the shock when it dispersed it radially (in soft capped types), and on. I am not a subject matter expert on the matter but if errors were made on this then I have little faith that there is not a lot of other errors as well. Is there anyone around that does have a background on this? Tirronan ( talk) 04:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because I carefully added the relevant articles to it. It appears to have been probably been emptied without due process [1], and I can easily readd the articles that should be in it. It appears that Ssolbergj is systematically removing this category (which meets WP:CATDEF, all articles within it are military formations) and inserting a category which does not meet WP:CATDEF (all articles are not Allied Command Operations, which is one singular article). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
There are currently three military history portals in portal space:
You may know that there is also currently a substantial winnowing of portals going on, particularly targeting portals with low viewership. None of these portals is likely to make the cut in that process. At the same time, Portal:Military history has always been a redirect to Portal:War, although the subjects are not necessarily identical. I propose merging the three portals noted above into a single Portal:Military history, under the operation of this WikiProject. bd2412 T 01:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this article seem weird to anyone? Lines like "[he] distinguished himself by the firmness with which he dealt with cases of unrest in the army in the midst of the Dreyfus Affair." Feel... excessively positive to someone who's clearly, historically proven to be in the wrong. I'm not an expert on this; just... between that and the dismissal of any controversy over his repression of the Paris Commune, it feels a really positive-leaning portrayal of a man who's at best controversial. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 03:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Mikołów was brief but probably should have an article. What about the mopping up operation of the nearby city? Defense of Katowice, Katowice massacre, and Parachute Tower Katowice? All three describe the same event: kids taking potshots at Germans entering the city the day after Mikołów, and their capture and execution. Highly partisan and low quality sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.171.213 ( talk) 12:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey. I clicked the "currently undergoing" link that appeared when I changed its staus to A-class=current... but somehow it created "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/importance". Sorry for the mess...[I think the Importance article should be deleted anyway, WP:NOTDICT... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
( ←) Ah, one editor unilaterally changed the rating. Can do, or needs to go through Reassessment? i thought it was the latter... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this and assessing it for notability? It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG or WP:BAND, but maybe there's another guideline it satisfies. Currently, the own source(s) cited is Facebook which is a WP:SPS at best and not really helpful for establishing the band's Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I was looking to get some advice if the below source would be acceptable for a FAN, if only used for OOB information. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 01:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)There is an article in the german Wikipedia about one Harry Adams, who was an officer on Richard E. Byrds ship during his artic expedition in the late 1920s. Although the sources who report on Adams seems to be scarce, the Wikipedian who did the research on Adams lists some astonishing facts - apparently based partially on this article in the "Meridan Record" from 1932. The Meridan-article states, that Adams won the MoH for wartime service twice - which I wasnt able to confirm. If thats just made up, the source may not be credible. Can someone help to confirm or deny this guys MoH ? Alexpl ( talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article has a LONG section at the bottom about how Graf is part of the surname as of the end of WWI, which would be great... IF he hadn't died decades before that... Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 03:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: Is there policy about small printing references? Parsec's taking them out and I think it needs consensus. regards. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Keith, here's my question for you: what value do you think the templates provide as you're using them? Parsecboy ( talk) 17:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't for me to justify the status quo; if you want to alter a long standing practice, I suggest that the onus is on you. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Claiming not to be bound by the limitations of paper is a two edged sword, just about any browser allows you to change text size to your own preference. Also a 10% change in text size seems like an odd thing to argue about with much passion. ( Hohum @) 00:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: Come off it you want change not me, I think it needs a discussion, you're getting a bit too defensive. If you have point to make, make itopenly. I'm not opposing your view but I want a debate, not you unilaterally deleting them. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 00:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Like most templates, the template documentation sucks. But this works: {{refbegin|normalfont=yes}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 03:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
your conduct has ben high-handed, defensive and apt to infer my motives. I've told you why I want this debated and all I get from you is gamesmanship. Stop it. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Links at http://www.civilwar.org ( Civil War Trust) now redirect to https://www.battlefields.org/ ( American Battlefield Trust). Special:LinkSearch/www.civilwar.org currently shows 433 links in all namespaces. The links I tested are currently redirecting to the right page, e.g. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/chantilly.html to https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/chantilly. American Battlefield Trust is an umbrella organization for the Civil War Trust so I guess the pages were just copied to the new domain. Redirect sites often go dead or change to only linking the new domain so I recommend you check and update the mainspace links while there are working redirects. See also WP:ELDEAD and Wikipedia:Link rot. I'm not in your project but answered a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#An external page redirects to a different website - should it be updated? ( permanent link). PrimeHunter ( talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I wrote an article on Jedediah Sanger, who served in the American Revolution from the first engagement at Lexington/Concord for the duration, as private, 2nd Lt., 1st Lt. I put everything I could find about his service into the article, which isn't much. He is notable for his later life. Just wondering if he should have a military infobox added to the main one? If so, and anyone wants to do it, please do so. MB 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
As the originator of Robert J. O'Neill (Navy SEAL) doesnt appear to be active just to notify interested parties that I have proposed this article for deletion as "Clearly only noteworthy for one event of which mostly self-proclaimed, coverage presently in Death of Osama bin Laden is sufficient", thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The article Punjab War is a stub describing a conflict between the British East India Company and the Sikh Empire between 1810-1820, in which the Sikhs were victorious. I found it via List of wars involving the United Kingdom. However, best as I can tell, it never happened, at least in the way it is described. I also haven't found any sources calling it the "Punjab War", which seems to be a title invented just for the Wiki page.
According to reliable tertiary sources, there were a series of wars in the Punjab between 1809 and 1820, but they involved the Sikhs consolidating their rule and fighting with the Afghans over Kashmir. The British were uninvolved, it appears to me. Does anyone have any information about this war? Is it possible the British were involved (maybe fighting alongside the Afghans)?
Some sources: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ranjit-Singh-Sikh-maharaja
https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Amritsar
https://books.google.com/books?id=h5_tSnygvbIC
Thanks for the help! Ganesha811 ( talk) 14:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia#Requested move 28 October 2019. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The HMS Vulture (1843) article states with unreferenced text that she was recommissioned in December 1859. Could this be in error for 1858? The Hampshire Advertiser and Salisbury Guardian of 12 March 1859 states that Vulture arrived at Malta on 21 February in a leaky condition, having been ashore on the Barbary Coast. Mjroots ( talk) 09:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Liberté-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate more eyes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carlos Castillo Armas/archive1. It has two supports, and completed source and image reviews, but is foundering for lack of attention. It passed an A-class review here not long ago. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm new to WikiProject MilHist and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms Task Force and have recently written an article about the Battle of Muster Green however it was reviewed when the only thing in the article was the sentence long lede and the half filled out info box. I have extended the article since then and even though I'm not yet finished, I'd like it if anyone could re-review it and give a list of things wrong with the article/missing from the article that I can then follow to improve the article with. Thanks in advance, TheBestEditorInEngland ( talk) 04:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, there are about a dozen unreviewed GANs at WP:GAN#WAR if anyone has a bit of spare time to look in on one. If you are not familiar with the GA criteria, it can be found at WP:GA?. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The HMS Jaseur (1857) article gives a wrecking date of 26 February. However, contemporary press reports give a date of 4 March. Mjroots ( talk) 12:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I had good success getting help with my Gettysburg photos, so I've uploaded my Vicksburg photos. There are only 53 this time. They are all in Wikimedia Commons, category Vicksburg National Military Park, with the title Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi, US (nn).jpg, (e.g. File:Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi, US (53).jpg) where nn is 2 to 54. #1 doesn't have the sequence number and #39 is up for deletion.
We didn't get to the Confederate ones, I think the road was washed out. (I hope no one wants to remove them.) There are a lot of Ohio ones because my brother-in-law is a buff in Ohio.
So I would appreciate help in photo descriptions and some categorization. These are not as well documented as the Gettysburg memorials. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been watching these roll past on my list. I don't think I've seen one yet i violently disagree with (I'd have changed it if i had) but some certainly I think contestable by a stricter judge. Forgive me if i missed it but I don't remember this project being discussed or explained previously, so I don't know how it is set up and what sort of quality assurance process is in place on this project? Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks Monstrelet ( talk) 11:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I've queried the reliability of two sources recently added to the featured article Royal Gloucestershire Hussars over at WP:RSN#Opinions_sought_on_two_websites, if anyone here is interested in weighing in. Thanks. Factotem ( talk) 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|
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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion about shipwreck lists is taking place at WT:SHIPS#Lists of Shipwrecks. Mjroots ( talk) 07:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
What's the modern name? Baqiqi? Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Would some others mind talking a look at this? It's probably something that can have an article written about it, but currently is has more a news feel to it than anything else. It's also starting to turn into one big long list of single entries, which would probably would be better written as prose. Most of the content was added within the past few days, but it might be a good idea to try and establish a consensus on the direction the article should take before any more gets added. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This website is being used in rather a lot of articles so I am hesitant to go on a mass-removal spree without at least discussing it first. I can find no evidence the website's administrator (John Robertson, Ayr, Scotland) is an established expert in the subject area, despite his claimed 40 years of research. Do other editors have any comments on the reliability of this website? FDW777 ( talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War which may interest participants at this Wikiproject. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I'm seeking feedback on the World War II Memorial along The Fens in Boston, at Talk:World War II Memorial (Boston). The original memorial, which is likely independently notable, was later expanded with neighborhood, much smaller Korean War and Vietnam War memorials. I'm curious how these should be covered; some sources describes them collectively, others separately. Any feedback welcome, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of the French schooner Turquoise, which rescued the crew of Shah Jahan in the Indian Ocean in August 1859. Reported by the Daily News of 15 September 1858 as "H.I.F.M. schooner Turquoise". I'm taking H.I.F.M. to mean "His Imperial French Majesty". There was an Iris-class schooner of that name, but she was struck in 1831. I've added entries for the two at French ship Turquoise, but the second needs identifying and linking. Mjroots ( talk) 08:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I am surprised to see that this project has an interest in the Michelin Guide. ( [6]). Is this correct? The Banner talk 11:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
{{hsp}}? I've tried to find it but no luck. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 12:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I’ve suggested that the article Canary Girls be merged to Munitionette. If you have thoughts on this proposed merge, please comment on the Merger discussion. This is my first proper merge request so any help or advice is welcome. Thank you! Zeromonk ( talk) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The Apollo 13 article is open for peer review in anticipation of the 50th anniversary, any additional eyes on it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Kees08 (Talk) 16:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
A proposal to move Yom Kippur War to 1973 Arab–Israeli War is being discussed here. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to see the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland (second request, so scroll down, through the first one is of some relevance as well). To be clear, this ArbCom name is somewhat misleading, and it remedies are applicable to the entire topic area of Poland in WWII and The Holocaist. As a content creator active in this topic area who was not the party to the related ArbCom case, nor was named in any findings, I am nonetheless scared now to edit articles in said topic area. In effect, adding a single problematic source could get one banned or topic banned for an extended period of time, with no need for a prior dedicated warning (as has happened to one editor just recently). I think this is something that editors of this project should be aware of. I explicitly quote there User:Nigel Ish who recently told me "I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article [related to that topic area] impossible.". I first thought he was exaggerating, but now I concur he might have been scarily correct. Even if you don't edit Polish WWII topics, it is worth nothing that if this is accepted as a norm, it can be adapted to future topic areas such as other controversial wars and so on. Is this the direction we want to go? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to note that an arbitrator replied to my small clarification request at User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#Minor_clarification and noted that he thinks newspapers are not acceptable (which is at odds with the admin who ruled at AE that they are). Joy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I am unsure whether John D. Whitney should be tagged with the military wikiproject templates. He served in the U.S. Navy and had an interesting (DYK-worthy) experience that shaped the rest of his life. However, his service in the Navy was otherwise unremarkable. Ergo Sum 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 12#The Gordon Infantry Brigade would be appreciated. It looks like there are at least two units this could've referred to, though there's only one isolated use of the phrase in the encyclopedia right now. -- BDD ( talk) 16:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I've written an article about the 1942 Axis capture of Tobruk, (see User:Alansplodge/sandbox/Second_Battle_of_Tobruk) but would like some guidance on the title before moving it into the mainspace. "Second Battle of Tobruk" seems to be the official British name but also has very little usage. "Fall of Tobruk" is much more common, the subject is already covered by a brief subsection under that name at Battle of Gazala#Fall of Tobruk, but is it maybe a bit POV? Also Tobruk had previously fallen to the Australians in January 1941, so do I need a year to disambiguate it? Comments on the draft article also welcome. Alansplodge ( talk) 20:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2019. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
CFB Shilo was a heliport but they have both closed down. I take it the base is still in operation. It needs the infobox updated/replaced. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § "She" vs. "it" for ships
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
A deletion discussion has been underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gettysburg Address (film). Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know who MacDonogh 1999 is? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I miss articles about "C" device and "R" device!-- Falkmart ( talk) 23:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the articles on the Finnish Army corps and divisions of World War II split them into two series - the first for the Winter War (e.g., Finnish 3rd Division (Winter War)) and the second for the Continuation War (e.g. Finnish 3rd Division (Continuation War). There are then two different listings of divisions - List of Finnish divisions in the Winter War List of Finnish divisions in the Continuation War and {{ Finnish formations WW2}} also uses this split. I don't know a great deal about the lineage of the Finish Army during the World War II era, but this doesn't look right. Does anyone know whether it's correct to treat these formations as being entirely separate, or should they be merged into articles such as 3rd Division (Finland)? Nick-D ( talk) 23:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy of Noclador [12] [13] The Italian language versions are all on. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
[14] Text for the Capture of Tobruk section of Operation Compass has been removed as a new article is being written.Can someone direct me to the templates so I can put one up? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 17:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
Under construction}}
?I think we need to keep an eye on the articles Hussar and Light cavalry. A user with specific methods of working with sources began to edit on them-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 17:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion about the inclusion of comments about Eli Cohen (brought on by the recent Netflix series about him) here: Talk:Eli_Cohen#RfC 22:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Would some MILHIST members mind taking a look at this article? I came across it while doing some image-use cleanup and noticed a few things that might need attention. The first thing has to do with the abbreviation of the words "second" and "third". I think that "2nd" and "3rd" are commonly used when abbreviating the words, but perhaps the military does things differently. Anyway, both "2d" and "2nd", and "3d" and "3rd" are being used throughout the article which seems inconsistent. The next thing has to do with the images being used for some bullet point entries. They seem a bit gratuitous in this article since the same images can basically be seen in the same articles about each individual unit. Generally, this type of use isn't really recommended for corporate logos (even freely-licensed or public domain ones) per MOS:LOGO but things might be different for military related articles. Images are not supposed to be used in section headings per MOS:HEAD and MOS:ACCIM, but things aren't as clear for bullet list items. The page may actually be easier to load and read without the images in the bullet points, or maybe converting the lists to tables would be better if the images are to be kept. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Byzantine–Ottoman wars, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Wdford: appears to be on a crusade of his own on Battle of Gazala and Operation Crusader (see talk pages over the last few days). It's getting beyond a joke. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 15:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I hope to avoid the blunt instrument of WP:ANI (having refreshed my memory of what it entails) but I will sleep on it. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 16:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Lets lay of commenting on users integrity shall we?
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyone interested in collaborating to bring a WWII-related article to GA status? If so, please leave a message on my talk page or ping me here. Thanks all! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 06:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thomas M. Montgomery has recently attracted edits by some who might be former associates of his; as is often the case with well-meaning, new editors who personally know the subject of a BLP, this spiraled out of control and the article was semi-protected. This lightly edited article, overall, is not in very good shape and I'd like to start getting it there but, as a first-step, am hoping to resolve the outstanding question of how much detail should be included about the "Bloody Monday" incident during Montgomery's command of UNOSOM II. If anyone has an opinion either way, I've opened a discussion here. Chetsford ( talk) 04:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone help to find any estimate for this? Ideally, with breakdown to losses per occupied territory (as in, German losses to partisans in France, xx, in Poland, yy, in USSR, zz...). I tried and couldn't get anything outside German_casualties_in_World_War_II which has a table stating that "Home front" casualties amounted to 64,055 (but methodology and reliability of the linked German source is unclear), and even the very term is a bit ambiguous ( Home front during World War II...) and I am not sure it is correct to interpret this number as 'losses inflicted by partisans'; it could include accidents or wounded who perished in home hospitals, for example). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe this article is notable, but could someone improve this article, particularly the referencing? PatGallacher ( talk) PatGallacher ( talk) 19:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Has the Spanish cruiser Isabel II article got two vessels mixed up? The infobox history section seems to relate to an 1847 ship and the article itself to an 1889 ship. Came across this whilst trying to discover the identity of the "steam frigate Isabella II" lost at Algeciras on 8 January 1860. Mjroots ( talk) 04:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 30#Fielding Hurst would be appreciated. This is an American Civil War figure, FYI, since the task force doesn't have its own talk page. -- BDD ( talk) 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering whether there is any chance of the Sir Charles Asgill page getting a better rating than "C class - of little importance"? Few people get the opportunity to change history – to do so one must prove that history is wrong. This I have done for Charles Asgill by bringing his hitherto hidden letter of 1786 to the world’s attention in the “Lancaster Historical Society’s Journal” of December 2019. This shows that George Washington's version of “The Asgill Affair” was not entirely true, and establishes the importance of Timothy Day and his tavern (in Chatham, NJ) in terms of his imprisonment (hitherto unknown information until my research trip to the US in May 2019). I feel confident that once the word gets out, not only in America but in the UK too, this will become a much bigger story. I have some very good contacts who will, I feel sure, do quite a lot on both sides of the pond.
So far as James Gordon is concerned I don't know if this 1. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met tag was decided before or after the efforts I went to to try to find out more about the man? Certainly I know that no image of him can be found. At least Katherine Mayo (in her book, “General Washington’s Dilemma”) gives a very good verbal description. Having recently tracked down the Lord Lieutenant of Fife, Gordon’s relative and the grandson of the man Katherine Mayor consulted, plus also having had direct communication with Bruce Jamieson, the author of recent books written about the family, I know that I am not going to be able to find out more. I have really done the best I possibly can. Gordon means a great deal to me, so I am sure you understand that I have pulled out all the stops to get as much information as possible. I would simply request that the “coverage and accuracy” tag be removed please.
I visited Trinity Church (Manhattan) in May this year, where Gordon was buried in an unmarked grave in 1783, and the Vicar was so impressed by what a wonderful man Gordon was that they are planning to erect a grave marker for him once renovations to the church have been completed. I am hoping that the Lord Lieutenant of Fife, and other members of Gordon’s family, will come to NYC with me for the occasion.
I would be grateful if these matters could be considered. Arbil44 ( talk) 11:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
So I just re-stumbled across this article. After some poking around, I found that it was all the way back in 2008 when an initial consensus was reached to merge and redirect several overlapping/duplicating articles into the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II. What is the best course of action on proceeding with this? I still believe that they are unnecessary duplicates of one another. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Modern Sub Machine Carbine that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! PI Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Would appreciate a third opinion on this at Talk:Battle of Hel/GA1, where we have a slight disagreement (maybe just a misunderstanding) about the usage of units. Polish and German armies used metric units but I think the reviewer is requesting the use of English one and that is leaving me confused. Could anyone comment if there is a problem with the units in the article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I wonder if someone would be able to identify the medal that RN Lt. Comm. John Manners was recently decorated with by Norway? This describes it as the Norwegian Medal of Honour but I can't seem to find any such medal. Any help much appreciated! StickyWicket ( talk) 15:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed some nav boxes from Richard Haine which doesnt mention him, including Template:World War II and Template:RAF squadrons. User:Lightburst argues that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is only a guideline but I cant see why Haine is an exception. Other views welcome, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.Lightburst ( talk) 21:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
More often then I would like, there are errors at WP:OTD displayed on the main page. I believe these errors stem from date pages without citations (such as December 16). In October 2017, consensus was determined to include citations in these articles. Because of how long they went without citations, the amount of work required to cite all the material is substantial. I often find numbers do not match the sources (like number of people killed in an event), for example.
Many articles in the list are related to military history. I try to cite the spaceflight articles each day I remember, and was seeing if I could find any support in this group. The milhist project does substantial good work, has access to excellent sources, and always strives to put the overall project in the best light it can. If you can try to cite even one or two articles in the current day of the year (or any day!), it will help solve the problem that propagates into WP:OTD. Bonus points if you find citations for the births/deaths lists on the same page :). If anyone has questions on what needs done I would be happy to clarify. Happy editing! Kees08 (Talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know how to sort out the external link? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This was deleted a few days ago as a copyvio, but I've started a new one at User:Ww2censor/Daniel O'Neill and maybe some editors who know this topic better can assist. ww2censor ( talk) 15:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Loads of modern scholarship.
As far as I can see, this is not a copyvio. By deleting it for what appear to be dogmatic reasons we have also deleted its substantial edit history, which is not just by the blocked user who created it. This seems unnecessarily heavy-handed and pointless. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
|
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) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey guys. I came across Category:Moskalyev aircraft with two planes (and others not listed, but apparently no article about the company/designer. It's not my area, perhaps someone would like to take it on over the holidays? Le Deluge ( talk) 14:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this vast new article would benefit from review by other editors. It seems to sprawl all over, and around, its purported subject and reads like an essay. The huge number of inaccurate referrals to the USSR as being "Russia" raises some red flags for me. The topic likely has merit, but I'm not sure this article currently covers it appropriately (@ Maxaxax:). Nick-D ( talk) 23:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Nazi Germany was able to focus all its resources on its Western frontpresumably would come as a surprise to the people of Denmark, Greece, Norway, Iraq, North Africa, Yugoslavia…) I won't do it myself as I have previous history with its long-term-disruptive creator. ‑ Iridescent 07:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
There is an IP who is insisting that France has an independent space force. I have started a discussion at Talk:Space force#French independence?. It would be great if individuals would add their thoughts to this discussion. Garuda28 ( talk) 00:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
There are comments at Talk:CSS Shenandoah#Article assessment for anyone interested. Otr500 ( talk) 08:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7: or anyone else who can give me some insight, but how exactly does the MilHistBot judge criteria for article rating? It just ran through Herman Lupogo, which I wrote yesterday, and said that the criterion for referencing and citation was not met. I know the bot is not perfect and not meant to replace human assessing, but clearly the article doesn't suffer from a lack of citations, since outside of the lead every standalone paragraph ends with one citation and has several interspersed throughout. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
An Rfc has been opened on Talk:Space force#Rfc on title of current Space force article to get feedback on a proposal to change the title and redirect the term space force to United States Space Force. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from MILHIST mind taking a look at this? There seems to be some weird centering happening mid-way through the article which probably is a syntax error, but I can’t seem to find it. Also, I’m wondering about the personal section since it’s unsourced, but the part about where he wants to retire seems more like it’s written a bit more as if this is a personal profile than a Wikipedia article. — Marchjuly ( talk) 09:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) (my nom) is good to go less a source review. If someone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, if you haven't voted, refer to the threads at the top of this page. Voting closes today. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC) for the coords.
Apart from being a bit of pile in and blame everybody article the NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War doesnt appear to be anything to do with NATO. Should it be moved ? anybody have any suggestions what to do with it ? MilborneOne ( talk) 09:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2019. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
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.
Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2019.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2019. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
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.
Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.
All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2019.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I created an article on the above, he had a long and distinguished career in the British Army, in addition to very briefly playing first-class cricket for the forerunner of Lancashire County Cricket Club. I've filled out the bare bones of his military career, but can't find much else published online. So leaving him here incase anyone fancies expanding what looks like a noteworthy military career. Cheers. StickyWicket ( talk) 10:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
What date was this ship transferred to the Ottoman Navy? According to Clydeships, it was in 1856. However, the Morning Chronicle of 16 October 1860 reports that Baroness Tecco was damaged by fire at Constantinople on 11 October. She is listed in Lloyd's Register, 1860 as Baroness Tecco. According to the List of non-combat vessels of the Ottoman steam navy, more info might be found at Bernd Langensiepen, Ahmet Güleryüz, The Ottoman Steam Navy, 1828-1923, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1995, ISBN 1-55750-659-0, p. 172. Mjroots ( talk) 07:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, she was still Baroness Tecco at that time, but under the Ottoman flag. Mjroots ( talk) 19:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It may be worth reassessing the oldest articles on our lists of requested articles. I was going through the ones on Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Military biography and of the first seven, only George T. Rheam seemed to be remotely notable. Thoughts? Should I just remove them? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
So I've got three sources telling me slightly different things. So there's this Transylvanian town, taken by the Romanian Army in the first days of the Battle of Transylvania, on 29 August 1916. But I've got conflicting sources as to when the Romanians evacuated it...A recent book says 18 September, two old books from that time period both say 20 September, and a post-war Austrian military map says 19 September. So...what do I do? Personally I think I should go with the Austrian military map, to be honest. But...what do you think? Transylvania1916 ( talk) 07:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
There is some disagreement I'm having with another editor over whether all the medals someone won should be listed in their article. [25] What is normally done with these sorts of articles? All five of the medals listed have their own Wikipedia articles for them. Richard_Haine#Honours_and_awards Dream Focus 16:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I generally include them in the prose if they can be reliably sourced (I tend to avoid lists these days, but used to do them), and have never had anyone query them except with Nazi bios. The infobox should be kept for only the highest (generally gallantry or distinguished service) awards. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
My tuppence worth: First and foremost, obviously all content needs to be verifiable. Ideally, all medals should be fluidly listed in the prose where appropriate. If a medal doesn't seem significant enough to mention naturally in the prose, then it probably isn't notable enough to be included in the article at all. I'm not keen on the idea of a list at the end of an article, unless it provides sufficient context as to what each medal was awarded for. I am strongly opposed to the sole inclusion of ribbon pictures for each medal, as this is not accessible at all. Harrias talk 10:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I for one am all for including all awards, and for including them in a list belowe the article. Why? Simple, because they are well suited for them, below the main text is the best place for that and military awards are part of a military biography (if applicable) and information. If the information is known why shouldn´t it be used? We´re not forced to make short biographic entries with a limited format, we can expand. Of course that doesn´t mean infobox, which should only include the top level. The inclusion of ribbons in the lists is, in my opinion, totally optional but I think "ribbons only" is suboptimal. As for the matter being brought up time and time again it usually means another deletionist has a deletionist issue again, or somebody comes with a national POV. In the end, as all editors are free to edit or not, the matter is really simple: You want to include the awards - do so. You write an article and don´t want to - then just don´t. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 15:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
As long as they are verifiable, I have no problem listing all medals. I agree we should not assume any medals are earned based on service, and I also agree that ribbon images is probably too prominent for inclusion in a recipient's article (they are perfectly acceptable in the medal's own article if it exists). CThomas3 ( talk) 23:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned before, the precondition for inclusion is verifiability. In the case of Audie Murphy, the article includes an inline listing of some of his awards and decorations but must rely on a standalone article named Audie Murphy honors and awards which currently is a featured list. That said, this indicates some level of acceptance for full inclusion on Wikipedia. The award section in the article Dwight D. Eisenhower seems rather lengthy to me and takes up space. Maybe an acceptable compromise would be full inclusion but in a collapsible table. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I would limit inclusion to honours and awards but exclude other decorations (eg service medals). Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Lithuanian resistance. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Since military history isn't my bailiwick, I'm opening a thread here. The article appears to have been created and edited mostly by the battalion's commander, which isn't necessarily a negative. But many, if not most of the footnotes don't appear to refer to WP:RELIABLE sources, which makes me wonder if the content really belongs here, as opposed to the battalion's website. I suspect a lot of it can be cut. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Good afternoon. While not a "new user", I have limited experience with Wikipedia beyond the page in question. If you could advise which references need additional sources, I can provide these - There is a large Battalion archive that most of this information has come from. If there is some sort of "best practices" that I should be using, I would be happy to review these.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pboyle094 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am currently working on a series of articles about British naval activities off the Belgian coast in the First World War. I was intending to link to articles about the German defences they faced but have struggled to find an article about them. Is there a WW1 equivalent to the Atlantic Wall or German coastal battery Tirpitz articles? Judging from the period being missed out of the Coastal artillery article, I suspect we don't have anything yet. However, I wanted to check if anyone was aware of any orphan articles on the subject that I could expand on rather than start from scratch. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 00:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There was a naval action at Fort Jackson, Louisiana during which the blockading schooner Preble was sunk. Was she a Union or Confederate ship? - "America". The Times. No. 24076. London. 29 October 1861. col E-F, p. 7. template uses deprecated parameter(s) ( help) Mjroots ( talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow project members. I don't normally like soliciting people to perform reviews of my noms, but I've lodged a good topic nomination for Battle of the Uganda–Tanzania war here: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War/archive1. Good/featured topic noms aren't very visible, so they often don't get timely reviews, so I'd appreciate it if some members—particularly those who have already reviewed portions of it and are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the content—would give a little bit of their time to expedite the process. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Home Army/Archive 6#Request for Comments: German casualties: watchers here may comment.-- JoeZ451 ( talk) 16:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
With the recent death of Soleimani, I wanted to contribute to the Isoroku Yamamoto page after hearing that Soleimani's death is the highest profile U.S. military assassination since Yamamoto's death and I sourced NYT, and this was referenced in WaPo as well. TJRC has approved of it, though an anon user has been highly against it and has reverted my edit, and TJRC's restoration of the edit. Both of us think that this fact provides context into U.S. military engagement targets of high profile.
Attached discussion is here Talk:Isoroku_Yamamoto#Qassem_Soleimani
Many thanks. NeverBeGameOver ( talk) 05:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Given the possibility the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was shot down by the IRGC, it would be appreciated if some editors with expertise in Iranian/Middle Eastern military matters would at least keep a weather eye on the article. Expert opinion at talk page also welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ba Congress; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! (NB: my nom) Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for USS O'Flaherty; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, I was clearing out Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging, and struck a hurdle with Talk:The Red Badge of Courage. There was a red portal link which I deleted, and I tried null edits, so can anyone see what else might be astray with it? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.
we welcome your input. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 20:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
For instance, the Confederate Medal of Honor (Sons of Confederate Veterans) and all here except the 1964 one:
Doug Weller
talk 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.
we welcome your input. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 01:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello
From Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe GLAM in WikimediaPoland received this photo (there are many more photos in commons:Category:Images from Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe – needing category). Description Ciężkie działo kolejowe 280 mm używane przez Niemców w czasie walk w Normandii. Widoczny żołnierz ładujący pocisk. equals heavy railway gun 280 mm used by Germans in fights in Normandy. Visible soldier loading shells. As there was not so many 280 mm railway guns maybe someone will be able to recognize what exactly gun it was? PMG ( talk) 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a dispute on the template over the bold IP edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Denial_of_mass_killings&type=revision&diff=935209507&oldid=935193882&diffmode=source I would like to hear your opinion. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I have an article at FAC that hasn't had many reviews and may be archived soon as a result. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/archive1 and see what needs fixing, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I've never talked to anyone in this fascinating Project! I have been reviewing new articles and came across a user that has created several articles of the following nature: Texas Cold War Medal, Texas Border Security and Support Service Ribbon. Note I am not judging this user's contributions, quite the opposite as the articles are quite decent and they're a good effort. My question is whether these awards can in fact be considered notable? I mean, the latter doesn't even exist yet, and the article actually states it would be the "tenth highest campaign/service award" (my own emphasis). Not only that, but the sources used are primary ones. It seems to me these are fringe medals of questionable eminence. Your thoughts on this? Thanks! PK650 ( talk) 02:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at the name and page location of Charles Carroll Wood. The current page content supports the middle name Taylor, but there is a source that supports Carroll.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the correct way of displaying these vessesl. Is the pennant number italicized or not? German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6 or German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6? Mjroots ( talk) 08:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
{{ship|German trawler V 1502|Wiking 6}}
→
German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6.
De728631 (
talk) 02:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear members of the Military History Wikiproject,
I am part of a research project at the University of Westminster, London that looks at contentious Wikipedia articles. I have come to this page in order to find volunteers who would be willing to participate in a semi-structured interview on the subject.
This interview would be a part of a research study which analyzes discursive practices in conflict and how it is represented through editing and discussion within controversial Wikipedia articles about on-going wars and international conflicts, where members of this Wikiproject are assumed to have expertise. To explore this, I would formally like to request a semi-structured research interview regarding your perspectives on contributor relationships, motivations for participation and collaboration practices.
Your contribution would be highly valuable to this project. If any of you would like to participate, or have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me through e-mail or my personal talk page.
Best regards and thank you in advance.
Etchubykalo, doctoral researcher at the communication and media research institute (CAMRI), University of Westminster, London. Etchubykalo ( talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)