Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The July newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Brighton hotel bombing Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured list candidates List of Eureka Stockade defenders Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Lockheed YF-22 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • The Motherland Calls • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza • Amazon-class frigate (1795) • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Udagbedo • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Black Hills National Cemetery • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement Good article reassessments Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Joe Rice • Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,781) • only work on referencing and citation (43,187) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,980) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,758) • work on structure (31,821) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,170) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,817) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (3) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (0) • task forces added (282) • attention to task force coverage (656)

MILHIST reliable source database

Hey, on a quick skim of the project I didn't see if MILHIST has any list of discussed sources in regards to meeting WP:RS, akin to the Video Games Wikiproject's WP:VG/S. I've seen some discussion on WP:RSN but the search feature on wiki isn't great and if there was a centralized discussion place that would be a good place to start. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the tens or hundreds of thousands of potential RS in a project this wide, this seems a bit of a non-starter. Defining specific non-RS sources might be more do-able. Or perhaps within more limited parameters, like RS websites? Monstrelet (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; a Civil War historian I knew years ago told me there were something like 4-5,000 books on the Battle of Gettysburg alone (if I'm correctly remembering the absolutely absurd number he told me!) Agree that it may be feasible to put together a very high level list of reliable websites, but even that would be a tall order if you want to attempt to cover the last 6,000 or so years of recorded history. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that a broad database might not be possible, putting together a resource like WP:RSP for Milhist-specific sources could be useful. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Despite being in an argument with Ed on another page I heartily agree with them here, Milhist is such a prolific and controversial topic that a specific resource list would be extremely helpful (if only to weed out the various hobbyist websites and direct people towards higher tier sources). As for Parsecboy concerns they are totally valid, but I think they're universal... They apply to every attempt at creating a whitelist or a blacklist, this topic area is not particularly difficult. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As Monstrelet says, it may be easier to provide a list of unreliable sources per topic, attempting to highlight the most common pitfalls of newer editors. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thats fair, but I think its more helpful to tell new editors the sources they're more or less safe using than the ones they can't... less guesswork unbolted that way. We don't want to be putting people in a situation where they think that any source which isn't on a blacklist is OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Another difference to think of between us and the video gaming project is that while the video game sources are going to be largely magazines or web sources, MILHIST sourcing also heavily uses print books. Things like university presses are going to be obviously OK, but it wouldn't hurt to keep in mind notes for publishers such as a caution on Schiffer's WWII eastern front materials. Hog Farm _Talk 20:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Also the scale time wise... Many of these MILHIST books were written before video games were even a thing... MILHIST is a field in which 50 year old research can still be relevant. There certainly are similarities though, for instance the large number of hobbyist publications which look more or less legit to the inexperienced but can only be used if the author is a SME and not some random dude in their mom's basement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How about a digest of high-quality newly published books? On top of a relatively short list of genuine classics, just the handful of must-reads for each subtopic.  —Michael Z. 21:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I seem to remember not too long ago a list was started (for mostly coords) to add sources they found to be of particularly high quality. I've no idea where this is; was it a Bugle thing? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly this or that. Schierbecker (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle published coords' reading lists in December 2021 and December 2022 (I'm afraid we didn't get round to one last month but we could look into it for the next issue if people would like to contribute). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Would be happy to participate in one for January, or February if the coords would prefer more time to think? Referring to Mzajac's comment, I assume that a list of the "go-to" works for each subject would be feasible. The question becomes how the list would be organised; it could be done in correlation with the various MILHIST task forces, or something completely different. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Task forces are a good starting point or perennial goal. But personal initiative should be welcome. I would consider starting a list of sources about the Russo-Ukrainian War.  —Michael Z. 23:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The idea of start points for beginners might be doable on task force pages - I seem to recall this was done on some in the past. Dos and Don'ts perhaps. Monstrelet (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that the number of reasonably good military history books across all wars and topics concerning war would number in the hundreds of thousands. Some task force topics include many wars over long periods of time. The number of books on the American Civil War as a general topic is at least 60,000. That is a conservative extrapolation from the 50,000 number used about 15 years ago, which perhaps was a rough guess itself. I would not doubt that by now the number of books on World War II exceeds the number of American Civil War books. Glancing back at Hog Farm's comment, there are magazines solely devoted to the American Civil War with many articles by noted academic and independent historians. There are articles from many magazines as a search on JSTOR shows (159,000 results if one uses American Civil War as the search term).

Some of the early American Civil War books are excellent. General Humphreys's book: Humphreys, Andrew A. (1885). The Virginia Campaign of '64 and '65. New York City: Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 978-1582185385 is among them. There is no cutoff date earlier than which no reliable books were written. I have seen modern historians cite Humphreys and even plagiarize or closely paraphrase it.

See for example Bibliography of the American Civil War and the various topical bibliographies for broad topics which have been spun off from it for a sample of the number of books on the American Civil War already listed in one form on Wikipedia. There are many good ones and at least a few that are not so good on that list. It has additions from many Wikipedia users, some not so critical apparently. There are also some omissions.

The American Civil War bibliography article notes "the largest guide to books is more than 50 years old and lists over 6,000 of the most valuable titles as evaluated by three leading scholars." I have a copy of Eicher, David J. The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibliography. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-252-02273-9. There are 1,100 entries in that book. Scheduled for publication in April is Books on the American Civil War Era: A Critical Bibliography by Walter Westcote. The Amazon description includes "Walter Westcote’s Books on the American Civil War Era: A Critical Bibliography includes nearly 3,000 books, most of which have been published since the appearance of Eicher’s groundbreaking 1997 study."

Considering that Frederick Dyer in the early 1900s classified 76 of the 10,500 military engagements as "major" and that there are multiple books on those battles and related campaigns, a short list even on battles and campaigns would not be short. As noted above, there are thousands of books on Gettysburg alone.

Maybe a list of several dozen general history and reference books as starters could be compiled but many more would be needed for any sort of comprehensive treatment of all the topics that are included under the military history of the American Civil War, including biographies.

If the question is are there reliable sources on the American Civil War, the answer is yes, thousands on all the topics that category would include. If limited to general overviews of the entire war or large topics and reference books, perhaps fewer than 100, or perhaps a few hundred, might be a start.

As information, for what it's worth. Donner60 (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

For a topic like that it might be easier to make a blacklist than a whitelist... For example a list of books which promote the racist and ahistorical Lost Cause ideology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be more difficult. How would one compile a list of unreliable books? I know of many good ones but I have no list of bad ones. Better to simply get those sources and obvious errors reverted if they appear. This type of addition would often be opinion, not fact, and could probably be excluded on that ground. I can imagine a great uproar over any attempt to compile such a list. The problem the list would cause would likely be greater than the problem of getting Lost Cause opinion out of articles. Possibly even better to allow a brief reference (not racist) and refute the entry as only an opinion but reference to facts from neutral and unbiased reliable sources show it is bogus. (Example: Jubal Early's gross underestimate of the size of Confederate forces which no modern reliable historian supports.) Racist comments can be immediately reverted. I am sure any administrator would support such reversion and administrators would no doubt block users who repeatedly tried to insert them. Donner60 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

For the American Civil War, I kinda suspect that lists of the leading works on certain topics might be better, with cautions for sources likely to come up that are bad. Hog Farm _Talk 19:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I doubt there are many leading works, even old ones, that are bad. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A question

Directly related to the subject at hand, I notice that y'all's articles frequently use uboat.net as a source. And yet I find little to consider it a reliable source and nothing more than a hobbyist website, so not even a WP:EXPERTSPS. The main editor is a "Business process (BPM) expert", not anything to do with history or the military. The other "Crew" members listed on the site don't appear to have any form of expertise either. So why is this any form of reliable source? Silverseren^C 19:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There have been a few past discussions on this talk page and at User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability and at RSN (ie Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#uboat.net). Not sure how much of a consensus there in those discussions. Seems like editors who use it think it's reliable, primarily because it's cited in other reliable sources. Others disagree, because the authors seem to have no qualifications. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

related question

Merriam Press/Ray Merriam - prolific output over the years but where does it stand on reliability. I tried looking at a couple of titles through various previews but can't see if they give referencing. Thoughts? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's a low-quality RS and should be replaced if at all possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

64th Group Army and First Battle of Maryang San

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

Audie Murphy articles

Audie Murphy is both a Featured Article and a Featured Topic. Requesting feedback here, and posting in response to the article's talk questions from Coretheapple regarding edits I reverted today. Penlite made edits on Audie Murphy that, to me, were more tabloid wording than FA wording. Specifically, he added "AUDIE MURPHY, KILLER HERO" to an existing source, and "ref name="killer_hero_wapo" and also "He was noted for a quick, fierce temper, and was involved in various violent altercations during his adult life." I would appreciate other eyes looking at both Penlite's edits and my reverts. If anyone here thinks the Audie Murphy article is better with Penlite's edits, I'll revert myself. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post source is indeed titled "Audie Murphy, Killer Hero", so I see nothing wrong with that, although adding citations in the lede was unnecessary. I can only access p. 115 of the source cited for the added sentence on his temper, but it seems to be a very paraphrased version of an opinion quote. I would look for a more direct source there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Maile, my concern was that the edit was marked as "vandalism" in the edit summary and described by you as tendentious. I didn't see it as vandalism, certainly, but there may be a reason to revert on some other basis that did not seem immediately obvious. I note that the Graham book is already used as a source, and that editor used not the book but a review of the book, and indeed he correctly summarized what was in the review. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As the editor whose work apparently sparked this debate, I'm coming late to the table (many other duties), and just seeing this now. Let me be clear: there was NO malicious intent in my edit, and certainly it was not meant as any form of "vandalism." In fact, I respect Murphy's wartime and postwar achievements, though I'm not a starry-eyed fan.

The notation about his legendary temper wasn't just "tabloid" trivia, but something noted in almost every detailed biographical coverage of him I encountered -- an issue had no idea of until reading this Wikipedia article (see the text following my edit). When searching for other information about him online, to document other edits, it just kept coming up -- suggesting this was an significant, important, recurring characteristic of the man -- often paired with his alleged postwar PTSD. I should have cited more of the sources that reported it, and if/when I have time (very difficult), I will. Other editors, please help.

I was very uncomfortable with the Washington Post review which I cited (another editor had made the first ref citation of it), and its very negative-sounding ALL CAPS title. But it's not my place to correct (except, as I recall, I did tone it down, from "ALL CAPS" to "Normal Title Case")

As i recall, so I could cite in multiple places, approprirately, I just added a ref name to it: "ref name="killer_hero_wapo" -- which sounds awful, but was the most concise ref name I could imagine, which would clearly, unambigously identify the ref source. "killer_hero" was half the source title; "wapo" is the globally common abbreviation/nickname for "Washington Post," even used by its own staff. Brevity in ref names is being hammered upon me, relentlessly, by some senior editor, so I couldn't do better.

Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Penlite Everything is fine now. Thank you for your diligence. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by saying everything is fine now. Pelite's perfectly good edit was reverted by you with an incorrect and rather inflammatory edit summary and it was not restored. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audie_Murphy&diff=1194236748&oldid=1194144678 The sentence he added, which you removed, is "He was noted for a quick, fierce temper, and was involved in various violent altercations during his adult life." This is true, it is not "tabloid," there is no valid reason to remove it, and it should be reinstated. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant this diff.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That's correct, and my link showed that the text was not restored. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Maile66, Coretheapple: While I see that my text is restored (thank you), I see that my refname, "<ref name="killer_hero_wapo">," and its various placements, have not been restored, yet. Do I need to do this myself?

The places I cited it merit more thorough documentation than without the citation (particularly the notation about his temper and altercations).

~ Penlite (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why that was not restored. However, more to the point, perhaps the Graham book itself should be the source rather than the review thereof. I imagine editors have this book. I just got hold of a copy. Murphy is a fascinating figure in history and we don't want to be one-dimensional, particularly when good sourcing is available. Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this article ready for FA?

I'd like some opinions about how close M8 Armored Gun System is to Featured Article status. Here are the changes I've made since the A-class review last April. This would be my first FA nomination. User:Hawkeye7, User:Hog Farm, User:Gog the Mild, User:CPA-5. Schierbecker (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

On the face of it, I think it is ready. You might have to round up some reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7, I'm wondering if you might agree (or disagree) with some of Gog the Mild's comments at Talk:M8 Armored Gun System#Ready for FAC?. Schierbecker (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Harold Alfred Denham's promotions

Hello all. Just expanding this cricketers article. He served in the King's (Liverpool Regiment) for a number of years, including in WWI. I appear to lose track of him in the London Gazette in October 1914, with him resurfacing in 1919, when he gains the full rank of lieutenant colonel. I am wondering if anyone can find his promotions to major and temporary lieutenant colonel during the war? Cheers in advance, StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's some confusion here; did he serve in the Royal Garrison Artillery? An "H A Denham" was seconded to the RGA in 1916; if this is him, he was promoted to temporary major on 5 September 1916. I'm not totally sure on this one, as an RGA "Major H A Denham" is later reported in some sources as receiving the DSO, which (if true) means this could be a different man. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The artilleryman is definitely a different man, a Major Harold Arthur Denham DSO ([[1], [2]). Many promotions were missed in the LG during WWI. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Battles at disambiguated titles with red-linked base page names

The redirect project has found the following articles on battles that are at disambiguated titles (i.e., with a date in the title) with red-linked base page names.

• Battle of Baguio → Battle of Baguio (1945)
• Battle of Bascara → Battle of Bascara (1795)
• Battle of Baza → Battle of Baza (1810)
• Battle of Busan → Battle of Busan (1592)
• Battle of Dijon → Battle of Dijon (1870)
• Battle of Eisenach → Battle of Eisenach (908)
• Battle of Gandesa → Battle of Gandesa (1938)
• Battle of Giglio → Battle of Giglio (1241)
• Battle of Haguenau → Battle of Haguenau (1793)
• Battle of Kano → Battle of Kano (1903)
• Battle of Manupur → Battle of Manupur (1748)
• Battle of Martín García → Battle of Martín García (1814)
• Battle of Petsamo → Battle of Petsamo (1939)
• Battle of Prairie Dog Creek → Battle of Prairie Dog Creek (1876)
• Battle of Raismes → Battle of Raismes (1793)
• Battle of Rijmenam → Battle of Rijmenam (1578)
• Battle of Riyadh → Battle of Riyadh (1902)
• Battle of Samawah → Battle of Samawah (2003)
• Battle of Valvasone → Battle of Valvasone (1797)
• Battle of Velletri → Battle of Velletri (1744)
• Battle of Vitebsk → Battle of Vitebsk (1812)
• Battle of Wetzlar → Battle of Wetzlar (1796)
• Battle of the Beaufort → Battle of the Beaufort (1982)
• Battle of Évora → Battle of Évora (1808)
• Battles of Mazar-i-Sharif → Battles of Mazar-i-Sharif (1997–1998)

Is there any reason that any of these need to be disambiguated? If not, the articles can be moved to their base page names. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

At least some of these have other articles that need to be created. There were two other battles of Évora during the Portuguese Restoration War, for example, neither of which currently have an article. There was an earlier battle of Vitebsk during the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667), which also does not have an article. The Timeline of Dijon references another battle in 500.

As far as I can tell, the rest don’t need to be disambiguated. Battle of Bascara was deleted as a creation of a sock, and I’m on my mobile account right now so I can’t look at the deleted article to tell whether it was on the same event as the 1945 battle or not. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The deleted Battle of Bascara said, in full:

The battle of Bascara was fought in May 1794 between a French and Spanish/Portuguese army in France and Spain. the battle was the last battle of the war of the Pyrenees. the French were attacked by the Spanish and Portuguese at Bascara. the French were defeated with 1,000 dead and 4,000 wounded out of 17,000 men. the Spanish and Portuguese lost 1,000 men dead and 3,000 wounded out of 20,000.

This may be a different battle, as the numbers are different, but there were no sources provided either. BD2412 T 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and move those pages not mentioned above to their undisambiguated titles. If new articles are created for ambiguous meanings, they can be moved back. BD2412 T 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

• First Battle of Marengo → First Battle of Marengo (1799)
• First Battle of Saorgio → First Battle of Saorgio (1793)
• First Battle of Wissembourg → First Battle of Wissembourg (1793)
• Mines in the Battle of Messines → Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917)
• Powder River Battles → Powder River Battles (1865)
• Second Battle of Marengo → Second Battle of Marengo (1799)
• Second Battle of Orléans → Second Battle of Orléans (1870)
• Second Battle of Saorgio → Second Battle of Saorgio (1794)
• Second Battle of Wissembourg → Second Battle of Wissembourg (1793)

I would tend to assume that there will only ever be one "First Battle of..." or "Second Battle of..." something. BD2412 T 00:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the belief that Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) should remain at its current title, as there were multiple battles of Messines that this title could be referring to. Hog Farm _Talk 00:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Any of the others? BD2412 T 01:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say to move Powder River Battles back to the disambiguated title to avoid ambiguity with Battle of Powder River (which maybe should be disambiguated in the title, too). Battle of Prairie Dog Creek from above should also be moved back; there was a Battle of Prairie Dog Creek in 1867 as well. Hog Farm _Talk 03:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have moved Powder River Battles back, but I would question whether the missing Battle of Prairie Dog Creek can challenge the current article for primacy. BD2412 T 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to think the 1867 battle should take primacy. It's listed in Michno's "Encyclopedia of the Indian Wars," while the 1876 skirmish isn't. The 1876 incident is mentioned in Hedren's "Great Sioux War Orders of Battle" (p. 52) but is associated with the Tongue River and is referred to as a "demonstration" instead of a "battle." Intothatdarkness 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS/N discussion re:Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Airforce Technology/Naval Technology

A discussion has opened regarding the reliability of Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Airforce Technology and Naval Technology as a source. Schierbecker (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Charles X Gustav of Sweden#Requested move 14 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Charles X Gustav of Sweden#Requested move 14 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Boeing 737 AEW&C#Requested move 15 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boeing 737 AEW&C#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 12:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Weapon dance

Weapon dance has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Air Force Technology/Naval Technology

There is a discussion regarding the reliability of Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Air Force Technology/Naval Technology here. Schierbecker (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

File:NATO Command Structure as at 3 June 2021.pdf

This is the latest official depiction of the NATO Command Structure, but as an official NATO image I can only upload it on WP as Fair Use and not put it on Commons. Can somebody point me to the conversion process people who help produce acceptable copies that can be uploaded on Commons? Many thanks!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Zikim#Requested move 16 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Zikim#Requested move 16 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Next Bugle

Might want to do a bit of a push on FAs, A-class and FLs for this month: At an estimate, and making a couple presumptions on what's likely to pass, next month's Bugle is going to be absolutely stuffed with featured pictures. I'm estimating at least 7. So far, there's been a single FA, and 2 A-class.

(Of course, I'm mainly just saying this to spur people on). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 10:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Piping of France to "French Third Republic" etc

I have started a discussion at Talk:Jean de Lattre de Tassigny#Piping of France to "French Third Republic" etc over the piping of "France" to "French Third Republic" and "French Fourth Republic" in the infobox. If anyone would like to provide an opinion, it would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tang campaign against Kucha

Tang campaign against Kucha has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Military history articles needing attention to tagging

The MilHistBot and I have been cleaning up Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging. Only two anomalies remain:

• Simon Bolivar Buckner - a Confederate "general"
• Stanley Holloway - British actor (Not sure if he is in scope - opinions sought)

Both are Featured Articles, but I am unable to verify their claim to have passed an A-Class review. I cannot find their A-Class reviews. Hence their categorisation.

Pinging @Acdixon: and @Cassianto:. Anybody know anything about these articles? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 - from what I can tell, Buckner hasn't. It received the project-specific peer review back in 2009, which led to Ian Rose assessing it as b-class. The idea that it passed A-Class seems to originate with this edit by Adamdaley in 2022. Hog Farm _Talk 00:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway's A-Class status appears to be another Adamdaley misunderstanding of the peer review; in this case the peer review wasn't even a project-specific one. Hog Farm _Talk 00:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have corrected Simon Bolivar Buckner and removed Stanley Holloway as out of scope. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I authored the Stanley Holloway article and helped secure it its FA status. Is this sorted now? If not, how can I help? Cassianto^Talk 07:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All sorted now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Archive org treasure trove

[3] just found all these pdfs by mistake [4]. Enjoy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent news! I've checked against History of the Second World War and I think two are newly posted since I last went over it - both in the civil series, which is now complete. There was also a broken link for one of the RAF volumes, now fixed.

We now have everything for the WWII official history freely available on archive.org except for:

• Mediterranean & Middle East vol VI part 3 (1944-45)
• Foreign Policy abridged vol (probably superfluous if we have the full ones)
• All volumes of Intelligence except SOE in France
• All the various "related volumes" from non-HMSO publishers

Given that the Intelligence volumes have much later publication dates, and the "related" ones will have complicated copyright issues, that feels like a pretty good result! All we're missing from the ones I'd expect to see is that one Mediterranean volume. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've also had a look at History of the Great War to bring it up to date. Good news there as well - the recent uploads have included Vol 7 of War in the Air (now complete) and Order of Battle of Divisions vol 3B (ditto). Of the main series, we are now still missing Egypt & Palestime (all 3 vols), plus France and Belgium 1918 vol 3. The rest are either freely available or are modern publications only (eg the Occupation volumes). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Nicely done. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Some help at Sino-Soviet border conflict

Hello! I hope this is the right place to ask for some neutral, knowledgeable eyes for some help at the Sino-Soviet border conflict and Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict. I'm currently dealing with a somewhat belligerent IP editor here who's changed the results without consensus or discussion on the talk page.

Would anyone be able to help provide a consensus, or just an extra pair of eyes, as to whether or not this would be considered a Chinese or Soviet victory (or something more nuanced)? Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Title convention for the sake of page move: Counterintelligence Corps

I posted on the article's talk page, but I want to preface this by saying that I don't expect you to read all of the references and notes I've included there re: "Counterintelligence Corps" vs. Counter Intelligence Corps"! The gist is that I think the page should be moved to the latter.

I post primarily to ask about convention regarding whether, in the move, I should add "Army" and/or "United States" in the title. Perhaps it's a moot point when the article is about a unit that no longer exists, but given United States Army Signal Corps, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Army Acquisition Corps, etc. it seems that there is a convention. I notice Cyber Corps (United States Army) deviates somewhat from the pattern, perhaps to allow for the pipe trick, but the info is still there. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I answered in part on the article talk page. I would not add "United States." The examples you cited are for Army branches; for example, I would guess that most of the personnel assigned to the Military Intelligence Corps (United States Army) are members of the Military Intelligence Branch. I've been retired for 36 years and I may very well be behind on terminology.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Battleships

Portal:Battleships, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Battleships and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Battleships during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ref for fighters being one-person crew?

I'm working on getting Dorothy Olsen into shape for FAC. There's a statement to the effect that "WW-II fighter planes were mostly one-person crews and bombers were mostly mutli-person crews". Can anybody think of a WP:RS which supports that general statement? RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)