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 May newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu • Sabuktigin • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I • Sam Manekshaw Featured article review Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Ernest J. King Good article reassessments Lockheed YF-22 • Galatian War Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,378) • only work on referencing and citation (43,145) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,497) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,641) • work on structure (31,781) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,183) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,750) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (10) • assessment as lists (125) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (11) • assessment checklists completed (31) • task forces added (290) • attention to task force coverage (679)

⚔

⚔ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for discussion at WP:RFD. Do we have an article that covers the usage of this symbol on historical/tourist maps, as a marker of a battlesite? -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox about a war

Please see Talk:Russian Civil War#Choose an infobox. This is an RFC about how much information should be in the infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba

Editors might like to have a look at this new article copied from Spanish wiki. It strikes me as fanciful based on a New Statesmen article and backed up by comments by Mitterands psychoanalyst reported in the Guardian together with 3 Spanish sources. Does it fall under extraordinary claims ned extraodinary sources? Lyndaship (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. (Hohum ^@) 20:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have just sent it to AFD. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba. Kahastok talk 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Earl Van Dorn

I've started a discussion at Talk:Earl Van Dorn#"Greatest to have ever lived" regarding the appropriateness or lack thereof of referring to Van Dorn as "considered one of the greatest cavalry commanders to have ever lived". Further input would be appreciated. Hog Farm _Talk 19:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler#Requested move 23 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS#Requested move 23 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Israel in the Iran–Iraq War#Requested move 16 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel in the Iran–Iraq War#Requested move 16 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

References question

Is there a policy on using refbegin and refend in bibliographies? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

not AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's taken a while but I found Template:Refbegin that helps, apparently it's optional. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Its only real uses are to govern the number of columns and things like indents. Its negative effect is shrinking the text size by 10% or so; just enough to require me to need my glasses when I don't need them to read the rest of the article. That feature's not doing vision-impaired readers any favors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before and I sympathise but this should be a decision made by Wiki not either of us. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Seventh Regiment and Provisional 114th Regiment?

I'm working on Richard Harper Laimbeer, and found this biographical piece about him from 1901 that says "He is a veteran of the Seventh Regiment, and during the war with Spain he was a Major in the Provisional 114th Regiment." Can I assume that the former refers to the 7th Cavalry Regiment or could it mean something else? And what was (or is) a Provisional Regiment? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what sources to consult to identify these regiments; if you know, please point me in the right direction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was no, you can't assume anything. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The "Seventh Regiment" is the 7th New York Militia Regiment. He is listed as a major in this book celebrating the centennial of the regiment (at the time serving as judge advocate to the Second Brigade). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This source provides his service history up to 1904. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That link is very helpful. I see it mentions 114th Regiment without the "provisional" qualification; that can't refer to the 114th New York Infantry Regiment, since that ceased to exist in 1865. Would that be the 114th New York Militia Regiment, in that case, and there's just not an article yet? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

According to what I can see in that source, the 114th Regiment (in this incarnation, at least) disappeared in Dec 1898. Every officer listed in that source was moved to the supernumerary list during that month. According to the NY AG report from 1889 (pp 8-12) the 114th existed from May to December of that year and was then mustered out. Intothatdarkness 15:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't redlink the 114th in that case, as it existed for so short a time it may not be separately notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Nirmohgarh (1702)

Battle of Nirmohgarh (1702) has been nominated for deletion, but not noticed to this project. Per my quick look, with sources I have added to the discussion, at appears that there was such a battle in 1700. BD2412 T 14:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Elmslie Typology deletion discussion

Noticed this deletion discussion on a MILHIST article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elmslie_typology The typology is one for swords. Don't know why it hasn't been notified here. Monstrelet (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright and verifiability issues with Jack Churchill

I have identified possible copyright and verifiability issues concerning the article Jack Churchill, which is of interest to this WikiProject. Your input would be welcome. The issues are discussed here. Renerpho (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Auxiliary warships

Following The AfD discussion about whether or not the French ship Gapeau (B284) article should be deleted or not (closed as no consensus to delete after more than 6 weeks discussion and deletion review), I would like to raise the issue of auxiliary warships for discussion.

The auxiliary warships are mostly, but not limited to, Naval Trawlers / Kriegfischkutters /Vorpostenboote of WWI and WWII. Wikipedia has pretty good coverage of the larger naval vessels of this period, but not so good coverage of the smaller vessels. Attempts to cover them are met with some resistance from editors such as Fram, who nominate them for deletion with little success.

One big advantage of Wikipedia is we are not a paper encyclopedia. We are able to cover many more subjects than any printed encyclopedia, including this subject. Gapeau served as a commissioned vessel with two navies, and is, in my opinion, more than notable enough to sustain an article. The ed17 raised WP:SIGCOV in the Gapeau AfD discussion. Once an article has been created, it can alway be added to when further information comes to light. Again, this is another big advantage of Wikipeda, the ability to update and expand articles.

It is accepted that some vessels had more exciting careers than others, but a comprehensive approach to a subject is better than a patchy approach. So, do we hold that auxiliary naval vessels are generally going to be notable enough to sustain articles given book sources such as Colbert and Gröner, fleshed out with Lloyd's register? Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think that it can be assumed that auxiliaries are notable, largely as they're so diverse. The sources reflect this. For instance, prior to a commercialisation program in the 1990s, the Royal Australian Navy's auxiliaries included several very simple unpowered barges that were used as platforms to paint other ships. These barges appeared in various listing type books (Jane's Fighting Ships, etc), but always in passing so wouldn't be notable. More broadly, Wikipedia as a whole is less tolerant these days of claims that entire types of things are automatically notable due to the problems associated with this in the past (e.g. the nonsense around porn stars and obscure academics being declared notable on criteria other than the availability of reliable sources). Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • You're going to have a hard time making broad judgements like this, in large part because of what Nick highlighted above (the era of saying "notable because WP:SOLDIER" is over). But even in cases where a ship is notable, it may not make sense to create an article for it. A good example of this are SMS Rhein and SMS Mosel. Both pass the SIGCOV bar comfortably, but they did so little during their careers (and typically did so in the same place) that it makes more sense to discuss them at Rhein-class monitor instead of at two articles that would be 95% identical (if not more).
  • That being said, in the case of first-German, then-French vessels like Gapeau that are covered by Gröner and Roche, those are probably always going to be notable. Gröner counts as SIGCOV, and though I have not read Roche, I'd assume that his stuff is similar, based on how I've seen people cite it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Roche is a dictionary similar to Colledge Lyndaship (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Ah, so pretty thin on details then - I guess that invalidates my point above about counting it toward SIGCOV. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• THis is why we have GNG, if an auxiliary is notable, it would have received significant coverage in RS. If it has not, it is not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • If you look at the list of vorpostenboote in World War II you will see that V 203 Heinrich Buermann isn't redlinked. This is because I've been unable to find out anything much about the ship. If I recall correctly, with V 215 Hela I've not been able to pin down which Hela became the vorpostenboot. There are a few others like that. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)