Open main menu
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks

Milhist banner queryEdit

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)

There's currently no work around in the Template code; it shouldn't be too complicated to implement something by adding a field like |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)
If I recall correctly, most of this was written by Kirill Lokshin, he might have an answer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
As a temporary measure, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Calais as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Calais (1349), so it now appears as a blue link in the banner. Harrias talk 08:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, that rings a bell. There are a few others, I'll do the same. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks guys. If, and it may be a big if, Battle of Calais passes its FAC in the next few days, is that going to cause any new problems? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I shouldn't think so. Harrias talk 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, we've normally just moved the review subpage or created a redirect from the new name, as Harrias has done; it's not something that occurs very often, so I think that's easier (and less error-prone) than recoding the banner to allow people to override the title, especially if an article goes through multiple names over its lifetime. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Would it be an idea to have a hatnote directing readers to the Siege of Calais disambiguation page? My first thought when I saw "Battle of Calais" was the 1940 one. Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

WASP notabilityEdit

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)

At the end of the day, they have to meet GNG, which is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Whether they meet SOLDIER is neither here nor there, and to be fair, SOLDIER is naturally skewed to favour men over women due to men's dominance of senior and combat roles at the time. Cowart as the "youngest woman to get a commercial pilot's licence in the South" is a pretty major achievement on its own, especially for that era. I think the main source is an online version of a newspaper in a city of 300,000, so it should be ok on face value. Perhaps it is a little light-on, but I wouldn't be prodding it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, as an aside I have never really been keen on achievements like "youngest woman to get a commercial pilot's licence in the South" although I cant see the reference, it begs the question to us non-American readers what the "South" is and why it is important, and who was the youngest in the North! MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to note, I agree with Peacemaker that Cowart looks to have received enough coverage in the media to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Like all bio (military history) articles, they have to be looked at, one at a time. I would rate this one a "Weak Keep". Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Arthur BlackburnEdit

This ACR of a rather fine article could do with another review and with someone running their eyes over the sourcing, if anyone fancies it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

USS HarrisburgEdit

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)

1959 San Diego F3H crashEdit

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)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019Edit

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)

@Daundelin: US federal government websites (including most military sites) are in the public domain, so it's not unusual to see Wikipedia articles that are based on a copy of such a source. However, an appropriate attribution template should be added to credit original site. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: there's like 200 templates there, which one do I use? Daundelin 20:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Most likely {{US Air Force}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

RAF Bomber Command effectivenessEdit

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)

Both air forces bombed cities deliberately and both got more accurate in 1944; Speer was an unreliable witness and the comments of panjandrums of the German war economy during the war were judged more reliable by Adam Tooze in his economic history of the 3rd Reich. Keith-264 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
A brief look at the Harris article suggests that it is a travesty.Keith-264 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian warship MageeEdit

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)

There's a list of ships built by Laird's before 1860 here. Couldn't see anything resembling Magee but there's a few ships built for the Brazilian Navy. Possibly she was renamed? - Dumelow (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a possibility, purchased secondhand and renamed. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Russia–United States proxy conflict and Draft:China–United States proxy conflictEdit

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)

"Bouncing mine" or "bounding mine"?Edit

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)

Airship questionEdit

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)

I assume it is Gross-Basenach#M IV? Harrias talk 13:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that seems most likely. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge military history portalsEdit

There are currently three military history portals in portal space:

  1. Portal:Military history of Australia
  2. Portal:European military history
  3. Portal:Military history of Germany

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)

G'day, thanks for your post. I have tried to help keep the military history of Australia portal up to date and fix some other issues that have arisen with other portals to at least ensure it has some usefulness. It appears, though, that this is most likely a lost cause. If people feel that it is too narrow to remain viable, and wish to merge it, I won't stand in the way. However, I am not in a position to help maintain a larger military history portal. I also think it is important to acknowledge that any merge would need to be done in a balanced manner. The three topics above are just small aspects of the overall topic of military history; a merge would need to take that into consideration. As such, I would hazard that a broader military history portal would require a lot of work to ensure it is balanced. This would likely require quite a few committed editors. With the current narrative relating to portals, I am not sure that will be possible to find enough volunteers to achieve this. (Apologies for the negative waves, to paraphrase Oddball). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
From my perspective, I have never been really au fait with portals, and agree that they seem a lost cause in general. Even though AR has done a sterling job keeping the Military history of Australia one up to date, I think the problem is that few people look at it, with only 17 views per day. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:William SchismEdit

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)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Military history".