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 November 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 History of military logistics • Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 • Operation Unokat • William Y. Slack Featured article review Andrew Jackson • USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs Featured list candidates 1952 in spaceflight Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909) • Igor Mangushev • Continuation War • HMS Beaulieu • Crusading movement • Hanford Engineer Works • John Bullock Clark Peer reviews Stjepan Vukčić Kosača • Basiliscus (Caesar) • Military dictatorship • Operation Unokat • Integrated Visual Augmentation System • Genghis Khan Good article nominees Israeli occupation of the West Bank • Eureka Rebellion • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1385–1391) • John A. Hilger • Walter Tull • Muhammad of Ghor • Joaquín Ascaso • Cezary Ketling-Szemley • Bradley Winslow • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • First Battery Armory • Roy Earl Parrish • Camilo Cienfuegos • Henry Biard • James B. Tapp • Benin Altar Tusk • Federalist No. 24 • St Catherine's Hill, Hampshire • Nukhba (Hamas) • Treaty of Rapallo (1920) • Rohrbach Ro IX Rofix • Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937) • Titina Silá • Akure–Benin War • 1976 Sudanese coup attempt • Dedebit Elementary School airstrike • John Walter Roberts • Battle of Fayetteville (1862) • Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine • Bill Madden (soldier) • Greek submarine Delfin (1912) • Jenin refugee camp • HMS Alpheus • Aleksandr Maykov • Criccieth Castle • Mohammed Deif • Jozo Tomasevich • Stephen Badlam • Genghis Khan • Owen Tracey Good article reassessments Raymond D. Tarbuck • Macbeth, King of Scotland Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (143,140) • only work on referencing and citation (44,055) • work on coverage and accuracy (117,525) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,259) • work on structure (29,619) • only work on structure (372) • work on grammar (7,367) • only work on grammar (48) • work on supporting materials (30,865) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (5) • assessment as lists (47) • project tags fixed (34) • assessment checklists added (12) • assessment checklists completed (5) • task forces added (335) • attention to task force coverage (681)

Good article reassessment for Fort Pasir Panjang

Fort Pasir Panjang 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.

Good article reassessment for Morea expedition

Morea expedition 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. Onegreatjoke (talk)

Looking for references on Operation Helltank

Operation Helltank (aka Hell Tank aka Exercise) was a series of tests made by the RAF and British Army to test missile-firing helicopters against a Warsaw-Pact like tank formation. The results were, in one case, 45-to-1 in favour of the helicopters. This is a story that needs an article!

I've been looking for sources for a long time and so far only found passing mentions, mostly in relation to the later US-led Ansbach Test series. Can anyone offer some suggestions and/or resources? I have looked at all the cogent hits in Google Books so far, with most being largely useless. "The Tank" seems to have a longer discussion, but I don't have a copy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Had a brief look, not being an expert:

• "Military Notes". Military Review: 105. April 1969.
• Macksey, Kenneth (1979). The Tanks: The History of the Royal Tank Regiment, 1945-1975. London: Arms and Armour Press. pp. 175–178, 224. ISBN 0-85368-293-3.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, The Tank does not appear linked in Google from Archive, which I find rather annoying. I did look for copies, it simply wasn't displayed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: That link proved extremely useful. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Might be useful:

• Hickey, S. M. W. "The British Army and the Battlefield Aerial Vehicle. The Way Ahead." The RUSI Journal 121.2 (1976): 53-62.
• Augustine, Norman R. "Land Warfare." IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 5 (1986): 487-512.

Ljleppan (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have the ability to get this memo: "HELL TANK Exercise, UK Defense Establishment Memo #2/69, Jan 69." Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Might not Pass wp:RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The UK Ministry of Defence is R enough for me! I just can't get to the Archives in Kew to read it, the North Atlantic is a bit chilly right now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Just put it in your diary for 150 years time, the Gulf Stream will have disappeared and the seas will be MUCH MUCH warmer (too f***ing hot!!) :( Buckshot06 (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of the Wilderness

Someone named User talk:Sormando, who appears to have been in several edit wars, keeps changing the InfoBox image for Battle of the Wilderness. I think it is ugly, and I would rather see a color image. I thought the original image was pleasing for readers. Any thoughts from anyone else? I think we have a case of someone who does not write articles, but only changes other people's work—and will not compromise. TwoScars (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@TwoScars and Sormando: - my general thought on this is to avoid the Kurz & Allison illustrations as they are usually horrifyingly inaccurate. File:Battle of Chancellorsville.jpg (Stonewall shot in battle in broad daylight), File:Battle of Vicksburg, Kurz and Allison.png (Grant's Canal actually working in the background), and File:Battle of Pea Ridge.jpg (pretty much everything is wrong, particularly that involving Pike's tribesmen) are particularly egregious examples. File:The Battle of the Wilderness, Virginia, May 5th & 6th 1864 LCCN2003656457.jpg is in color but is rather garish and isn't going to be much of an improvement over the Kurz & Allison image for accuracy. How about File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg (the cover illustation of Rhea's book about the battle)? My choice would probably be the Winslow Homer painting, but of the black-and-white images, I'd probably go with File:Capture of a part of the breastworks.jpg over the current image in use. (File:Major-General Wadsworth fighting in the Wilderness LCCN2004660194.jpg) Hog Farm _Talk 02:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You may edit it however you like but I agree that those illustrations are highly anachronistic. The illustration I presented was made by Alfred Waud, a famous wartime illustrator who was eyewitness to the battle, often sketching the fighting on the spot and in the moment. Food for thought.

Best Sormando (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, as a non-ACW person, I find File:Capture of a part of the breastworks.jpg the most visually pleasing and most likely to be accurate given it was done contemporaneously. I think the current one, File:Major-General Wadsworth fighting in the Wilderness LCCN2004660194.jpg too dark to make out details, even on my 27" monitor. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I had edited the article earlier this year with that illustration as a replacement for the Allison & Kurz one, but another editor had removed it, citing that 'it does not show the dense forests in which the battle was fought', so I chose differently this time, but edit as you see fit.

Best Sormando (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

PM and Sormando - what about File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg? This is in color, I can't think of any accuracy concerns in its portrayal of a small unit action for this battle, and it shows the dense trees that characterized the battle. It's public domain and the book that is probably the single most important modern treatment of this topic used it as a cover illustration. Hog Farm _Talk 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus of the MH people is fine with me. I like the File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg image, as long as others prefer it too. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally I find the Winslow Homer image too dark. File:The Wilderness near Palmers and Spotswoods Houses.jpg (which is already in the article further down) shows how densely the terrain was wooded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I added the category "Battle of the Wilderness" to the current Wadsworth image. I will keep looking for an image that makes everyone happy. I would like to have a color image that shows the woods. I think the fighting on Orange Plank Road is more interesting than the Orange Turnpike (apologies to Iron Brigade, John B. Gordan, and Jubal Early fans). Orange Plank is where Hammond slowed down A.P. Hill and the CSA almost split the Union force. On the next day, Longstreet got wounded near the Orange Plank Road. Maybe the Library of Congress or Harper's has a good image, or perhaps Sormando knows of more images. TwoScars (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Royal Engineer's records

Can anyone locate a date of birth for Henry John Harman? Shyamal (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This says 1830, not a date but a year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely better than nothing. Shyamal (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

An Ancestry family tree indicates 13 May 1850 based on his India baptism records, which is supported by census returns and the fact that he left Woolwich around 1869. —Simon Harley (Talk). 13:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I got the same answer as Simon - the date of 1830 seemed very early, as the age limit for entry at Woolwich was around 18.

Ancestry also has a service register which gives him as born Halesworth, Suffolk, 13th May 1850. The other data matches (commissioned lieutenant from a cadet July 1869, promoted captain July 1881, died Florence 14th April 1883). This is from WO 25/3914 and to my surprise that is online from the National Archives if you want to verify it, albeit in a single giant PDF - I had no idea these records were floating around. They're two-page "records of service", so not comprehensive but they will cover the key biographical data. Might be useful to keep an eye on for future. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Well done Andrew! I had a copy of the Army list, but it only gave the dates of his promotions and not his date of birth Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Up-front source review of Russian language sources needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Igor Mangushev

G'day, Igor Mangushev has been nominated at ACR, and I have had a quick look. I'd be very reticent to put the effort into a review unless someone with a knowledge of the reliability of Russian language sources had had a look first. I may not be on my own. Any assistance appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Blackadder Goes Forth

Blackadder Goes Forth 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!) 09:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about List of attacks on U.S. territory

Is this list worth saving? Right now, it has no inclusion criteria and I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It could be moved to List of foreign military attacks on United States territory, I guess. How to handle the US Civil War and various terrorist attacks might need discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

How to assess a B-Class article in practice?

Hi everyone!

I am from the Chinese Wikipedia. Around ten years ago, my WikiProject (translation) implemented the B-Class checklist mechanism (translation) following the example of WP:MH/B?. However, our B-Class assessment have come to a halt partly due to the complex workflow.

For instance, in this assessment (translation), both the reviewer and the editor spent a considerable amount of time on it, but the review result was quite simple — B1=no and B2/B3/...=yes were added to the WikiProject banner.

Regarding other B-Class review requests, reviewers have a great deal of respect for this kind of reviews, but they don't really want to do them. As a result, almost all stronger articles are left unreviewed as C-Class and eventually become GAs directly. This is similar to A-Class reviews in other WikiProjects.

The B-Class assessment mechanism at MH is well-run; I think one reason is that the review process is serious but not overly complicated. Simplifying the operation can help activate the process, although I don't have a strong sense of how effective it would be. How do you assess a B-Class article in practice? How much time does it take for you to review one? How thoroughly do you read the article?

Thank you!--Lopullinen 05:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

G'day. For me, the B-Class review is a quick one, only taking a few minutes to read the article, checking that the criteria are met. Of course, the more you do the quicker you get. We now have a bot that automatically assesses up to B-Class, but the B-Class ones are checked by a human at the end of the month. If there are any criteria that only marginally meet or don't meet the standard, I tend to err on the side of yes, as B-Class isn't a big deal. The main criteria of contention tend to be b1 and b2, but if every para is cited at the end at least (and quotes are cited), and the sources appear reliable, it should be a yes. b2 is harder to judge, especially if you don't know the subject. A quick Google Books search for the subject will identify any obvious sources or material left out, but we are not looking for comprehensiveness here. b3 is easy to judge, and b4 likewise in most cases. b5 is met if there is an infobox (if appropriate) or an image, unless the article is quite long, in which case a couple of supporting images etc would be expected. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Assessment for the Regency of Algiers article

Hi; I think this article: Regency of Algiers is ready to be checked if it meets the criteria of a B-Class article, a review would be welcome. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

G'day, if you list it at WP:MHAR someone will check it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Assistance on Battle of Kherson — Future GAN

I am hoping to eventually GAN the article, but some assistance is needed before that. First of all, I have a copy/edit request at the copy-editor guild, which has to happen anyway before the GAN, but recently, another editor added a non-neutral tag to the article. Can some assistance be given to help in order to get rid of the non-neutral tag? I started a talk page discussion on the battle’s article for the non-neutral tag. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)