Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks

Bot proposalEdit

Hi. I'm not a member of this wikiproject, but I decided to try it out and joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai. One of the things I've noticed is that a lot of times an article will be tagged as both a biography and as part of this wikiproject, but it isn't part of the biography task force. Would it make sense to automatically add the biography task force if an article is tagged as a biography? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be correct if someone could write a bot to do it, otherwise it has to be done manually. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
It isn't a difficult a task for a Bot, and our MilHistBot could do it. I will need to file a bot approval request form though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I was thinking of helping with DannyS712 bot, would you be okay with that? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. Go for it. Face-smile.svg Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 60 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I propose that this bot be expanded to do some other gnomish work, like if a Milhist article has a WikiProject Ships banner, the bot could add the Maritime task force, and if it had an WikiProject Aviation banner, it could be put into the Aviation task force. There are definitely others, like the weaponry task force for article tagged by WikiProjects Firearms and Blades, the intelligence task force for articles tagged by WikiProject Espionage, and the Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force for articles tagged by WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals. Any objections or issues with Danny developing this further? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

No objections here, although I would support incorporating this feature into our Milhistbot in the long term to keep pages up to date. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Question Concerning Military Unit ArticlesEdit

I have been reviewing certain military articles recently (1st Florida Cavalry Regiment (Union), 1st Maine Battery, 34th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry) and have found the pages absolutely unreadable. The service detail is so densely and monotonously packed together such that many of the rich and detailed history of the units have been lost in a mountain of words. However, after editing the 1st Florida Cavalry Regiment page, I discovered that many of these incomprehensible articles were written in the same style. Are minor military unit articles all supposed to be written in this style or is this is a major problem that I should continue correcting? Thanks GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

They look like info dumps from their unit diary. Possibly all the original author(s) had access to. Somewhere to start from, at least. (Hohum @) 20:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume what you´re referring to are sections that aren´t written at all but directly copied public domain material from respective entries in Dyer's Compendium (like e.g. the 1st Florida Cavalry Regiment (Union) over here). A compact way for lots of information without going into details per se as the compendium needed. I´m sure that nobody has any objections if you want to do the work and turn that into actual prose or expand any articles accordingly. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, articles that are copied and pasted from Dyer's Compendium like most of the Union regimental articles with service details should definitely be rewritten to both make the prose readable (coherent sentences) and to add information from recently published secondary sources. Kges1901 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
In case anybody's wondering, for better or worse the Dyer's Compendium online info that makes writing Union Civil War unit articles so easy is at Although the site also has links for Confederate units, these were not included in Dyer's and for most of these units the site has no info. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Orders of battleEdit

Is there a preferred naming convention for articles about orders of battle (see Category:Orders of battle)? Currently, there is a great deal of inconsistency in article naming, though I see four main conventions (ignoring obvious capitalization, grammatical, and other errors):

  • X order of battle
  • Order of battle at X
  • Order of battle for X
  • Order of battle of X

An additional source of inconsistency is how articles treat X—sometimes it is the full conflict name (e.g. Battle of Ayacucho order of battle) and other times it is abbreviated (e.g. Bayou Fourche order of battle). I was planning to clean up some of the obvious errors I mentioned but realized there is no single standard being applied across these articles. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don´t think there is a naming convention for this. The numerically largest group is X order of battle (e.g. about consistent within the American Civil War category), which I personally prefer as I think it to be the shortest version of a title that gets more complicated with each additional of/for/at etc etc. Battle of X order of battle seems to be the second largest. Of course there are cases were the formulation needs more info, e.g. when there were several battles on the location or OoBs are made for each side. It is just my opinion but I think the simple short version is the best option. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree some standardisation may be appropriate. It seems to me there are two main types, overall ORBATS like "Battle of Fooian/Fooian campaign order of battle" and side-specific ones like "Fooian order of battle for the Battle of Fooian/Fooian campaign/invasion of Fooian" I think we should standardise on an ORBAT being "for" a certain battle or campaign, rather than "of", but beyond that there are good reasons for variations, for example, when an ORBAT is for a specific year, like "Fooian Navy order of battle in 1939". There is another version, which is "Battle of Fooian: order of battle", which is quite concise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia merger proposalEdit

It is proposed that Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) be merged with Bosanska Krajina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wish to invite editors to give their input on proposal in merger discussion at Talk page Bosanska Krajina. It would be helpful if editors are willing to express their neutral POV, especially since discussion is already afflicted with involved editor(s) WP:CANVASING, resulting in inputs from WP:Single-purpose accounts.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ranks and post-nominals?Edit

Hi all, I'm not terribly familiar with Military biographies. I did, however notice this assertive change from a somewhat inexperienced user, who says "The Rank and Honours of an officer should always be there", so I thought I'd float it by you all. Should honorifics/ranks and post-nominals be used to wrap around that fellow's name in the infobox and lead? Looking through some FAs, I don't see this in the infobox at Ian Dougald McLachlan though it does appear in the lead. I don't see anything at John McCain, or at Ernst Lindemann, but then at Prince Louis of Battenberg I see the whole shebang. What, if anything, is the preference here. Thanks, and if you wouldn't mind pinging me, I'd appreciate it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Most countries don't use post-nominals. Britain and many Commonwealth countries do, and these should be included in both the lede and the infobox. But people from countries that don't use them shouldn't have them added. Editors certainly shouldn't make up abbreviations and stick them in after the name, as we sometimes see for non-Commonwealth countries. I'm really not sure whether India commonly uses them or not, but if they do then they can be added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure? Doesnt that create a whole set of new problems? Is there some sort of WP-rule-page where people can look the details up? Alexpl (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Am I sure about what? That postnoms are used on Wikipedia? Absolutely. I've been writing bios on Wikipedia for years. WP:POSTNOM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I was more wondering about the first line in the Prince Louis of Battenberg article, the rank "Admiral of the Fleet" as an opening in particular. Alexpl (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, it varies. Commonwealth articles usually use military ranks; articles for other countries often don't. There's no hard and fast rule. Linking them or not is optional. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems like such a practise should somehow be limited to relevant "higher" mil. ranks only. Alexpl (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The usual practice in Commonwealth countries is that only army officers above the rank of captain continue to use their military titles after retirement, ditto naval officers above lieutenant-commander. Very senior officers such as field marshals and admirals of the fleet hold their ranks for life. [1] This would seem to be a sensible rule for WP bios. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Up to the moment somebody entitled to hold such a rang chose not to use it and maybe was even more famous for doing something non military. Like beeing a politician or a writer. Alexpl (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I use ranks above captain in the first sentence and also rank and postnoms (where applicable) in the infobox, have only had one editor ever question it, and it has never been brought up in a Milhist ACR or FAC I've submitted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The infobox isnt a problem, I only find a nameprefix in the title sentence odd. MOS:BIRTHNAME: "(...)the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence (...)." and MOS:HON: "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included". (I accidentally did use a rank in the title sentence as a prefix myself,[2] copying a seemingly accepted style - but having a rule would be nice.) Alexpl (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:HON: The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference. To this, I would add titles such as Admiral of the Fleet. While some degree of consistency might be nice, ultimately, there are too many variables for a "one size fits all" solution. Ultimately, this comes down to a case-by-case local consensus, which is informed by the guidelines, the consensus for similar cases and how the sources treat the specific or similar subjects. My best advice is to roll with the flow. However, a statement like, "The Rank and Honours of an officer should always be there", carries no weight by itself. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd be opposed. We don't add "The Honourable" in front of ambassadors' or magistrates' names, and we don't put Dr. in front of persons' names who have acquired a PhD. Why should military officers be different? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It's much more comfortable to have the same rule for every bio-article. Alexpl (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that just isn't realistic. Consistency might be nice for some, but others will want to highlight the rank of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't wait for this to become the bolded lead in for an article then: "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular". -Indy beetle (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well... if you do that, it might speed things up. Alexpl (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
First, titles conferred by oneself don't count! Second, only the name is bolded. So his name as it stands in the lede of the article is correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Third Servile WarEdit

I have nominated Third Servile War for removal from the FA list, because it almost exclusively uses primary sources. See discussion here. T8612 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict unknown criterionEdit

Just checked this to make sure that it tells us not to use unknown in infoboxes (because it appears in the one for Battle of Vimy Ridge) but it doesn't. Is my memory wrong or am I looking in the wrong place? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If my eyes aren´t fooling me it precisely tells us to use unknown. There indeed is a problem with it though not the unknown itself but the code. In all the split fields something must be entered into the second field or there will be no border between 1 and 2. Unknown is one way to make it; I personally just put a linebreak markup in there. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Ahem! pardon my blushes, it was my memory again; didn't read that bit, just looked down the list. Do you mean <br>? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Aye, <br> or <br /> is my workaround for that indeed. Invisible, no effect beside the border and easily removable when somebody has real material for it. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection requiredEdit

Can someone please protect Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 and Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) due to sustained vandalism and disruptive editing. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 for three hours (as this is on the main page, there's a preference to keep periods of protection short). Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) only seems to have been vandalised once, so falls short of needing protection at this stage. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nick-D. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Eagles Meadow contains the following statement:

During World War II, the area was used as a motorpool for elements of the U.S. Army's 83rd Infantry Division.

motorpool is a dab page, and the best article there would be Fleet vehicle. Does anyone know of a better target for motorpool? MB 04:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought that parking is the obvious target for this? Essentially a motorpool is a common vehicle park. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's a particularly good target either; motorpool also can refer to the the group of shared vehicles, the place where they are parked, the operator (e.g. dept or agency), etc. Since there is no article covering a motorpool, I have just unlinked to resolve the dab. No other articles wikilink motorpool either. MB 15:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Military history".