Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 170

• 80
• 90
• 100
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 165
• 166
• 167
• 168
• 169
• Archive 170
• 171
• 172

Who was Major Reed in the War of 1812?

In Charles Francis Lott, sources state that the subject "served as assistant surgeon with the rank of captain in the New Jersey militia under Major Reed in the War of 1812". Any idea who this "Major Reed" might be? BD2412 T 17:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Major Commandant Samuel J. Read commanded a battalion of infantry in Brigadier-General Ebenezer Elmer's New Jersey Detailed Militia Brigade between 19 September and 22 December 1814. Surgeon Mate Charles F. Lott served in the battalion between the same dates. [1] Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe Major Samuel J. Read's Battalion of Infantry, [part of] Brigadier-General Ebenezer Elmer's Brigade New Jersey Detailed Militia, 1814- Stationed at Billingsport, N.J.

See Records of Officers and Men of New Jersey in the War against Great Britain p. 132

If so, a biography is here (apparently a big cheese in the funny-handshake world). Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Damn, you guys are fast (and thorough). Yes, this is almost certainly the one, Lott having then hailed from nearby Pemberton. Is Samuel Joseph Read a likely subject for an article? BD2412 T 18:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that this source describes Read's command as the Burlington Battalion. There's another short biography here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I have dumped all of this into Draft:Samuel Joseph Read, and will work on it later. BD2412 T 18:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

New article or move?

Recently I have planned to update the Romanian special forces article (6th Special Operations Brigade "Mihai Viteazul" (Romania)). However, since 2018, the 6th SOF Brigade no longer exists as it was transformed into the Special Operations Forces Command. So I just wanted to ask which would be better to do: move the article with the new title, or write a different article? Alin2808 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Move the article to the new title, if the brigade was upgraded into a command, retaining its history. Easier to find the old units too if people are searching at the current title. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Moved and updated. Now, the wikidata is the only one that needs updating.. Alin2808 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

pt:Operação Popeye

What do you know about this? It looks interesting, loads of interesting photographs; might be interesting to bring a few things over from it.

Images from it of note:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

We seem to have some of this (at a summary level) in 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Self-published source question

• Hutson, H. C. (2012). Arctic Interlude: Independent to North Russia (6th ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4810-0668-2. Got a source warning (self-published) when I added this to Operation Dervish (1941). the book has an isbn, has been through several editions, contains primary sources but lacks a biblio. Use with caution or eschew? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The presence of an ISBN doesn't mean much; apparently you can buy one for as little as £30 in the UK (prices vary). The number of editions is also meaningless; I could publish a book with lots of typos and release several editions just fixing cosmetic issues. The key question is the level of editorial scrutiny or peer review. A seconary question is whether the author is a recognised expert in their field. The use of primary sources without a bibliography doesn't sound promising. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The ISBN is just an indexing/cataloging tool in any case. All it does is insure the book is indexed in various locations (essentially registering its publication in a variety of formats...and each format needs its own ISBN). It has nothing at all to do with reliability, revified sources, or anything else. Intothatdarkness 12:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In Australia, a single ISBN costs $44, which is equivalent to £24, but you can get big discounts for buying blocks of ISBNs. You can have ten for $88, a hundred for $480 and a thousand for $3,035. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The primary sources are in appendices. Is there a site that does that sort of thing? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The presence of an ISBN has been considered in other discussions like this but I'm not advocating for or against. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I have found some more on this. The author is Harry C. Hutson and the book was first published in 1997 by Merriam Press. Merriam appears to be a small publisher, so the level of editorial scrutiny is unclear, but it is at least one step better than self-published. The Google books record shows the first edition was edited by Ray Merriam (so again, better than self-published) - see the "copyright" page currently in the sample pages of Google Books. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a little more promising. I've got the copyright page in my 2006 ed. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The usual tests with sources published by a small/obscure publisher or are self published is whether the author is a recognised expert in the subject area and/or whether the book attracted positive professional-standard reviews. Some quite reputable experts self publish or are published through a small company, and some self-published books attract a positive reception from experts. Googling H.C. Hutson doesn't produce any websites about them, which is unpromising. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I had a go at that too, ah well....Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Lade

Battle of Lade 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) move discussion

Please see here for more details: Talk:Afghanistan_conflict_(1978–present)#Should_be_renamed_to_Afghan_Conflict_(1978–present) FOARP (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this policy compliant?

I am wondering if these edits (see Josef Zwernemann and Franz Barten) made by @DiSantis19: are policy compliant? In essence, these articles were deleted without discussion. I would appreciate feedback. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As both were aces (and Zwernemann had the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves to boot) I would say both easily meet notability requirements. We have generally regarded ace status as sufficient for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

They actually weren’t deleted, they were blanked and a redirect inserted in their place. Completely inappropriate process. I’ve reverted both and left them a message. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Name for the metal ring around some AP shells

Some armor-piercing shells have a metal ring around the nose with a (somewhat) sharpened front edge. The purpose is that if the shell hits the armor at an angle, the ring will rotate the shell so it is aligned with the armor. Such a device can be seen, for instance, on the images of the Henschel Hs 293, where is is referred to as a "Kopfring". Is there a widely used English term for this device? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz this is esentially an armor piercing cap in funktion. I cannot find any western examples of this design on bombs and missiles but i would just call it nose flange. Blockhaj (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz https://emmasplanes.com/index.php/german-bombs/#Kopfring Blockhaj (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This webpage translates it a "nose ring", but most other English-language sorces use only the German term. The device seems to be peculiar to German munitions of that era. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Soviet and Chinese bombs also feature such rings, so its not soly a german creation: https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/767623/china-bomb.jpg--Blockhaj (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about disambiguation USS and USNS ships of the same name at WP:SHIPS

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#USS and USNS where disambiguation US ships of the same name but with different prefixes should need further disambiguation by their hull numbers. Llammakey (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Katyusha rocket launcher

Katyusha rocket launcher 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Composite bow

Composite bow 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. Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Henry Moore

I have nominated Henry Moore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Split List of wars involving France

See Talk:List of wars involving France#Split proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

One-battle campaignbox

On whether Template:Campaignbox Expedition from Brazos Santiago should exist at all: it has but one battle in it, and the expedition itself has no article of its own. In 2014, Mojoworker has argued in favor of keeping the template, but more discussion is needed. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There's been some more recent TFDs that have supported the existence of similar campaignboxen. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Template:Campaignbox Quantrill's Raid into Kansas and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_28#Template:Campaignbox_Operations_near_Saint_Mark's. Hog Farm _Talk 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless there's potential for expansion, this seems to be almost decorative and of little navigational use (like using a map for directions to get to the dead end of a one-way street you're already on). -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection, Ft. Benning

I will be visiting the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection at Fort Benning, GA, this weekend. This museum is not normally open to the public. I believe this is only the second open house they have hosted. If you want a photo of a particular tank/tanks, please let me know. There are over 190 tanks, including many "does not exist anywhere else in the world" vehicles on display. Inside the Tankodrome.

I will also be visiting Auburn to view the Philip W. Lett collection (Lett was the chief designer of the M1 Abrams). Please also let me know if you need anything scanned/photographed from that collection. Schierbecker (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Schierbecker: Photos of the prototype US heavy tank designs of World War II (on the left at about 1:25) would be useful. There were quite a few of these designs, and they're historically significant as forerunners of the US main battle tank series, as well as an interesting on 'what might have been' grounds given that the Army decided to buy lots of M4s instead of these tanks. There also seem to be some prototype designs from other countries, and photos of them would be valuable. There are surprisingly few photos of some of the main European Cold War era AFVs on Commons, so I'd suggest taking photos of all of these types as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nick-D I would like to post my thoughts in the next Bugle. Saturday's Scouts in Action live fire demo was amazing. Schierbecker (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be fantastic - please do. Please let me know if you need any assistance with this or advice. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nick-D, it has been a very fruitful trip. When is the publish deadline? I want to do a short write-up and a gallery of photos and video. Schierbecker (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We try to send it out in the first weekend of every month, so it might be too late for this month (unless you're a fast writer!). If you're happy to hold this over until next month, anything by the end of the month would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

RS question

Operation Wunderland Combat operations of the German armed forces on the Northern sea route during the Great Patriotic War by E P Guriev [2] is this a RS? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

All post-Soviet sources and a professional publication, so I'd think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It does seem a slightly odd place for a history article to be published - a conference about environmental sciences - if its used to draw unusual conclusions then undue may come in to play - if its for simple facts then that shouldn't be a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've used it sparingly and put most of the material in notes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

92nd Engineer Batt. Detachment Size

So, one question. I was looking at the 92nd Engineer Battalion page, and it doesn't actually say what the size of the detachments are. Are they platoon-sized? Company-sized? What? Can someone please clear this up? I don't have access to the necessary tools to do so, unfortunately. Faith15 15:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Detachments can be pretty much any size. It's an "as needed" kind of thing. Sometimes it's a squad, sometimes a platoon. Companies are usually sent intact and wouldn't be listed as a detachment, but a company-size detachment could be possible if you combined assets from different companies within the battalion. Intothatdarkness 15:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha. Thanks, @Intothatdarkness. Faith15 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Intothatdarkness 15:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Winchester Model 1200

Winchester Model 1200 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hoping that somebody may have access to suitable sources that link the Models 200, 120 and 2200 to the Model 1200. If you do, please drop by and add these to the variants. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, could somebody please help with archiving a web page Lot 345: Vietnam Era U.S. Winchester 1200 Trench Shotgun with Accessories. I haven't found any free images but this could at least be used as a cited link. Thanks in advance. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The page is archived here. 11:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong image in "voulge" page

The page about the polearm known as "Voulge" (vouge as well) contains the wrong image. The information in the page itself seems perfectly fine. At least it fits with what I know. The problem is that the image shows a double-edged sword, when the polearm in question is a single-edged blade attached to a long wooden stick. The polearm itself does not resemble any kind of sword in any way. (Edit: forgot to add the page itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voulge ) Canzandridas (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the voulge is it is a horribly imprecise term. It can mean a broad bladed single edge weapon but the 15th century weapon of the same name usually looks just like the one in the photo. It's even more confusing when we consider the so-called Swiss voulge, which many would consider a type of halberd. Having looked at the photo, incidentally, I suspect it is a copyvio - the source of the photo (the Musee de L'Armee) clearly claim copyright and there is no sign in the wikimedia page that they have waived it. Monstrelet (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the more I look into it the more confusing it get with details that count somewhere and don't somewhere else haha. Since the photo that's there now looks exactly as to what I would expect a voulge head to be my job here is done (I say as if I was some kind of authority in this). I understand that might have been a voulge, and if it turned out to be a copyvio then all is well if it was fixed! I'll crawl back to my hole now and thank you for your time! Canzandridas (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

But the illustration shows voulges of a type specifically said in the article as being misidentified in the 19th century. The copyvio did meet the more recent identification of the medieval weapon. Monstrelet (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Commanding officers

Hi all, unless I have missed it, the guidance for notability is covered by WP:SOLDIER. However, this does not cover off the lists on RAF station pages that mention Commanding Officers in the units history. I have recently been finding cites for RAF Finningley, and the CO section does not have any cites. Without wishing to cause any consternation among the MILHIST members, are these lists worthwhile? One point against, in my opinion, is the lack of references that go with it. I'd have thought that a notable personnel section covering those who are wikinotable, which is reliably sourced, is preferable to a long list of wing commanders and group captains for whom citations will be hard, if not impossible, to find. Genuine question; looking for a response. I have not deleted anything, as it may be something that has value. Thanks and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you that at WP:SHIPS (which has significant crossover with MILHIST), we had a number of discussions about these sorts of lists over the years, which culminated in this section in our project guidelines that states that such lists of non-notable individuals should not be included in articles. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me of the long lists of 19th-century station masters on railway station articles. They're no more notable than the manager of the local supermarket in most case. I can see a value for large stations/formations that are commanded by an officer who is likely to be notable because of their rank but long lists of non-notable names fail WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Sidenote that SOLDIER is deprecated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all. I note that some squadrons have their CO's list too. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should be guided by the RSs. I don't think we should cobble together lists of COs from our own synthesis of disparate (even if reliable) sources. OTOH if an RS or two include a list of COs -- something considered to be definitive IOW -- then there's a reasonable case for including such a list in a WP article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I dislike such lists, especially for non-notable people. If they're notable, they should be integrated into the main body of the article as much as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a useful heuristic, given how - in my experience - especially books about military units tend to be filled with all kinds of minutiae that would be completely undue in a WP article. Ljleppan (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

An example of this list-all-commanders-notable-or-not detritus is at USS Constitution § Commanders, and FA, which someone here might want to do something about...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Did I see Captain Tom Cobbleigh in that list? ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Renamed bases in historical articles and sections

I noticed that with the work of The Naming Commission, that several of the bases are having their pre-naming history changed. I don't know if this is a good idea or not. I started a discussion on Talk:Fort Moore#Name of fort in history section. I would appreciate some other input on this topic. Thanks. rogerd (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Engine infoboxes

Main page: Template talk:Infobox aircraft § Discussion related to Infobox aircraft engine and parameters:

Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; {{infobox aircraft engine}} (aviation), {{Infobox engine}} (automotive) and {{Infobox rocket engine}} (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here , which you are invited to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon

Just noticed that Napoleon is still listed as an A-class article, despite having been delisted from GA. Has there been previous discussion about this, and if not what is the A-class reassessment procedure? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GAR delisting does not affect project rating, so an article retains its A-class rating. It can be put up for re-review of its A-class status at the discretion of the coordinators. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Edward III of England Featured article review

I have nominated Edward III of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Renaming the Russian, Soviet and CIS task force

Can we rename the “Russian, Soviet and CIS” milhist task force? The name is mildly embarrassing.

Referring to Moscow’s moribund “CIS” project does not define or describe the task force’s current scope any better than invoking the “EEU,” “CSTO,” or “Union State” would. It reflects a non-neutral, obsolete point of view: the CIS was thought of as a potential successor to the Soviet Union around 1993 or so, but never became that. The CIS has eight active member states, but this project concerns thirteen countries. No one uses “CIS” to refer to this subject field: there is no important university department or academic specialty called “CIS Studies.”

And since it is a military history task force, we can assume all historical predecessor states, and don’t have to name a particular one – i.e., the Soviet Union – while omitting others within the geographical scope, e.g., Kyivan Rus, the Crimean Khanate, the Golden Horde.

For example, the biggest relevant academic association is the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. Dartmouth College changed its Russian Languages and Literatures department to East European, Eurasian and Russian studies.[3] In Canada, Carleton has an Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies,[4] St. Francis Xavier a Centre for Post-Communist Studies,[5] and Toronto a Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.[6]

A year ago I suggested a move at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 167#Requested move 3 May 2022. I would still suggest Eastern Europe and Eurasia military history task force, but am open to any other objective title.  —Michael Z. 16:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling that renaming of academic associations was dictated by the attempt to preserve funding (Russia "is not cool" now). XX century history know many waves of renaming (the first one was caused by WWI, and, as far as I remember, event the British royal family changed its name as a result).

I think "CIS" looks really awkward. Maybe "Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet" task force would be a better name? It would refer to three periods (pre 1917, 1917-91, and post 91). Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, CIS is needlessly obscure, though I think just "Russian and Soviet" would be suffice. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy with "Russian and Soviet." Buckshot06 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re just making that up. Organizations renamed themselves to accurately reflect their scope and in response to changes in academia after the colonial and Soviet periods. If it’s not clear to you that views have changed in the last century . . .

Russia is not a period. It is a country. The scope of this task force is the military history of thirteen countries, and none of them are Soviet. Its name should reflect the academic views of current sources about its subject, and not imperial nostalgia or any other political POV.  —Michael Z. 13:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support "Russian and Soviet". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That contradicts the stated scope of the task force.  —Michael Z. 14:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it was a couple of years ago I grassed reported Mzajac to arbcom for off-site canvassing—Twitter, wasn't it, and over the Kiev naming dispute? :D SN54129 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, please show evidence that this is true, or strike.  —Michael Z. 16:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. Indeed, it was a different legacy admin that I reported to the committee, with whom I was confusing you. You were not suspected of canvassing, I see on a re-read, but accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor. Am happy to strike/clarify my previous remarks. Hope this helps! Apologies again. Cheers, SN54129 14:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Lovely “apology,” user:Serial Number 54129. I was not accused of bigotry and racism. Please strike that too. Please stick to the subject and stop trying to score points by slagging me, poorly.  —Michael Z. 15:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Specific links are particularly useful when making exceptional claims... If your memory was incorrect again, that's an egregious personal attack. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@User:Impru20. SN54129 16:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: - regardless of whether you're right or not (and my reading of the discussion doesn't square with your framing), I'm struggling to come up with a reason you'd dredge up an unrelated dispute that doesn't amount to trying to poison the well. Please provide an explanation or strike your comments. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think editors are hearing your point Mzajac, just not agreeing with it. There is no need to keep repeating it. FWIW, IMO "Eurasia" contradicts the stated scope even more, as it would subsume China and India. Now, if you were to suggest "Eastern Europe and Russia" ... ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Eurasian" may also refer to highly obscure and dubious Dugin's pseudotheory. It would be better to avoid it. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s Eurasianist. The existence of Eurasianism doesn’t discredit the geopolitical notion of Eurasia.  —Michael Z. 16:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Eurasia is obviously commonly used to refer to Russia and Central Asia in academia. It is inclusive. It does not apply a Russo-centric point of view by omitting a dozen out of thirteen states within the scope.

“Eastern Europe and Russia” is Eurocentric, omitting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.  —Michael Z. 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have always understood Eurasia to be the combination of Europe and Asia, since Europe isn't really a continent geographically speaking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That was my understanding too - everything between Strait of Gibraltar and Bering Strait - and that is what the article of that name says. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It is. But Eurasian also refers to transcontinental territories, especially those of the Russian Federation, the USSR, and the Russian empire. There are plenty of states in Eurasia but only a few are Eurasian states.  —Michael Z. 17:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

How about "Russian Empire, Soviet and post-Soviet"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The regional task forces define themselves by the regions or modern countries. The only exceptions are ones that are strictly about defunct empires, the Roman and Ottoman. Referring to modern nations by (a selection of) their former colonizers is a disrespectful POV.  —Michael Z. 21:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

it fits the scope "this task force covers much of the military history of the post-Soviet states and territories formerly part of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire". Those countries are literally defined by the group they were part of.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s a description, not a definition. Some states’ territories were not parts of these empires, or split with other empires, while others are explicitly grouped with other “nations and regions” task forces: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

The definition of the scope is a list of modern states.  —Michael Z. 16:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

But does CIS really still fairly apply to the former Soviet member states? -Indy beetle (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The CIS never comprised all of the states that were in the defunct Soviet Union. The three Baltics never participated. Turkmenistan didn’t fully participate. Georgia left. Ukraine never fully participated then left. Moldova is no longer participating. And Mongolia has nothing to do with it. Obviously, some former Russian-empire states have nothing to do with it: Finland, Poland, Romania.

More importantly, while “CIS” was used as a convenient verbal proxy for “former Soviet Union” in the early 1990s, it doesn’t represent all states of the defunct Soviet Union nor all of the states that founded the CIS, it never became important, and no one knows what it comprises any more. All it serves is to demonstrate that there is no good catch-all for all of these very diverse states and nations.

The countries in the scope of this task force shouldn’t be defined as “former Russian-Empire states,” “former Soviet states,” nor “the CIS.”

They should be referred to individually or as a general geographical grouping.  —Michael Z. 17:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Russia, Central Asia and Caucasus. post-Soviet Ukraine and Belarus are covered by European task force. European Russia is also covered by that task force FWIW. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I hadn’t intended to change the scope, but this is a thought-provoking proposal.

  Given recent history, Belarusian military seems to be closely bound to Russia’s, but Ukraine’s certainly more with Europe, and of course its long history has ties with both.  —Michael Z. 17:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Seems to me the simplest solution would be to split off the Central Asian states and just have a "Russia and Soviet" task force. The only reason we have nation-specific task forces are when there are sufficient levels of interest to make them worthwhile, which I don't expect to be the case here. Lumping the Central Asian states in with Russia only makes sense from an imperialist Russian perspective and is inherently POV. Include things that happened in those states during the periods they were colonized by Russia or the Soviet Union, but leave the rest to the European or Asian task forces. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What Parsecboy said. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah what Pasec said especially the "Include things that happened in those states during the periods they were colonized by Russia or the Soviet Union, but leave the rest to the European or Asian task forces". I kind of figured that's where we'd be going with this anyway. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Nations like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and so on deserve to belong to a single task force, not hop on and off the “Russia” train throughout their history (of course, Ukraine also belongs to Central and Eastern Europe, Austrian empire, etc, already). Why don’t we get rid of Russia–Soviet and instead create two task forces for Eastern Europe and, say, Northwestern Asia, which would include all of Russian and Soviet military history between them?  —Michael Z. 15:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Because, for the simple fact that after Russia and later the Soviet Union conquered those countries, they were constituent parts of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Likewise, events in Ireland during the period of British rule are covered by the British task force but events after 1922 wouldn't be within its scope. This is not a controversial idea.

Task forces exist only when there are sufficient levels of interest to maintain them. We don't create them to right wrongs or to treat all countries equally. Many countries lack task forces because there is no interest in them. There is an obvious need for a task force that covers Russia and the Soviet Union specifically, in the same way that there's a need for France or Germany; the same can't be said of Moldova. Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Well that’s why I suggested renaming this task force, not redefining it. Righting great wrongs is continuing to name things after Moscow’s governments and organizations (like the CIS) despite that professional history practice has been moving away from it for three and a half decades.

What exactly is the rationale for France and Germany having task forces, and Russia, but not Ukraine? Only the perceived level of interest among editors, I suppose. Perhaps the large geographical scope during the imperial periods of history (arguably 16th to 21st centuries for Muscovy/Russia/USSR/RF).

The period during which all of Ukraine was conquered by Moscow is 52 years, by the way, 1939–1991.

Anyway, there is merit in the idea of treating Ukrainian military history as part of European history rather than Russian history, for a number of reasons.  —Michael Z. 15:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

By saying that certain countries "deserve to belong to a single task force, not hop on and off the “Russia” train throughout their history", I think you're incorrectly assuming that task force assignments are mutually exclusive. They are not. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Well that’s fair. More, I was kind of assuming that task force discussions are separate, but that’s not the case. The only practical effect is the appearance of items in the task force article alerts pages, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force/Article alerts.

Nevertheless, this task force needs a name that represents its scope fully, clearly, and with a neutral POV.  —Michael Z. 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, that was implied by the proposal’s “include things that happened in those states during the periods they were colonized by Russia or the Soviet Union, but leave the rest to the European or Asian task forces.” There should be a consensus understanding about how the task force scope is to be applied.

Geographically, everything in colonial Russia and USSR belongs also to Europe or Central Asia.

And the Caucasus?  —Michael Z. 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the best of the suggestions so far presented. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably the best idea. The current situation includes Mongolia in the task force, which makes literally no sense from a historical standpoint. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• What about just one broad Eastern Europe task force? Curbon7 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I would support this. Failing that, just Russian Soviet as many others have stated or Russo-Soviet, which is the same but different. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Calling all A-class reviewers!

The A-class review process (see WP:MILHIST/ACR) has been moving a bit slower, and we need some reviewers! The following are at least two months old, and need reviewers ASAP:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Radoje Pajović needs a source review and multiple content reviews
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Grand Gulf needs a content review and a source review
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort Phantom Hill needs a source review, an image review, and multiple content reviews
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Central America under Mexican rule needs a source review, an image review, and multiple content reviews
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Al-Wathiq is still open, but appears to be winding towards towards a successful promotion

Many hands make light work! Hog Farm _Talk 03:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Keith Miller

Keith Miller 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell

• I have a somewhat long history of antipathy toward MILHIST because of Bengal famine of 1943 (BF43). However, I am intent on taking (irrelevant here) History of science to GA and (topic at hand) Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell to FA. Wavell is the real hero of BF43 and (to a lesser degree) the story told in Hermione, Countess of Ranfurly... If anyone wants to join in on Wavell, he or she is welcome to do so. It may be a while, but I am determined. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Spartan 3000 - Quick Maneuver Force vs Special Force Unit

Hi, There is a dispute about Quick Maneuver Force of Republic of Korea Marine Corps

But just 2 users are participating in the discussion.

I hope that many subject-matter expert of military field participate in the below discussion

Talk page at Discussion

Thanks Footwiks (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Bot question

I've got a bot request asking for a bot to find project stub categories that are no longer stubs.

@Hawkeye7 pointed to a successful implementation of a bot by the Military History Project, which re-categorizes stub articles based on ORES assessment and project checklists. I'm intrigued, so what is the bot and who maintains it?

JASpencer (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The bot is User:MilHistBot, and Hawkeye runs it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. JASpencer (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

List of World War II flying aces

I am wondering if the size of List of World War II flying aces is becoming too large. I would appreciate thoughts on this question here. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Calling for Other Editors

Hey, um, I wrote a draft about the First Tank BN, 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade, and I need other people to help edit it. Its in draft space. My talk page has the link to it. Thanks. Faith15 18:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Occidental during World War II

Greetings from the Interlingue task force! Recently the articles on Interlingue and Edgar de Wahl were approved as Good Articles, most of which is thanks to the Austrian National Library which over a decade ago scanned and put the archives of the magazine Cosmoglotta, published since 1922, online. Both of these articles pertain to World War II but a great deal happened to and in Occidental (the name of the language at the time) in the runup and during the war that it deserves its own article, so we are beginning to put one together. It will be worked on here until it seems sourced enough to publish as a regular article, and then the work will continue there. Most of the sources are in Occidental/Interlingue but the language is easy enough to read for anyone who knows a modern Romance language or has a background in Latin.

Some parts of interest of the language's history during and related to World War II:

• Created by a Baltic German named Edgar de Wahl in Estonia, was critized as far back as 1930 by Ludendorff in Volkswarte who thought it shameful that an ethnic German would create something so Romance in appearance.
• Banned in 1935 in Germany along with other constructed languages. Esperanto was the main target but Occidental suffered as well.
• During the war most activity only took place in Switzerland and Sweden. Telegraphs were able to pass between the two communities as the censors were able to understand the language.
• One of the early users Hanns Hörbiger came up with the pseudo-scientific Welteislehre theory. He died in 1931. Right around this time Nazi party began promoting the theory which they found attractive given its Austrian origins.
• Much of the content in the language was destroyed in bombings such as de Wahl's house in Tallinn, many Occidentalists were kept under Gestapo surveillance.
• Cosmoglotta itself was neutral in religion and politics but other journals in Occidental existed that were not, such as Catalonia in Lucta which was published during the Spanish Civil War to resist German/Italian fascism.
• The community came up with its own currency in 1936 called "bons" to allow payments for small sums without needing to pay exorbitant transaction costs. This may or may not be related to the runup to WWII (had to do with wanting to avoid paying in Swiss Francs) but will include it in the article if it is. The editors of Cosmoglotta also complained a lot about rising printing costs, shortage of paper etc. during the war and ended up moving to a mimeograph in 1945 to save costs. Which looked horrible (compare 1944 to 1945) but I think this allowed them to print without having to get approval from the Swiss authorities who needed the printers for things like mobilization. Will be reading into for general info on Switzerland during the war for more context here.

So feel free to keep an eye on and contribute to the article as it develops!

Mithridates (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Geography question

Does anyone have any idea whereabouts in Germany Ingringhausen might be? I can't find it with Google maps. It is referred to here [7] It is probably mispelt; I tentatively identified Sarnou as Sarnau but am stumped at Ingringhausen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Immenhausen? Mengeringhausen? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 07:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This May 1945 US map of German railways shows an "Ihringshsn" immediately east of Kassel. This is Ihringshausen which is now a district of Fuldatal - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That one looks very possible! Maybe someone might know at Wikipedia Diskussion:WikiProjekt Imperialismus und Weltkriege...? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 08:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

codenames.info

https://codenames.info/ contains articles that describe various WW2 operations by their names. It is used as a source in 40 articles. According to the Contact page and copyright notice, the site is the work of Christopher Chant (https://cmchant.com/) who seems to have a significant number of published works (https://cmchant.com/chris-chant-bibliography/, https://www.google.com/search?q=inauthor:%22Christopher+Chant%22.) Unfortunately, it seems that codenames.info may be using Wikipedia as a source; there are at least a few cases where Wikipedia content has almost been copied word-for-word.

Examples:

• Battle of Grand Harbour (copyvio report; 93.8% similarity!
  • This is instance that made me suspicious. I practically rewrote the article on 10 May 2023 and so have high confidence that codenames.info copied Wikipedia, and not the other way around.
• Operation Autonomous (copyvio report)
  • This compares an edit from 7 July 2010 to the first instance of codenames.info article on archive.org (25 September 2017.)

I checked a few more just to see if there were similarities, but did not check the dates of edits. Either way, some sort of copying is going on here.

• Battle of Balikpapan (copyvio report; 97.3% similarity!)
• Battle of Manila (1945) (copyvio report; 95.4% similarity!)
• Battle of Hong Kong (copyvio report)
• Indian Ocean Raid (copyvio report)
  • The article revision is the one before I did a major rewrite starting 4 May 2019. In this case, it seems that codenames.info has not caught up.

I think that a translated version of w:cs:Operace Silver A was used for https://codenames.info/operation/silver-ii/. The English-language Operation Silver A is pretty much a stub and so was inadequate; that article also uses codenames.info page as a source, so there's a case of WP:CIRCULAR there.

Saying that, how should potential non-CIRCULAR cases be handled? Chant wrote a 1986 reference book (The Encyclopedia of Codenames of World War II); presumably it's the foundation of the site. On the other hand, I fear that Chant may be plagiarizing other sources in ways that are difficult to detect. Would it be preferaeble just to avoid using codenames.info altogether? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Mystery postcard (UK, likely WWI)

There's discussion of a mystery postcard with a military link here on Twitter which may be of interest to some of you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

'Spartan 3000' - rapid reaction force or Special Forces unit?

Dear all, Footwiks has asked me to intercede because our normal dispute resolution procedures may not be working properly in regard to an entry at List of military special forces units. Briefly in late 2016 a bunch of stories began appearing to say that that the 1st Marine Division (South Korea) had established a regimental-size force capable of deploying anywhere on the Korean peninsula within 24 hours. The previous sized force capable of doing that had only been a battalion. With one exception, the South Korean language sources now at List of military special forces units#Korea, South - ROK repeat that description. The trouble and the discrepancy is that one Korean language story, and virtually unanimously the resulting English stories, also say things like:

"It is a decapitation unit comprised of highly trained elite soldiers. It is also the unit South Korea could deploy in just 24 hours, ready and armed to carry out a strike on North Korea. .. The unit has not been assigned with the job of literally decapitating North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

According to Brendan Thomas-Noone, a research fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, a decapitation unit's main goal would be to neutralise their enemy's ability to command and control their nuclear weapons and military forces. "It can involve targeting the political and military leadership, but it can also target the communication and other infrastructure that is used to command those forces," he said." New Zealand Herald

Thewolfchild, on the basis of these sources, wants the listing at List of military special forces units to be retained.

I have no information to comment on the reliability of the S. Korean sources, but the English sources are The Diplomat, New York Times, [Daily] Telegraph, and the New Zealand Herald.

So should this regiment - well, actually seemingly a tasking rotated between the regiments of the 1st Marine Division - be listed among military special forces units?

Third opinions welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• FYI - South Korean reliable sources about 'Spartan 3000'

Original Korean prose from article of Yonhap News

"군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.

(Translation: ROKMC created the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division.

이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.

(Translation: dubbed 'Spartan 3000')

• Collection of reliable sources from South Korean press. - Similar to above Original Korean prose from Yonhap News
• Korean language source from Seoul Broadcasting System
• Korean language source from Channel A (TV channel)
• Korean language source from Hankook Ilbo
• Korean language source from Segye Ilbo
• Korean language source from Kukmin Ilbo
• English language source from Yonhap News Agency

In this discussion, Most importantly, 'Spartan 3000' was just provisional nickname of ROKMC's Quick Maneuver Force in March 2016. Then ROKMC discarded nickname 'Spartan 3000' and ROKMC launched the Quick Maneuver Force - official name: "ROK Navy·Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force" (대한민국 해군·해병대 신속기동부대), new nickname: "Jeseung Unit" (제승부대, 제승(制勝) means guarantee victory) in May 2016.

There are not any South Korean or Western sources which 'Jeseung Unit (제승부대)' is a Special Force Unit.

Especially, Western news outlets didn't know about the presence of 'Jeseung Unit (제승부대)' and Western news outlets mistaken that ROKMC still operate Special Force Unit - 'Spartan 3000'.

As a South Korean, What a ridiculous situation!

Footwiks (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Cambodian Army Ranks

Can someone put in the English equivalent for the Cambodian officers? You know, for those of us less educated. Adding the literal translation is optional. Thanks. Faith15 15:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Commanding Rank of an Army in Russia

Um, one question. What rank usually commands an army in Russia? I mean the formation, not the armed service. Can anyone please help? Thanks. Faith15 14:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Faithful15, instead of asking people who have read the pages to tell you, have you considered looking at Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Russian Ground Forces, opening one of the many Russian Combined Arms Army links, and reading the articles? A number have extensive recent lists of commanders. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I've just done a random check. In Russian Ground Forces#Dispositions since 2021, in the first table, the first three listed armies all have lists of commanders. We know you're smart. Do some checking at the right pages first, then come back and ask if the information there is unclear. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, @Buckshot06. If you have questions for me feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Faith15 16:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Lists of generals killed in WW2

I found List of U.S. general officers and flag officers killed in World War II, but I don't see such a list of any other military. We probably should have something more? Here's something for the Germans: [8]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I worked on that one. I can give you Australia, because there are just four of them: General Brudenell White was killed in the Canberra air disaster in 1940; Lieutenant General Henry Wynter died from natural causes; and Major Generals Rupert Downes and Alan Vasey were killed in an air crash off Cairns in 1945. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Myself and Pickersgill-Cunliffe contributed List of generals of the British Empire who died during the First World War and List of Royal Navy flag officers who died during the First World War. I don't have many sources on WWII but the deaths will all be recorded on the CWGC website so a list is easy enough. I might be tempted to start British ones if there is interest (the dominions would be best listed separate for the second war). I did also write List of French generals who died during the First World War, based on a book I have, but not sure if there is an equivalent for the Second World War - Dumelow (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not an RS, but see British Casualties of Generals from Axis History Forum. Perhaps the best known is William "Strafer" Gott whose plane was shot down on his way to take over the 8th Army from Auchinleck. Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

At least two Air Marshals killed in plane crashes.. Leigh-Mallory and another. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not finding "another" except Prince George, Duke of Kent, who held the honorary rank of air vice-marshal but relinquished it for the rank of air commodore on active service and was killed in a Sunderland crash in 1942. Alansplodge (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Air Vice Marshal Wilfred McClaughry was killed in an air crash on 4 January 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move of possible interest of project participants

See Talk:USS Cyclops (AC-4)#Requested move 26 May 2023. Hog Farm _Talk 21:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Seizure of SS Brussels

The article for the ferry SS Brussels, which was captured by German torpedo boats in the Channel on 23 June 1916, which ultimately resulted in the German execution of Brussel's captain, states that the ferry was captured by the torpedo boats G102 and G101, based on [9], which does not appear at first glance to be a WP:RS. Has anyone got any better sources that confirm which ships were involved?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"The two definites were...G101 and G102, commanded by Kapitanleutnants Schulte and Barendorf respectively...The other two destroyers were probably G103...and G104...if there was a fifth vessel, it was unlikely to have been as large as the others." Carver, Ben (2016). Captain Charles Fryatt. Gloucestershire: Amberley. ISBN 9781445658629. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't suppose you can supply page numbers so I can add to the SMS G102 article?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion

There is currently a proposal to merge Rapid deployment force, Rapid reaction force, and Quick reaction force which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The discussion is taking place here. Felix QW (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

CFM International CFM56 at FAR

I have nominated CFM International CFM56 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Bakhmut#Voting to change status to Russian victory

I draw the attention of those interested to: Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#Voting to change status to Russian victory. (Hohum ^@) 17:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I closed that discussion per WP:GS/RUSUKR. No objections to an extended-confirmed editor restarting it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Indonesia aircraft inventory discussion

There is a discussion on List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force regarding the usage of "World Air Force 2023" as reference. I'd like to invite anyone interested in that topics to participate. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability tagging of HMS R1

Please note that this article has been tagged for notability, with the tag claiming a lack of notability (i.e. significant coverage) for the individual submarine rather than the class it formed part of (the British R-class submarine). Sources covering the individual submarine and its career may be helpful if the article is to be retained, although the submarine's active career appears fairly short (i.e. completed in October 1918 and scrapped in 1923, and R1 isn't exactly a search-engine friendly name.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I considered tagging the rest of the class as well as the articles all appear to almost entirely duplicate the main article. Given its age I would expect any additional sources to be hard to find (or to be in tangentially related sources like biographies about crew members or designers), with that as it were I would caution anyone against moving forward with AfD before considerable time has passed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGINFOBOX and MOS:OVERLINKING to military articles

A user named User:ACPP10122728 has been mass-adding flags, rank insignia and URLs to the infoboxes of U.S. military unit articles, in contravention of the principles in the Wiki header. In particular, they have done so to the leadership portion of the infobox. The Leadership portion displays the unit's current senior leadership. While there is no set rule for which leadership should be in the infobox, typically the highest leadership - unit commander, unit deputy commanders (in bigger units, this may be multiple military and civilians) and senior enlisted leader (Army command sergeant major, Navy command master chief, etc.) are included.

• WP:FLAGINFOBOX is being violated by persistent addition of rank insignia and rank flags next to the leader's name. Certain reversions, when noticed, are quick to be un-reverted.

• WP:OVERLINKING is far more disruptive here. This user tends to add many non-leadership positions to the infobox (chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, foreign policy advisor), as long as such names are present on the unit's official website (for example, EUCOM's Leadership page has the chief of staff and foreign policy advisor). This leads to overlinking as the user doesn't use citations for them; instead directly linking to external pages. Additionally, it poses a logistical issue - frequent turnover in military leadership (several a month) means that any excess information is more likely to become outdated over time.

These edits are not obvious vandalism, making them hard to recognise until a pattern has formed or a user already dedicated to reverting WP:FLAGINFOBOX violations like Abraham B.S. has reverted them. Even so, such edits are then un-reverted, though due to the aforementioned mass-editing and lack of attention to these U.S. military articles (meaning less frequent reverts), it is difficult to find examples of WP:3RR. I request assistance and advice here as the incredibly expansive array of edits means it will be a hassle for a single user to revert them all, should they be found invalid.

The above was submitted as part of an ANI report (since rejected as I did not engage prior to reporting). With this context, I have noticed that MOS:FLAGINFOBOX violations are quite prevalent in poorly-maintained U.S. military unit articles - if anyone happens to find such violations, either as part of this user's edits or anywhere else, I believe it will be appreciated if such violations are reverted. I would also appreciate comments. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking back, I apologise if I sounded inadvertently bossy or authoritative in this query and comment - I've been handling a lot of spam edits to U.S. military pages as of late, and it's worn me down somewhat. SuperWIKI (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Douglas Bertram MacDonald

A deletion discussion is taking place here that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Torvioll

Battle of Torvioll 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) 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Walls of Dubrovnik

Walls of Dubrovnik 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) 18:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC at 2001 insurgency in Macedonia regarding mujahideen participation

An RfC on whether the participation of mujahideen in the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia should be mentioned in wikivoice can be found here: [10]. It would benefit from participaiton by non-partisan editors. Khirurg (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The number of American soldiers in World War II

Maybe I don't know how to google. But where to see how many American troops passed (counting the dead) through the Western Front of World War II and the Pacific War Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The world war two data book says (page 228) total mobilized 11,260,000 (army and airforce), Navy 4,183,000 USMC 669,000. Slatersteven (talk)

Discussion at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom § Treaty of Reciprocity

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom § Treaty of Reciprocity. Peaceray (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Daniel List, shipbuilder

In the list of ship launches in 1810, there is an entry for HMS Decoy (1810), which was built by Daniel List of Fishbourne. Question is, which Fishbourne - Fishbourne, Isle of Wight or Fishbourne, Sussex? Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This page seems to confirm that Fishbourne, Isle of Wight, is the intended location. Felix QW (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the Isle of Wight. List also built HMS Tagus and HMS Satellite at Fishbourne. He constructed HMS Magicienne and HMS Tiber at Binstead, HMS Persian at Cowes, and HMS Chanticleer at East Cowes. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Not something I'd normally comment on but Fishbourne caught my eye, loaded as it is with many "happy" memories of queuing for ferries there. Local history groups seem quite keen on Daniel List and do have a different list of ships he built at Fishbourne e.g. https://www.fishbourneiow.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Fishbourne-Parish-News-August-21.pdf . Not claiming this as an RS source but perhaps warrants more looking at published local history. Things may be clouded by the close proximity of Binstead and Fishbourne. Monstrelet (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Have restored the link on the list. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Caligula

Caligula 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move of possible interest to this wikiproject

See Talk:Action at Springfield#Requested move 12 June 2023. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Attalus I

I have nominated Attalus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

First military article

I just made my first article regarding military and I wanted some feed back on it. The article is the USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9. The flotilla is one of the bigger ones in texas and has had significant coverage,I just fell like more could be added. Thank you! LuxembourgLover (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

New article Battle of Dushanbe (1921) could use some work, if any focuses on Central Asian 20th century issues

For your attention. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Losses of Japan in the war with the United States

The United States lost about 400,000 soldiers killed in World War II, about half of them in the war with Japan. And what are the losses of Japan precisely in the war with the United States and its allies. In the article about the Pacific War, it is written that the Japanese lost 1.1 million killed against the Americans and 500 against China. But it seems to me that these are the losses of only the Japanese army. After all, Japan lost exactly 2.1 million soldiers and sailors. 95.25.204.129 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is much more complicated than that. Footnote AB of this article may help. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jean de Carrouges

Jean de Carrouges 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) 20:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Military unit insignia

I am working on creating article for units in the USCG Auxiliary. I have the website for units with the insignia is shown. Can I uses it for the article? In addition they have pictures of the unit in action, are theses copyright? LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If that truly is the official website for the USCG, then yes it should be fine. Official works by federal employees, including the DOD or DHS including the coast guard have no copyright and are in the public domain. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Mongol military tactics and organization

Help sought, from anyone who has access to texts in the extensive bibliography at Mongol military tactics and organization, to find sources which could verify material I've blanked from the article and justify its being restored. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

WWII timelines

Hello gang:

Just wanted to draw people's attention to the World War II timelines articles.

• Timeline of events preceding World War II
• Timeline of World War II (1939)
• Timeline of World War II (1940)
• Timeline of World War II (1941)
• Timeline of World War II (1942)
• Timeline of World War II (1943)
• Timeline of World War II (1944)
• Timeline of World War II (1945–1991)

I think they were created when Wikipedia was young and while I'm no expert and definitely not heavily involved in MILHIST stuff, I think in many cases there are now specific battle or campaign articles that should be linked that are not. For example

ORIGINAL 23 March 1943: American tanks defeat the Germans at El Guettar, Tunisia. UPDATED 23 March 1943: American tanks defeat the Germans at the Battle of El Guettar in Tunisia.

(Also from reading the article I'm not even sure this is precisely correct but at least it's linked now.)

There are also various hatnotes calling for citations and all that, but barring someone volunteering to do a massive cleanup, it would be wonderful if people could just adopt a random month of WWII and just make sure stuff like Bombing of Essen in World War II is linked where the current entry just says "Allies bomb Essen."

Bonus points for adding images where suitable.

Cheers and keep up the generally great work. jengod (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Making article for the early Somali Civil War

I have a draft article at Draft:Somali Civil War (1991–2006), for the phase of the Somali Civil War between January 26, 1991, and December 20, 2006 (Ethiopian intervention). Please contribute to it at a point if you can, I've only gotten up to early 1992.

I have no clue as to whether I should keep the scope from 1991 all the way to 2006, shrink it to between 1991 and 1998 (that state consolidation thing, or even the formation of the TFG, so some input would be appreciated too. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Presidentofyes12, good work. This area is extremely challenging, and has many driveby POVwarriors. The best periods would be 1980s to January 26, 1991 - Barre's flight from Mogadishu is a cardinal reference point; then if you wish you can dig into Mohamed Sahnoun's arrival, UNITAF, UNOSOM I, and UNOSOM II, which will give you lots of data until "The Day of the Rangers" / Black Hawk Down and the subsequent withdrawal of UNOSOM II; so either 1991-1995 - do use Kapteijns - or 1991-onwards to the formation of the Transitional National Government (2000) or 1991 to creation of Puntland, 1998. Probably best 1991-95 and then 1995-98.

There are staggering amounts of data about the peacekeeping operations, see WP:TWL, but you have to pick through it to find the stories of the Somalis themselves. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback- I'll try to limit the scope to between the beginning of the war in 1991 and the end of UNOSOM II in 1995. I haven't been able to find too much info on the period between about April 1991 and November 1991, probably because of a lack of media attention to the war during that time, so I'll try to find some literature that covers that period- the UN intervention is covered very well already in other articles, so you're right about finding the stories of inter-Somali fighting during the war. Thanks! Presidentofyes12 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you wish to do some inter-library loans? In which case, request Mohamed Sahnoun's book - very good start. He got super frustrated because he was trying to do things with few resources/little UN support, and then the U.S. juggernaut arrived, cutting across him. Nick-D please assist Presidentofyes12 with any admin whacking as/when necessary if POVwarriors show up. FYI Cordless Larry Buckshot06 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia § 1941–43: Soviet Union's support?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia § 1941–43: Soviet Union's support?. –Vipz (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

American casualties in the Pacific War

In the discussion of the article, as usual, they ignore me. The fact is that the indicated US losses in the article are not entirely correct, since only US BATTLE losses are indicated, while Japan indicates all losses, both combat and non-combat. I think I found US casualties at 161,000. But I do not know if this source is worthy to be included in the article. https://www.mcchord.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/2331255/team-mcchord-remembers-vj-day/ 95.25.204.129 (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you should really just let this go. In conflicts the size of the Second World War, ANY loss figures are really going to be estimates at best. The article you're listing pulled its numbers from somewhere else, and thinking EXACTLY 161,000 is an accurate number for casualties in an entire theater of war is not realistic. Intothatdarkness 15:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for USS Mindoro (CVE-120)

USS Mindoro (CVE-120) 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) 19:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No article on China and the Korean War?

I was reading Soviet Union and the Korean War and I am amazed we don't have a corresponding article on China, given how this topic conects to US milhist, arguably the best covered subject on Wikipedia...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Relist Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

Relisted for further input. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Victorianforts.co.uk website closed down

The site has been taken offline after the death of its maintainer, David Moore. All the content is on the Wayback Machine, but the many WP links to the FortLogs (eg for Fort Gilkicker are now broken. The Palmerston Forts Society (https://www.palmerstonfortssociety.org.uk/) have taken on David's archives, and can advise if there is a plan to put the FortLogs online again. I will address the problem on Wikidata, but not here. Vicarage (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)#Requested move 24 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)#Requested move 24 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raulois (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Mystery officer on the London Gazette

Hello all. I am expanding the article on the cricketer Arthur Seymour McIntyre and it would appear he had a lengthy career in the British Army prior to playing county cricket. However, I can't seem to find any mention of him on the Gazette. He began his army career in 1907 and served in WWI. Looks like he was awarded the MC and might have left the army in 1919, with the rank of major. Can anyone locate him on the Gazette? StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Does this help: Royal Leicestershire Regiment? Not the Gazette, I know.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been able to find him now. The I is an l on The Gazette, accounts for why he doesn't appear. Cheers, StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Galley – length of article

I am in some discussion with the major contributor to Galley about the length of the article. To me, the article seems over-long and suffers because of it. There is discussion at Talk:Galley#Length of article. This is where you will find my suggestion of splitting the article along the natural division: (a) galleys of the classical and pre-history periods (b) medieval and post-medieval galleys.

Please would editors take a look and express an opinion. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Historian comments on Marian reforms article

Don't know if this is valid - I did Classical Studies classes, but not on military history of Rome - but it seemed worth mentioning it here. It claims the Marian reforms don't exist; that while reforms happened, they weren't by Marius and weren't as described. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 02:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I tweaked your comment/section header. :-) I tried asking for details but haven't gotten a response. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Cplakidas, Gog the Mild, and Catlemur, as this may be of interest. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not a new notion but, not being a Romanist, I can't provide you with RS on it. Bret Devereux is a bona-fide classical historian with a specialism in Roman and Greek military history though, so this isn't just some random commentator. May be worth following up. Monstrelet (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a historian and not an expert, but the term exists and is commonly used in the literature. It may well be that the consensus (or widespread view? or minority view?) is that the reforms are not all attributable to Marius, but the term is obviously established for describing this process of transformation of the Roman army. The article likely needs to be updated accordingly, but just because somebody tweets extremely negatively about an article doesn't mean it is a complete trainwreck. It would also be nice if along with the criticism came some hints as to how to improve things... Constantine ✍ 14:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This paper is the one mentioned on Twitter. JSTORs 24432811 and 44981974 may also be relevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I have asked persons more knowledgeable and have been recommended

Gauthier, F. 2016. "The Changing Composition of the Roman Army in the Late Republic and the So-Called Marian-Reforms”, Ancient History Bulletin, 30, 103-120. From the abstract "What Marius did was neither new nor

permanent. Thus, speaking of a “post-Marian army” is misleading as this entails that the Roman military was quickly and profoundly transformed by a single individual." Not open access but downloadable for $1.

Also recommended, but harder to access

François Cadiou, L'armée imaginaire: les soldats prolétaires dans les légions romaines au dernier siècle de la République. Mondes anciens, 5. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2018. Pp. 488. ISBN 9782251447650

So, material is out there. As Cplakidas says, the title is common usage, even in critical articles (so-called Marian reforms above), so no reason to change that, and reforms happened, so it is a question of balancing differing academic views. Monstrelet (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The WikiLibrary might be able to give y'all access to these articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Some preview of the Cadiou article is available here: https://www.numeriquepremium.com/content/books/9782251447650. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

About Draft:Hornsby Chain Track Tractor

Hi all,

I recently declined the WP:A10 speedy deletion of this article with the rationale "Reviewing WP:A10 it would appear to me that this a borderline case, and should be discussed before speedy deletion is applied. The article section is about chain tracked tractors in general. It is asserted that this model is particularly important, in that it directly led to the development of the Tank. I would appreciate your further views on this."

On reconsideration, I moved "Chain Track Tractor" to "Draft:Hornsby Chain Track Tractor"

As for "and should be discussed before speedy deletion is applied", Talk:Hornsby Chain Track Tractor no longer exists, due to my actions.

And so, this here is the discussion. If there is a fault to be found about this, the fault would appear to be squarely on my part.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

USS Commodore Perry

?

Since there's discussion on the page of problems identifying the Commodore Perry and which photos are and aren't photos of it, but not a lot of documentation as to what photo's being discussed, and there's apparently file moves and other confusions, is this the Commodore Perry? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The most bloody front for the US in World War II?

Of course, I understand that everyone is tired here. But I want to again clarify American losses in World War II. In total, the Americans lost 405-407 thousand soldiers killed. With this number, everything is porn, it is not disputed, and so on. But if you take the military campaigns in which the United States participated, the numbers do not converge. Western Front: US casualties come to 133,255 killed,and 14,528 missing Italian campaign (World War II): American casualties: 29,560 killed and missing North African campaign American casualties: 2,715 killed, 6,528 missing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic: Although there is no breakdown into allies. But I read somewhere that about 9 thousand American sailors died. Bottom line: US losses in the war with Germany 195586 killed and missing. Pacific war American casualties: 92,904 killed in battle The total of all US campaigns lost approximately 288 thousand people. But where did the 117 thousand more dead go? Which front for the United States was the most bloody. It seems to me that it is the Pacific theater. Yes, in the war with Germany, the Americans fought on "broad fronts", which is why they suffered relatively high losses, but on the other hand, the Japanese were fanatics, and the climate on the islands most likely favored large non-combat potholes Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You are never going to get an exact answer to this question. I think you need to accept that and move on. But if you persist, I'd posit you're using the wrong benchmarks. You'd need to compare total troops committed to the reported (and inaccurate) total losses to get a partial answer. The US put the bulk of its manpower into the ETO (and you have to include North Africa and Italy in that equation, since many divisions fought in all three theaters). The Marine Corps was committed exclusively to the PTO. But I repeat: you're never going to get the level of clarity you seem to be seeking because it's simply not possible. Exact losses for some nations (such as Japan) are not necessarily known. Intothatdarkness 22:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but we at least have the breakdown of the USAAF losses during the war by theater. I would assume there are similar works for the army and navy, but I was not able to find them. In Table 86 (page 707) it outlines that the USAAF total losses of 121,867.

ETO: 63,410 personnel (19,876 killed, 8,413 wounded, and 35,121 missing)

MTO: 31,155 (10,223 killed, 4,947 wounded, and 15,985 missing).

The PTO losses are split up a bit more (not too familiar with the PTO to be honest), but it look like overall losses amounted to 23,810, with a further 3,332 casualties in the China-Burma theater (is that considered the PTO?).

A remaining 160 casualties are described as coming from "other theaters".EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2023‎ (UTC)

I found the "final report" on US Army losses (including the USAAF), which outlines the below losses. You will have to look at the report as some lines overlap each other. It also notes that the total for those who died, include KIA, died of wounds, declared dead, nonbattle dead, and ;other':

ETO: 586,628 casualties (135,576 dead, 381,350 wounded, 73,759 captured, and 14,528 missing)

MTO: 175,107 casualties (40,45 dead, 111,125 wounded, 20,182 captured, and 8,487 missing)

PTO: 157,938 (50,386 dead, 95,021 wounded, 27,465 captured, and 4,914 missing)

Other: 16,586 (8,458 dead, 4,674 wounded, 2,673 captured, and 2,385 missing)

I am sure there is something somewhere for the navy and marine losses like this, but at the very least the Naval History and Heritage Command website puts the navy's killed at 36,950 and wounded at 37,778; USMC: 19,733 killed and 67,207 wounded.

Hope this help whoever improve whatever articles, although to address the question directly (even including an assumption that all naval/USMC losses were in the PTO) the majority of US casualties were in Europe.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It’s just that in an article about the Pacific War, the number of 93,000 dead Americans was embarrassing. I understand that the US army and navy were powerful, but I think even they could not provide such small losses. The final report says that the losses of the army were 71 thousand dead. The loss of the marines and the fleet in total in WWII was 87 thousand killed. I think most of them are in the war with Japan. Okay, let's look further, it's just that those sources about the fleet and marines that you threw off take into account only BATTLE losses Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you are after now. What is point you are trying to make? Again, assuming all US Marines losses were in the PTO and then combined with the above US A/USAAF and the USN losses below, it looks like a discrepancy of about 9,000 dead compared to the figure cited in the Pacific War article. That could be for a multitude of reasons including data sets used by the quoted authors. For example, they could have a more accurate breakdown than the theatre-wide reports quoted above and below etc.; There is a UK report, for another example, that admits that some of the missing cited in the statistics had actually turned up.

The totals above for the navy and the marines I have seen combined in other reports referencing total losses during the war. However, the the same website does provide a breakdown of the US Navy's casualties by theater (excluding the US Marines and the Coast Guard) and also includes non-battle related dead (natural causes, aviation accidents, and other). Unless I have made a typo, the below dead and wounded tally with the above dead and wounded figures:

Atlantic: 3,980 dead, 3,554 wounded, and 2,892 non-enemy action deaths

Asiactic: 18,040 killed, 20,451 wounded, and 2,429 non-enemy action deaths

Pacific: 13,117 killed, 11,250 wounded, and 6,398 non-enemy action deaths

Mediterranean: 2,313 killed, 2,513 wounded, and 283 non-enemy action deaths

Home theater: 12 killed, 10 wounded, and 13,122 non-enemy action deaths.

I have not yet found a breakdown for the marines (does it exist?). A couple of USMC-related books quote the same killed and wounded figures, but also that overall losses amounted to 90,709. The overall figure includes KIA, WIA, died of wounds, accidents, and those lost to disease in combat zones.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

So the Marines actively fought only with the Japanese. 95-99% of the losses killed in the war in the Pacific. If you sum up the losses, then the United States in the war with Japan lost 135k killed (71k army, 40k navy and 24k marines) Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

References

AS-28

I've suggested that Russian deep submergence rescue vehicle AS-28 be split to Rescue of AS-28, as the majority of the article is about its rescue, so should exist as an accident article instead of a sub article. For the discussion, please see Talk:Russian deep submergence rescue vehicle AS-28 -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Marine" – RFC at WT:MOSCAPS

Active discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalization of "Marine", please join. – .Raven  .talk 21:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing article on the cruiser portion of the Indian Ocean raid in 1942?

While working on the article for a Japanese cruiser that participated in the Indian Ocean raid, I've just noticed that the simultaneous activities of Ozawa's cruisers (and 1 light carrier) in the Bay of Bengal are not covered in the article on the raid. Given that the two operations were conducted by different units with different objectives, it doesn't seem sensible to add the missing information to the existing article that solely focuses on Nagumo's carrier operations and a separate article is needed. But what should it be called? Bay of Bengal raid? Cruiser raid in the Bay of Bengal? Bay of Bengal operations during the Indian Ocean raid? Suggestions welcome. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Do the WP:Reliable Sources group the two activities together, or separate them? Is the current IO Raid article too long? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The IO raid article is already 28K long and I hesitate to add more. The sources vary, depending on their focus. The official histories cover both, while Piegzik's recent The Darkest Hour only covers the cruiser operation in 6 pages out of a total of 160-odd, but it's pretty solid. There just aren't a lot of sources specifically on the raids and most general accounts only devote significant coverage to the carrier attacks on Ceylon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The Indian Ocean raid article needs a better title, too. Srnec (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That's actually the phrase for the operations commonly used in the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I meant something like Indian Ocean raid (1942). Srnec (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

For the title, how about "Japanese naval operations in the Bay of Bengal during the Indian Ocean raid". Anything less direct and submarine/anti-submarine operations come into the focus of the article. 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

"all-terrain artillery vehicle"

I have a source that speaks of "Polaris all-terrain artillery vehicles." I know what Polaris is, and I know they make mil spec vehicles, but I'm struggling to imagine what an ATV/artillery hybrid is, and when I tried to Google it, all I got was Star Wars. Do any of you know? I'm guessing whoever wrote the article was barely familiar with this kind of thing and I want to ensure I describe it correctly in my own article. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

These might be support vehicles for carrying artillery crews and/or artillery components. Polaris does not seem to have any standard government and military models here that could carry much payload (4,000 lb (1,800 kg) max for Dagor). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hrmm. Since the source is questionable, I think I'll omit entirely. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Change to project talk page template

The talk page banner, {{WikiProject Military history}} has been switched to use the standard meta-template for WikiProjects, WPBannerMeta, rather than a pre-WPBannerMeta implementation. MILHIST was the last project to have a non-WPBannerMeta banner, and the switch is intended to lower the maintenance burden for template editors.

The overarching goal was to maintain complete feature and design parity with the old template. Behavior related to categories, task forces, portals, B-class checklists, list articles, A-class reviews, and everything else should be completely unaffected. If there are any bugs, please report them here and I'll fix them promptly. DFlhb (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The new version has improved error handling (thanks to Harryboyles, not me), so it catches mistyped parameters and adds them to Category:Pages using WikiProject Military history with unknown parameters, which now has 3.8K members and growing. Most have to do with the |attention parameter, removed in 2007, which may be dealt with through a bot run (or by telling the template to ignore that parameter); but I've seen two that involve mistyped task forces. DFlhb (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There are many pages showing up in the category because of typos like this one. Editors interested in these templates displaying correctly on Talk pages may be interested in spending some time fixing simple errors like this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Harvnb

Doing a bit of spring-cleaning I noticed a harvnb citation. I haven't done my annual question as to why people use it for ages but would like to know what people see in it compared to sfn? It seems to add complication without benefit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It can be used for ref tags - which makes it easier to use when you are making the same cite lots of times - as always, people shouldn't be altering existing ref styles in articles to match their own personal preferences.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Curious, sfn seems simpler. Keith-264 (talk)

I prefer {{sfn}} myself, but I believe {{harvnb}} has slightly nicer support for additional text or quotes. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets#Additional comments or quotes. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Request draft review

I am requesting a review of my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_RAF_Regiment_equipment RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Fiona Grasby for deletion

Hi all. Fiona Grasby has been nominated for deletion. The discussion, as to whether the article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Grasby. Interested editors are welcome to participate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Qian Xuesen and Manhattan Project

Hi all! Qian Xuesen article says that he worked on the Manhattan Project, this statement is referenced with The New Yorker, Public Radio International, and RADII. Though the sources can be considered reliable, this fact is not in Xuesen's biography by Iris Chang, Thread of the Silkworm, nor in these more reputable sources like Nature, Caltech, NY Times, Science, and even Britannica. Manhattan Project is well-researched and documented, so surely there should be better sources about his involvement. Does anybody know where else can I check? Artem.G (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The ACW-era middle name thing

I've been reading about 19th century American history since I was still in picture books (American Heritage's CW books were among my first chapter books at age 5). So of course I've seen a lot of middle names used in sources about people of the era. Some are clearly necessary for disambiguation (William Tecumseh Sherman, Thomas Leonidas Crittenden); some seem not absolutely necessary (ex. Quincy Adams Gillmore, David McMurtrie Gregg, Alexander McDowell McCook, Alfred Thomas Archimedes Torbert, Edwin Vose Sumner). Middle initials too. Is George B. McClellan appropriately concise (as an example)? I've just closed a requested move which landed (by discussion consensus) at Zebulon Vance, previously moved to Zeb Vance after sitting at Zebulon Baird Vance for its entire page history. I'd hate to suggest removing all unnecessary middle names or initials without consensus so I'm asking here: are all these middle names necessary for disambiguation, might we examine a sample set of these for possible renaming, is this just unnecessary effort? My position is that a reasonable case could be made that many, many ACW military related-subjects could get a middle name (or middle initial) pruning with no negative effect on our coverage. For the record, this is my first discussion of this topic anywhere and is intended to test the waters a bit. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The full name, including middle name or initial, may be used even when not necessary for disambiguation, if that form is the most commonly-used in sources. Checking the Google Ngram can be useful for deciding on the common name. In this case, the full name including the middle name has briefly dominated at times, but currently Zebulon Vance is most common, so good move. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

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) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2022–2023 western Russia attacks#Requested move 24 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022–2023 western Russia attacks#Requested move 24 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the articles be merged?

I've been improving Fort Clinton (West Point) lately, but West Point, New York seems to be very similar to the other article. Their histories are very similar and West Point seems to be the site of Fort Clinton. I've been thinking to merge Fort Clinton (West Point) to West Point, New York, but I'm not entirely sure what to do here. Any advice? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 23:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just going to move it because half of the things in the Fort Clinton article are about West Point, New York. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Military Reserve at AfD

There is an Articles for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military reserve that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Ljleppan (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Structure of the British Army in 1939

I re-stumbled across this article the other day, and it's ~250k in size and largely unsourced. That can be easily fixed by citing the relevant Army Lists and Joslen although that would further increase the size of the article.

Looking for some thoughts on reorganizing it. I was thinking it could maybe be turned into a parent article of a bunch of smaller lists. For example a "Northern Command in 1939" article/list could contain all the detail that is currently in this article. This one would then link to that new one and have a small blurb to say what Northern Command was that it contained the 5th Division etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Keith-264 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I whipped this up: Structure of Aldershot Command in 1939 (13k compared to 10k deleted from the main article, but that 3k includes a new lede and sources). Anyone want to provide a little feedback, so this could be used as a model for a bunch of other such ones?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: Does anyone know what "A.C.R" stands for, in "No. 1 Cavalry A.C.R Signal Troop"? I don' think it is supposed to mean armored cavalry regiment in this context.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

By 1938/39 there was a "Cavalry Armoured Car Regiment Signal Troop" provided by the Royal Corps of Signals for attachment to the Cavalry Armoured Car Regiment. Some context on page 200 of Armoured Warfare in the British Army, 1914-1939 (Pen and Sword, 2022) - Dumelow (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Unclear "Siege of Utrecht"

I was skimming through the open tasks and I found Siege of Utrecht (and Siege of Naarden) under the header of Dutch Military Conflicts, but there have been multiple sieges of Utrecht, so it's unclear to me which is meant. I know of a "siege" in 1274, but the besieged were let in when they arrived and another in september 1276 which saw actual fighting, but lasted only a day. Is there an article where this is referenced? Thanks! GeneralCraft65 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The article request was made 16 years ago by User:LordAmeth (Naarden around the same time by an IP user) so maybe he can tell which he meant. Meanwhile the currently non-existing article is linked to only by John I, Lord of Egmond which refers to the siege in 1345. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LordAmeth seems to have retired from wikipedia in 2012, so a response is unlikely. The only siege article I can find on wikipedia is that in 1483. The siege of Vredenburg Castle in Utrecht in 1577 is also mentioned in the appropriate article but not in any detail. Monstrelet (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for NATO

NATO 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Castle Infobox question

If the armed forces of a country have held a castle or fortification for a period of time, but without formally annexing it, can they still be listed in the infobox? Khirurg (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Excessive? quoting in cites

I've noticed a few articles that have had extremely extensive quoting of sources in citations added recently - such as HMS Sheffield (C24), HMS Capetown (D88) (where there appears to be an entire newspaper article quoted) , USS Florida (BM-9) and USS Chattanooga (CL-18). This level of quoting doesn't seem appropriate to me, and if not the the age of the sources, might get us into copyvio territory. Any opinions here?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Good catch. Unless the sources are public domain or old enough for the copyright to be expired, the text should only be short excerpts or less. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. This has been raised with the editor before. see User talk:Aodhdubh#Footquotes. There was no reponse / resolution. Dormskirk (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Kill it with fire. If a quote is important to an article, put the quote in the body of the article and then cite it. Quotes require citations; citations do not require quotes.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Trappist, these sorts of quotes are not encyclopedic. Some editors seem to forget that we’re writing an encyclopedia, not a specialist site. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Me too a cite is a cite. Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Query

Hello, WikiProject,

A new editor has been moving a few articles involving Brazilian military ships. So, for example, moving Amazonas-class corvette to Amazonas-class offshore patrol vessel. This leaves Category:Amazonas-class corvettes without any articles that are called Corvettes. Should this category also be renamed? Or were these article page moves incorrect? Thanks for any military ship insight you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I know pretty much nothing about ships, but you might also want to tag in WP:SHIPS. Ljleppan (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Naval Historical Branch downloads

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/bases-and-stations/navy-command-hq/naval-historical-branch

Bit of a treasure trove here. Keith-264 (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo

Several nationalistic editors have added irrelevant petty lords as chief commanders in the infobox based on their personal notion that just participating in the battle is enough to include them. Not to mention that they rammed it by brute force and what seems to be tag teaming. Considering that the battle is of chief importance for Serbian history, adding some local Albanians in the infobox stinks of nationalistic editing. Because the subjects attracts a small number of editors, they might get away with it. It's so strange. I have no permission to act. Please help Wikipedia to get this mess cleaned. 178.220.230.153 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

All information is well sourced. A case of WP:IJDL. There is no problem with adding Albanian lords that actually have fought in this battle that is of "chief importance for Serbian history". Only because the relations between those two countries are not the best nowadays doesn't mean the past can be erased. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2006)#Requested move 9 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2006)#Requested move 9 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to help out at Ships of ancient Rome

We now have a skeleton draft at Draft:Ships of the Roman Empire, and your help expanding it would be appreciated. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been released as Ships of ancient Rome. Several sections need work, and the lead is only a single sentence and needs expansion. Your help is appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Will someone please assess my draft article?

Draft:Vigilant Isles 22 is the link to clink on. StrongALPHA (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There is not link. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I assume they mean Draft:Vigilant Isles 22.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do, thank you. StrongALPHA (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Identifying various foreign teachers at the Finnish War college in 1925

I've been writing up War College (Finland), and the sources state the original teaching staff consisted (primarily) of non-Finns. I've identified a few, but the following elude me:

• Major H. Malmberg, Swedish, teacher of tactics and general staff service
• Ryttmästare O. Ribbing, Swedish, teacher of military history and strategy
• Colonel Vittorio Pallieri, Italian, teacher of artillery tactics (this person, I think, but I'm not certain)
• Captain R. Devaulx, French, teacher of military technology ("car transportation" in one source)
• Major R. M. Field, British, teacher of military technology ("aerial tactics" in one source)

Any help in identifying these people would be most appreciated. Ljleppan (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

There are several bits and pieces about Vittorio Pallieri on line inc

https://www.galileumauctions.com/schedaautografo.php?id=220&nome=autografo-di-vittorio-emanuele-iii-di-savoia-nomine-artiglieria-lazio (see second article)

Searching "vittorio pallieri artiglieria" brings up several gazette entries as he rises through the ranks. Monstrelet (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Major Field" is a very unfortunate combination of name and rank, making it seemingly impossible to identify an individual from. Are there any further details about him? Just a forename or initial would make identification through The London Gazette probably simple. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just so happens that I finally got my hands on another book an hour ago, and it says "Major R. M. Field". It also states a slightly more precise teaching responsibility of "aerial tactics", but I'm a bit skeptical about that. Ljleppan (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

My initial guess is that Major R. M. Field is this man, who is actually an RAF officer rather than a British Army officer. By October 1919 he is listed as a squadron leader serving as a staff officer. By 1935 he was serving as Air Attache, Paris. He is also this group captain who receives a mention in dispatches in 1940 having commanded Haddock Force in France. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That would indeed match the "air tactics" bit. My skepticism arose from how the college only started an aerial warfare section in the late 30s, but I suppose it'd make sense to give all general staff officers some idea about air force stuff. Any chance the man you identified is the same person retiring here? Ljleppan (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it likely. Will keep looking! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The "R" stands for Roger. I expect this is Field on the right of this picture. In the first year of WW2 he also commanded No.71 Wing. Prior to going to Finland he seems to have been commander of the aircraft on HMS Pegasus. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

His name is Roger Martin Field ([11] column 119). An overview of his service post-1927 is here, and using his full name provides lots more in the Gazette, etc. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And more relevant to your work I think, he received the Order of the White Rose of Finland in 1927. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Field's short obituary ("Group Captain Roger Martin Field". The Daily Telegraph. 20 November 1974. p. 16.) says that he was in fact "Air Adviser to Government of Finland, 1925-28". Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Good find w/r/t to the Order of the White Rose of Finland! It led me to this clip (the same appears in a dozen of newspapers) where Field, now a colonel, leaves for England on 7 September 1927. It does specify that he was awarded "Commander of the White Rose of Finland", but it's a bit vague w/r/t timing: I can interpret it as both "he got it just before leaving" or "he got it sometime before". He also appears in a bunch of papers commenting on a string of bad air accidents ("look, these things just kinda happen with airplanes and is not a sign of a bad air force") and while inspecting potential sites for airfields. Ljleppan (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A small update on Cpt. Devaulx: Finnish newspaper sources say his full name is "Robert Pierre Devaulx", he was born in 1882, arrived in Finland around 1921, and is an "engineering captain". I managed to find this record that matches the details, according to which he died 17 May 1940 in Avesnes-sur-Helpe. If anyone knows how to get more info about his career, that'd be mightily appreciated. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Harald Malmberg (militär). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Olof Ribbing. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Ribbing I'd found for certain, but Malmberg I had down just as a "leading candidate" as there's also e.g. sv:Hans Malmberg (militär) who was active around the same time. That gives me a pretty good understanding of everyone except Cpt. Devaulx. Ljleppan (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Who is this?

https://www.loc.gov/resource/hec.15016/ https://www.loc.gov/resource/hec.15017/ My best guess is Admiral George Dewey, the Harris referring to the photographer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 20:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators § Flag icons in section headings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators § Flag icons in section headings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be moved to a more general discussion. It's not unique to C-130s or even aircraft operator lists. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)#Requested move 3 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)#Requested move 3 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Arab–Byzantine wars

Arab–Byzantine wars 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) 16:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Cecil Paris

Hello all. Just expanding the article on this cricketer who was a liaison officer between the 21st Army Group under Montgomery and the 1st Czechoslovak Independent Armoured Brigade under Liška, for which was awarded the Czechoslovak War Cross. However, I'm struggling to find his rank. I've searched the usual places, but to no avail. Would anyone have any other places this information might be lurking? Cheers, StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Paris joined the Royal Artillery as a second lieutenant, from Canterbury OTC, on 10 June 1939. Still in the RA, he received the Territorial Decoration as a captain (honorary major) on 22 September 1950, and retired as an honorary major on 2 May 1962. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, much appreciated. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to see you around AA. The Third Quarter 1946 Army List has him receiving the war substantive rank of captain on 1 October 1941 (he's also shown as being a graduate of the intermediate staff course. The First Quarter 1944 Army List shows he was granted the temporary rank of major on the same date in 1941. His honorary rank of major appears first in the First Quarter 1946 Army List but I haven't been able to track down a date - Dumelow (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Dumelow. You'll be pleased to hear I have plenty of military cricketers still to create! Thank you for finding these, I shall add these to his article, which should nicely complete the expansion for now. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Usage of "Nazi German"

I've written on Talk:Nazi Germany about a problem I see regarding the usage of the term. I've seen too many cases where the term Nazi has been used as a nationality, which it isn't. I have also argued that the term 'Nazi' is not universally known to refer to that era of Germany - it might to a Western Anglophone reader but not necessarily everyone else. Hence why I say it is necessary to always have the term 'German' attached to individuals or things rather than just 'Nazi'. Besides it is very inconsistent.

Please read my argument on the talk and let us discuss the issue. Millscrepe (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with this view. We do not say "a communist film" or "a Republican film". Based upon who runs a country at any given time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a disturbing custom creeping in of describing country in the infobox as "Kingdom of Italy", "Third Brazilian Republic", "Reagan administration" etc.

On MILHIST we have a long-standing local consensus to minimise the use of "Nazi" and "Nazi Germany" wherever possible, and not use terms like "Nazi German", "Nazi navy" etc. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be "German Nazi", anyway? Unless this is being used to mean something like "A citizen living at the time of Nazi Germany, whether a Nazi or not," which leads to the awkward situation of calling a whole load of victims of the Nazis, in effect, Nazis. "Nazi-era Germany" is the correct construction for uses related to the country while under Nazi control, I'd say, and just "German" for the person, unless they're, y'know, a Nazi. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, I agree with you and User:Hawkeye7, User:Slatersteven and User:Millscrepe, and there's clearly support here for the OP's view. Instead a stubborn editor on Talk:The Eternal Jew (film) and Talk:Nazi Germany is having an unnecessary heated argument with me and even making an accusation against me... 148.252.129.158 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I assume you're referring to this discussion from 2013, but it seems reasonable to wonder if that consensus has changed in the last ten years... particularly after the German war effort arb case. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The main driver has been political turmoil in the United States. I observed the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case closely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Siege of Mantua (1799)

Siege of Mantua (1799) 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) 02:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chief of Air Staff (Pakistan)#Requested move 14 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chief of Air Staff (Pakistan)#Requested move 14 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 07:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Narvik ship casualties

Can anyone identify these ships lost during the Battle of Narvik in 1940 please? Would like to add to the relevant list of shipwrecks if possible.

• 
  Ship 1
• 
  Ship 2
• 
  Ship 3 (right)
• 
  Ships 4 (left) and ship 5 (centre)
• 
  Ship 6
• 
  Ship 7
• 
  Ship 8
• 
  Ship 9
• 
  Ships 10 (top) and 11
• 
  Ship 12
• 
  Ship 13

Ship 13 appears in several places as German_destroyer_Z11_Bernd_von_Arnim Monstrelet (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ship 8 left: Erich Giese
• Ship 8 right: Diether von Roeder
• Ship 9: Hermann Künne
• Ship 10: Guess per this, Wolfgang Zenker
• Ship 11: Guess per this, Bernd von Arnim
• Ship 13: Bernd von Arnim

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: by ship 8 left and right, do you mean those at the pier? I was referring to the sunken vessel in the centre of the photo. Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I realise that now...don't have anything on that vessel so far. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's all good though, info added to the photo at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Sturmvogel 66: as the editor most heavily involved in writing the articles on the aforementioned ships. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but don't expect immediate results as I'm tied up until after the weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Any progress, Sturmvogel? Mjroots (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Germans certainly lost a lot of destroyers that day!! Buckshot06 (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Atlanta

Battle of Atlanta 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Russian hussars#Requested merge 1 April 2023

An editor has requested a merge at Talk:Russian hussars#Requested merge 1 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raulois (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

In that article there is a kit list; does anyone know what "Sarsala – piece for hussar horses" means? Maybe a shabraque? Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of Llywelyn the Great move discussion

Hello! I have opened a discussion at Llywelyn the Great about moving the article to 'Llywelyn ab Iorwerth'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

US Base renaming

The US Army has begun renaming bases named after people who fought against the United States to people who fought for it. Some people have begun changing the names. My understanding of what should be done is based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which says that for the title of an article when a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. But within articles For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use. (WP:MODERNPLACENAME) Accordingly, I have reverted KiraLiz1 edit here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, using the modern name for past events when an older name was in use is like trying to rewrite history. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This has come up on at least two fort articles that I can recall, and in both cases the consensus was as you say: use the historical name in the historical context. Intothatdarkness 01:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to note. I changed it because I moused over Fort Benning and its preview showed Fort Moore now. KiraLiz1 | she/her 10:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth adding a parenthetical "(now Fort Moore)" in the same way we do with stuff like Gdansk/Danzig, Konigsberg/Kaliningrad, etc. to avoid mouse-over confusion for readers. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Heh, Parsecboy, I promise I hadn't read your comment before making this edit. Great minds think alike! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha, apparently so! Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The Navy also renamed the USS Chancellorsville and the article has been appropriately moved, with mention of the ship's original name. The only other associated action that might affect Wikipedia articles is the withdrawal of battle/campaign credit awarded for participation as part of the Confederate Army by units of the National Guard of southern states. Lineagegeek (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

First AI aided vandalism of a Milhist article?

Yesterday, I removed the following paragraph from 43rd Tactical Missile Squadron, which was added last August:

"However, many believe that the 43d Tactical Missile Squadron was used in confidential operations because it was popularly noticed how Soviet Forces always claimed to have engaged in combat with units quite similar to the ones in the Squadron, another popularly noticed detail is that the 43d Tactical Missile Squadron's publicized list of missions are significantly misaligned with their pilots' list of missions, and with the consideration of the fact that the majority of the pilots who served in the 43d Tactical Missile Squadron retired after its declaration of inactivity, there seems to be unignorable evidence leading up to the theories of the 43d Tactical Missile Squadron being used after it was labeled inactive. This could also be one of the many unspoken tactics in the Cold War."

This is total nonsense (the squadron was formed by consolidation of a World War II bomber unit and a Cold War forward air control unit and has never been active under its most recent name). Rereading it, it seems similar to AI generated text I have seen. Lineagegeek (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be equally interested to see if anyone can disprove this edit by the same user. Google comes up with zero results for "Dammin Kazakhnov". Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That edit to Mikoyan PAK DP was made before ChatGPT was publicly released. Schierbecker (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

And awaaayy we go... - wolf 22:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

In/around Dundee, Scotland?

It would be great if someone from the Dundee vicinity (or going there soon) would go to the V&A Dundee Tartan exhibition and photograph the separate exihibits for Commons.Wikimedia.org, like this pic on Facebook. I think the exhibition ends early in 2024. I'm not sure exactly what is on display at V&A Dundee, but I think the original Royal Company of Archers uniform of the early 18th century is there, and probably lots of Highland regiment uniform stuff, along with the jacket of the Ancient Caledonian Society of London (c. 1786). Regardless, it would be of great use to have pictures of historical tartan clothing for articles like Highland dress, Tartan, etc. If the 3rd-century Falkirk tartan happens to be on exhibit there, it would be ideal to have a photo of it and the reconstruction of what it probably looked like when freshly woven (we presently only can link to external sources that provides pictures like this, since there are no free ones to upload to Commons). Same goes for a pic of the reconstruction of the 16th-century Glen Affric tartan (we do have a pic of the original now), and same goes for pics of the original and reconstructed Dungiven tartan of c. 1590–1650.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeking expertise

Hello, WikiProject,

I'm hoping that someone here could look over Polog front and determine whether or not it is a legitimate article about a notable military engagement. I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject North Macedonia but that project is inactive. I understand that this geographic area might be outside your areas of expertise but you would know enough about articles on military history to know whether this is a valid article or a page that should head towards deletion. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Jingiby could help with this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. This article above is just Wikipedia:Content forking of 2001 insurgency in Macedonia and should be deleted. Jingiby (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Lost what I was posting (edit conflict) but the short version is, that I agree. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with an article

I've been working on a biography article in my userspace for a little while at User:Lallint/Bradley Winslow, and I need some help to properly wikify it. Thank you. Lallint 19:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of 'Welsh Revolt' move discussion

Helô! I have opened a discussion at Welsh Revolt about moving the article to 'Glyndŵr Rebellion'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Diolch, A.D.Hope (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Request draft review

I am requesting a review of my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_RAF_Regiment_equipment RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

An RfC of interest

An RfC of possible interest to this WikiProject can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Task forces

I've been adding task force tags lately and there seems to be some gaps in the task forces. All the centuries are covered reliably by a (Periods and conflicts) tag up to the end of the Napoleonic Wars but between then and WWI there is only a task force for the American Civil War. This leaves many conflicts uncovered such as the Anglo-Zulu War, Spanish-American War, Franco-Prussian War and many other relevant people, battles and other objects. There are also a few events in between World War One and Two that aren't covered like Spanish Civil War. I may be ignoring something here (I hope not) and it's been so long that I'm sure it's been discussed here before but I just though it seemed like an odd thing to leave uncovered when almost every other period is safety covered by a task force. Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Related to this, what are the requirements for, or costs and benefits of creating a new task force? I’d like to have an Eastern European milhist task force, mainly for access to a relevant article alerts page. Right now there is a very broad European TF, and a very broad but only slightly overlapping Russian TF, and subscribing to both gives me more results outside of my focus than in it.  —Michael Z. 16:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The scope of MILHIST – how strictly or broadly do we evaluate article topics for membership?

I have a question about how to evaluate an article whose main topic isn't a battle, a war, or something I might describe as "military in the narrowest sense"—i.e, how broad is the scope of this WikiProject? What about an article whose main topic is, say, economic disruption caused by a war, or mass migration or refugee crisis related to a war, or some of the pandemics associated with a particular war or battlefield conditions—should those be labeled with MILHIST at the Talk page? I pose this general question here, because of a specific discussion that came up at brand new article, Black market in wartime France, created and recently released by Elinruby. (There are still ongoing discussions there about the best title for it, but that's tangential to this post.) I followed up by creating the Talk page, adding a few WikiProjects, including MILHIST. It was later removed from the list, and that made me think of the more general scoping question above. The discussion about whether that article should or shouldn't include MILHIST is going on at Talk:Black market in wartime France#Is this a military history article? and I don't want to fragment it by cross-posting here; so if you have specific thoughts about that article, by all means contribute there.

What I'm interested in at *this* discussion, is the general scoping question: how strictly do we interpret the 'MIL' in 'MILHIST' when evaluating whether or not to tag an article whose central topic is non-military, but which clearly is related to military activity? I realize this is a judgment call, and so there is no "right" answer, but regulars here may have some opinions about it, and that's what I'm interested in, as it may guide how I react in the future when thinking about adding WikiProjects to new articles. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, the scope of the example is defined as during “wartime,” so it easily qualifies as military history to me.

The article is also in three categories defined by WWII. Wikipedia categories are supposed to be defining for the subject, so they are probably a good indicator of military historicity too.  —Michael Z. 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I removed MILHIST. My rationale is at the talk page post I created as the the D that fills the B and the R ;) I also changed my position on the name of the article because of that classification. It's my title and I think it could be better defined.

• the time period for rationing and the black market is actually 1940 to 1949. Military actions are mentioned not at all in that entire group of just-published articles about the Paris mafia looting the French economy and the museums of Paris with corrupt French policemen paid by corrupt German officers.

There is for example an extensive discussion of what I have only been able to translate as "buying agencies" and of requisitions (by French policemen) on threat of forcible deportation to death or work camps. Many but not all of the victims were Jewish this would be part of the Holocaust if nobody has added that yet. But the sources are very clear that this was thuggery run by the French Gestapo for money, however. Despite the name it was run on a commission basis out of Henri Lafont's personal office at the Prefecture of Paris with French muscle justified by Vichy-enacted enabling legislation. This is discussed at enormous length in the two-thirds of the French article that is as yet untranslated. I intend to fix that soon but sure, let's have the discussion.

• • TL;DR: The Germans were just high-volume customers for the mob wise guys, and they just let them get on with it. Their part in this story is limited to the ruinous occupation costs written into the Armistice.
• The German officers who do appear, for example Illa Meery's art thief lover (who has a Wikidata entry but no article, and we should fix that) don"t seem to be operating in a military capacity and given the shell companies in Monaco and Switzerland, possibly not in an officially-sanctioned one either.
• There's a quote at Business collaboration with Nazi Germany, cited of course, that Nazi supplier Opel, a subsidiary of Ford Motors, was indispensible the the German war effort. Is Ford Motors thus a military history article? That's where I got the quote.

Mathglot is right to ask the scope question imho. Also imho, the article is currently economic history and will eventually also be pertinent to the French administrative law system.

PS.I added the categorizes myself and was primarily concerned at the time with avoiding an uncategorized tag. I am open to whatever seems the right thing to do there, but like the title, it should be consistent with the content, is all. Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s an important question to ask and come to a consensus on.

Right, that article is not about a military action. But it is a situation that only existed because of the war, and its scope is a period defined by the war. So it is war history by definition. Unless we explicitly define “military history” as something significantly narrower than war history, it qualifies.  —Michael Z. 03:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Historically we've always taken a pretty broad definition of the project's scope, which reflects modern thinking on the nature of warfare. The article in question here is clearly in scope. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh. I have other fish to fry and will let the discussion proceed without me for a while. Meanwhile however MilHistBot has just classified Countesses of the Gestapo as North American military history, so ... I am not certain that I agree with these criteria. But if in fact we are going to go with "anything that overlaps the time period of 1939 to 1945 is military history", then Ford Motors, IBM and the Associated Press all need to be added, and for much better reason IMHO since they directly participated in the German war effort, shrug. Just saying. A vast universe exists of things that have three degrees of connection to a war somewhere Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• I suppose the "crux of the biscuit" (as my old German teacher used to say) is whether or not we want to cover the "history of war" and the whole economic and sociological lot that entails or the "history of warfare" (combat activities). I tend towards the view that military history should be expansive enough to include the articles recalling important impacts of war, regardless of whether they involve active duty soldiers shooting their rifles or various models of planes and tanks. No offense to the warship or weapons gnomes, but I think that an expansive view helps to keep us grounded. I would certainly organize "Black market in wartime France" as a MILHIST topic. For further context, I would advise the viewing of Uganda–Tanzania War#Tanzania and Belgian Congo in World War II. These article/article sections tackle a lot not directly related to combat and fighting, but they cover situations which arose precisely because a wartime environment existed. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

When I was in a military history PhD program a decade (and another lifetime) ago, one of my advisors asked how women factored into military history. My immediate answer was something along the lines of “well, the Soviets used female snipers and combat pilots in WWII…” He said that was what he thought I’d say, but that was exactly the wrong, narrow idea he wanted to counter. Military history is much broader than simply what takes place on the battlefield. As Nick said above, this conception is pretty broadly accepted in academia.

In this case, the black market activities were inseparably related to the German occupation (and the destruction and dislocation that persisted long after the war). IBM and Ford are too broad of a topic to be included in the scope of MILHIST, as would woman, to return to my analogy. But if someone were to write an article on Women in France during World War II, it would inherently be military history, even if it had relatively few examples of women taking direct military action (and if someone wrote an article on Ford Motor Company during World War II, it obviously would be too). Parsecboy (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, this and all responses. Looking forward to additional feedback. Am subscribed, so will see all of them, even though I may not (and probably shouldn't) respond to all of them. Keep 'em coming! (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1991–1992 South Ossetia War#Requested move 22 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1991–1992 South Ossetia War#Requested move 22 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frostly (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Multiple factions

I am working on articals about LDS miltary personel and I don't know the best way to say they served in the US then the State of Deseret then back to the US. I know with the civil war it would say USA: 1840-1861 CSA: 1864. What woud be the best way to say they went back to the US? Would it just be USA: 1840-1857 State of Deseret: 1857-1858 USA: 1858-1866. I am working on Lot Smith, I fixed his info box and did some clean up but I'm unsure of how to do the allegiances.LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Regimental tartans

After months of sourcing the hell out of Tartan, the article has expanded greatly, so I've started splitting it up. The first split, which would be of interest to MILHIST, is Regimental tartan (I think it would be better as Regimental tartans, but we seem to like dropping the -s). This is presently categorized in "Tartans", "Scottish regiments", and "British military uniforms". Anywhere else it should go? Any kind of military navbox it should have and be listed in? In the interim, I'm working on a WP:SUMMARY to replace Tartan#Regimental tartans which is right this moment mostly the same as the new split-off article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Armenia Expedition (630)

Armenia Expedition (630) is sitting at AFD. I have no knowledge of this subject matter, but am hoping one or more persons here can add or change enough to keep this from instant doom. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The expedition is stated by reliable sources to have taken place so the deletion rationale seems spurious, I have commented at the AFD - Dumelow (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

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) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1969 Libyan coup d'état#Requested move 7 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1969 Libyan coup d'état#Requested move 7 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Messy Article

I was working on the Red River Bridge War and I don't know why but the info box claimed a “Decisive Oklahoma victory” and also said “toll bridge destroyed” nether of toses claims were true. This could be vandalism but I could uses some help fixing the article tone and organization. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Střekov Castle#Requested move 7 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Střekov Castle#Requested move 7 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Operator maps

Hello. Could you please tell me the simplest ways to create operators maps like File:BvS 10 operators.png? I believe there should be some kind of utility to do that quickly, but didn't find it. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

you can check here: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Artem.G (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Human wave attacks and Battle of Stalingrad

There's a content dispute on the Battle of Stalingrad article about mentioning alleged Soviet usage of "human wave" tactics, and I'd appreciate additional opinions. Editors may also want to consider how Human wave attacks presents its subject. Kges1901 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Commendation Medal

Well, was going through Dad's things and discovered he was more appreciated during his time in the Vietnam War than he let on. D'ye think an actual photograph of an Army Commendation Medal would be useful? We don't have one for any other branch. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 15:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually it looks like the linked page has photos of each branch's medal. They're clumped as one, but they're all individual images. Intothatdarkness 15:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: There is a broad selection at c:Category:Army Commendation Medal (United States). However, if you feel that a photograph of the medal you have found would add something different (or be of a better quality/resolution) then uploading a new file is welcome. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Think I can at least get a better photo than any of those Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 17:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Raytheon Company requested move

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Raytheon_Company#Requested_move_5_August_2023 about whether to move Raytheon Company to Raytheon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir)#Requested move 3 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir)#Requested move 3 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1#Requested move 4 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1#Requested move 4 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Nader Shah's name in the infobox of Skirmish of Chenab (1739)

An editor believes Nader Shah's name should not be included in the infobox of this article. There is a discussion occurring on the talk-page whether or not it should be included or not. Please share your views: Talk:Skirmish of Chenab (1739) ThethPunjabi (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor - Japanese war crime?

Please see a discussion I've opened at Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor#Japanese war crime. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring?

‎201.46.20.229 talk‎ (Undid revision 1169999539 by Keith-264 (talk)) Tags: Undo possible vandalism Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits

• May I have an opinion on the propriety of 201.46.20.229's edits please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Just skimming Le Transloy, the IP seems to be going with "The main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI" from the MoS. You seem to be using "However ... In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, although the main unit is generally a metric unit (10 kilograms (22 lb)), imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts (7 miles (11 km) by road)." Given the three nationalities involved, SI seems appropriate to me, but in changing extensively without discussion the IP seems to be at least bordering on vandalism and probably crossing over into the actual thing. Are the changes to the other articles of yours, and the other articles more generally which they have edited, similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes at first revert I noted the articles were in BritEng and imperial to metric. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should seek the opinion of an uninvolved admin? Hog Farm, Harrias, Girth Summit: any opinions? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped for now. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If they aren't in the pub. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Rolled back their edits and gave them a final warning; while they may be operating in good faith, they haven't made a single attempt to discuss the issue. We're past simple disruption but I'd rather give them a chance to change course rather than just block them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fair. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And now they've been blocked for 24 hours. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended for a week after resuming immediately after the block expiration. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

POV warning for 16th century Ottoman warfare

I recently noticed that the article about the Battle of Preveza had fallen victim to Turkish nationalist POV warriors. Self-published websites have been used to support the idea that it was a huge Ottoman victory. When I've tried to check it up in established authors of 16th century maritime warfare, it's clear that it was actually more of a Turkish strategic victor but with very little fighting or losses.

There's been recent activity from Germanicus44 (talk · contribs) who has also edited a bunch of other articles about battles. As far as I can tell, the edits include citations of sources that don't actually support any strength figures, that are impossible to trace, or that are simply not reliable.

Would be appreciated if other interested parties from this project could help keeping an eye for this. From what I've seen of articles about 16th century warfare involving the Ottomans, articles seem to often be in a pretty bad shape. I've recently seen activity involving other Turkish nationalist POV warriors in galley as well. Peter ^Isotalo 12:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Same could be said about other sources that overly exaggerated the number of ottoman troops.For exemple, siege of malta, modern estimates put ottoman casualties at 10,000 however sources on wikipedia put 35,000 dead,the total number of ottoman troops was 30,000-40,000. And we know that most of the ottoman army widrew after the arrival of the Christian relief force. So i could the ottomans suffered 35,000 dead??? We know that some ottomans soldiers were captured and many more were wounded so it is unlikely that they would have suffered more then 10,000 dead.And also,in the battle of preveza, it is a well known fact that the ottomans had 120 ships and 12,000 men and the holy League had double or triple that number(around 200-300 ships and about 30-50,000 men) so i do not understand why it got removed( and it wasn’t some “minor battle”,this battle secured the ottoman dominance in the Mediterranean for 33 years( which would end at the battle of lepanto(1571)). Germanicus44 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Usage of dubious sources on multiple military pages

I recently came across a network of sites [12] [13] [14] [15] that claim to rank and provide statistics for various militaries worldwide. These sources are, according to a Bellingcat article [16], unreliable clickbait coming from a blogger, with no academic or military recognition. A quick search reveals that many military-related articles on Wikipedia use these sources, with some articles even parroting their idiosyncratic rankings and power metrics. I am wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to coordinate or automate the removal of these sources? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Support, and maybe move-to/cross-post/link-from WP:RSN so there are some eyeballs there as well. Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This has come up before. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 161#What is the best way to find sources for naval equipment?: "specially avoid globalfirepower.com, which is about as reliable as the Daily Mail." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It was also neen discussed on RSN as well. In short they are not reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Globalfirepower.com, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Global Firepower Index, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#militaryfactory.com Ckfasdf (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like these could also be a candidate for the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Militaryfactory and the associated sites have been discussed here before, and it's also been suggested before to go through and remove every instance of their use on-site, but so far nobody has bothered to go through the hundreds of articles they're used in. Blacklisting may be a good idea, although I don't really know how that process works. Loafiewa (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Blacklisting is generally for actively spamming, malicious, and/or deliberately false sources. Instead you'd probably want to add it to "unreliable" on RSP, and then ask to put it on the removal list for User:Citation Bot and perhaps on the list for automatic warnings that pops up when used on CS1. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

SamuelRiv can Milhisters just add globalfirepower.com and Militaryfactory to WP:RSP without any further process? Can I do that myself? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Having looked, I believe WP:RSPCRITERIA has been met. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You'll make a post on WP:RSN with an WP:RfC to add these Military Factory etc sites to RSP with a choice of rating. To make it worthwhile to do so, you should show that the sites are being cited in a significant number of articles still, by showing results of a WP citation search like insource:globalfirepower.com. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Its a longstanding problem within the topic area (although not unique to this topic area)... Not sure blacklisting is the answer as I think that we have more of a legacy problem than a problem with new edits using these sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

201.46.20.9

Is at it again, reverting Parsecboy this time. Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

New article

I want to make the article The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. I think this would be a good article as it can simfy the Quasi-War, Proclamation of Neutrality, and the war of 1812. I could uses some help as this would be a bigger artical. I also belive this would meet Wikipida's guildines for notably. Any help would be greatly appreciated! LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something about the Louisiana Purchase, the proceeds of which were nearly all spent by Napoleon on his planned invasion of the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of 15 images from the Vietnam War article

Hi all

Recently 15 (if I have counted correctly) images were removed in a single edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&diff=prev&oldid=1168990200 I just wanted to flag this edit as it seems like a rather large change to make on such an established article.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• The article seems to have been overloaded with images before this. The images seem more appropriate now. Images should be spaced or maybe staggered so text is not sandwiched between pairs of images (MOS:SANDWICH); this does not work too well on small screens, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Governor’s flag

When doing a artical when the federal government and state government in a battle, in the info-box should the Governor’s have there state flag or the national flag? LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Example? Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You may wish to note MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In the Whiskey Rebellion the info box has George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Henry Knox as federal forces. Then info box then lists the governors of the 4 stats involved. So should I have the 4 governors have there state flags for better organization? LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Probably if useful such as the state flags are used for other items there imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Flags/icons should only be used in the infobox if they serve a purpose like a "legend" on a map or graph. In a conflict infobox this can be useful if there is more than one belligerent on one side and information in subsequent parameters is grouped by the individual belligerents. This useful purpose is defeated if individual banners for commanders or units are used. The Kokoda Track campaign illustrates an appropriate use. Hope this helps. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

United Kingdom in the Soviet–Afghan War

Should the United Kingdom be written alongside the Mujahideen and Maoists in the infobox of the Soviet–Afghan War article? (because in the article on the United Kingdom in the Soviet–Afghan War it is written "direct military involvement not only in Afghanistan but the Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union", "The operatives always saw front-line action assisting Massoud's men mostly using silencer rifles. They witnessed the interrogation of Russian prisoners and assisted in directing mortar fire", Paying money for attacks on the Soviet Union, which is called "These were the first direct Western attacks on the Soviet Union since the 1950s" Known and…) Parham wiki (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't write the article in the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE what is placed in an infobox must be supported by the body of the article and the article must stand alone. What might be written in another article is immaterial. Soviet–Afghan War does not support the UK being a belligerent. If edits were made to Soviet–Afghan War that did support the UK being a belligerent, then and only then would it be appropriate add or discuss the addition of the UK as a belligerent in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Hostomel#Result in infobox 2

Input is requested at the subject discussion as to how or whether a result should be reported in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on Belarus in the infobox

Please provide input at the subject discussion. The question arises because supported by is now deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting article draft review

I am requesting a review of my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_RAF_Regiment_equipment, thanks RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

USRC James Madison

The USRC James Madison article claims she was launched in 1807. However, Threedecks has her launched as USS James Madison in 1812, citing British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817 as the source. Are these the same ship, or two different ships? Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817 does not provide a launch date for James Madison. The ship is only mentioned in the context of being captured by HMS Barbadoes on 22 August 1812. Threedecks is a useful overview for naval research but is in no way a reliable source. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Coup-related page moves

@Iskandar323: has been moving lots of "[year] [country] coup d'état attempt" articles to "[year] [country] coup attempt", citing WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE (see for example at 1993 Burundian coup attempt, formerly known by a different name). Obviously I could see how CONCISE seems applicable, though PRECISE seems to be addressing potential ambiguity which I don't think is an issue in these instances. I wish this hadn't been done unilaterally (as it seems, and has broken several links like Talk:1965 Burundian coup attempt/GA1 vs Talk:1965 Burundian coup d'état attempt/GA1 at the article's talk page), but it might be worth considering how we title such articles which often don't have a WP:COMMONNAME. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be very, very surprised if "coup" is used more often in standard/conversational English than "coup d'état", so that feels like a clear and valid application of WP:CONCISE. (Also, I don't have a problem with the "unilateral" aka bold pagemoves, which can be reverted if needed per the WP:BRD cycle.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I've boldly moved a number of pages. The "WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE" is one of the basic reason choices, but WP:CONCISE is indeed the prime mover here. In terms of WP:PRECISE, the precision is worth noting as being maintained and not degraded, since "coup attempt" is no less clear than "coup d'état attempt". There are also several broader principles at work here, notably that aside from being an unnecessary and needless overlengthening of the description, "d'état" is A) French, and B) dependent on a special character (in addition to an apostrophe), none of which are preferable. While the term as a whole has obviously been internalized within the English language, there is no conceivable reason that I can see to use an additional word that simply reduces concision while adding no value and lots of non-standard elements. It is also illuminating to consider the overall relative prevalence of these two phrases, as indicated by Ngrams, or on Google scholar, i.e. 36,000 hits for "coup attempt" versus 1,500 hits for "coup d'état attempt". However, as bold moves there is of course zero prejudice to the pages being moved back, especially where problematic, as exampled above. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: many English-language news outlets use "coup" alone and don't use a foreign-language word with a special character. This wide range of readers must understand the word without help from French? ABC: "Niger's coup leader", AlJazeera: "July 26 coup", BBC: "Niger coup: 'Nobody", CBS: "Niger coup leaders", CNN: "Niger coup leaders", Fox: "following coup that", IndiaToday: "since coup kills", NBC: "Niger coup jeopardizes", Reuters". "former coup general", and Stuff (NZ): "and coup claims". I wonder if "d'état" is becoming a niche word. (I am not a member, just a (US) English speaker). Sammy D III (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Languages evolve. Often they become simpler. I have no problem with these kind of moves. We should keep the order of the pagenames, [year] [country] xxxx [attempt] etc though. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Pilot flew with Top Gun?

I'm working on the article for Thomas M. McLaughlin. Time magazine says he "was part of the “Top Gun” unit that inspired the Tom Cruise movie by the same name", but he was a US airforce pilot and I thought "Top Gun" was a US navy thing? And also "Top Gun" is a training outfit? Looking at what memorial websites says (obviously non-RS, but also likely written by people close to the subject) he served with 12th Tactical Fighter Wing/480th Tactical Fighter Squadron, and also the 25th Tactical Fighter Squadron - I'm not aware of either of these being anything to do with "Top Gun" but I don't know everything? Anyone able to cast light on what actual connection McLaughlin had to "Top Gun", if any? FOARP (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a load of nonsense. TOPGUN was (and is) an entirely USN thing. They did occasionally borrow USAF or Marine Corps-piloted aircraft for different aggressors at times, but in no sense was any USAF “the basis” for it. Either he was significantly overblowing his participation in it or the interviewer dramatically misunderstood what he said. Parsecboy (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Parsecboy - McLaughlin had passed away when the Time piece was written so I don't think this is on him. The photo of him on the Legacy.com website appears to be from his flying days and says "12th TFW TOP GUN" which I think may be the origin for this term. I think it refers to something else, and not the Top Gun school. FOARP (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

He was the "top gun" (best pilot) of the 12th Tactical Fighter Wing, probably through some sort of internal competition.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say this is correct. Could have been an internal competition or something larger, but it certainly has nothing to do with the Navy Fighter Weapons School. Time is clearly deeply confused. Intothatdarkness 12:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You'll find that journalists are generally vastly ignorant about military and naval matters, aside from those actually working in the field.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 - That makes sense. I'll strike any mention of Top Gun from the article. FOARP (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• BTW - I'm trying to work out what hill the battle described in the sources about McLaughlin's rescue was. Based on this news report about a F-4 Phantom being shot down, I think it was Hill 31. FOARP (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"Hill 31" was FSB 31 an ARVN base in Operation Lam Son 719. I have added all necessary detail to the page. Mztourist (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! FOARP (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated Lawrence Sullivan Ross for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dylanvt (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)#Requested move 21 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)#Requested move 21 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Parham wiki (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Nore

The Nore does anyone know how to make the Admiralty chart in the Lightship and shape of shoal visible? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, I get an empty box except for the caption "The Nore" in the middle. Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I am seeing the same blank image/caption on mobile. The original file is of a very large size. It could be something is going wrong with the render on certain browsers/devices. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction, I think this is related to {{Annotated image}} - "The Nore" that is showing up instead of the image is being called by the template code on the page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That goes beyond my Wikimojo I'm afraid. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I've posted a copy of the template code in my sandbox together with a normal image link to the file. Are you able to see the file below the template? If so, that will confirm it is the template at fault. Also, what type of device/browser are you viewing the article on when you see the fault? From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: The excerpt chart 1934 is still blank except for the caption but I can see the smaller image to the lower right. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: Think I've got it now but couldn't get upright to work. Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

How to understand this bullet drop diagram?

Hello,

it would be nice if someone could help me to understand this diagram. How is it possible that the bullet’s trajectory is going up? Shouldn’t it go down steadily after the zeroed 25 meters? I have not the biggest clue of such things, so I decided to ask here. 😊

Thanks a lot. 🙂 Molekularbiologe (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Zeroing has everything to do with the weapon's sights and not so much the bullet trajectory (aside from accounting for it). All a 25 meter zero implies is that the sights have been adjusted so the round impacts on point of aim at 25 meters. Intothatdarkness 20:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The line of sight is higher than the axis of the barrel. The line of sight in the graph is horizontal. The axis of the barrel is pointing up. The up angle is indicated by the slope of the trajectory in the first 50 odd metres. This is not the best graph I have seen because the X axis is very compressed. Hope that helps. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that helps. Thx a lot. 🙂 Molekularbiologe (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The way to think about it is, because the bullet is affected by gravity (while the line of sight of course isn't), the barrel must be angled slightly upward relative to the line of sight for it to intersect. And because that is the case, the bullet must pass over the line of sight at a relatively short distance, travel for some time above the light of sight, and then intersect it a second time at a further distance. If the barrel an line of sight were directly parallel, you would never be able to zero the light of sight to any distance. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Eastern European military history task force

I would start a new regional MILHIST task force under the “Nations and regions” category, with the scope of the history of modern states in Eastern Europe. This would fill a gap in focussed coverage on the region, including the active topic of the Russo-Ukrainian War. I would find it immediately useful by providing an article alerts page.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Eastern European military history task force

Current task force coverage is lacking on this region:

This user is a member of the European military history task force of WikiProject Military history.

The scope of the European task force is extremely broad, covering 44 to 50 sovereign states, in which seven sovereign states and three regions (Balkan, Baltic, and Nordic) already have their own more focussed MILHIST task forces.

This user is a member of the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

The related Russian, Soviet and CIS task force is also very broad but at the same time limited. It is named as spanning one country, two dead empires, and an obscure international organization mainly in northern and central Asia. It doesn’t correspond to our categorization by country, by period, by war, by size, by type, or by intersections of those. Although its definition statement invokes “post-Soviet states” (a deprecated anti-definition)[17] it actually lists four or arguably six Eastern European countries, but explicitly omits a number of other “post-Soviet” states and former Russian colonies because they belong to other regional or national wikiProjects. It stereotypes these very diverse states (lumping together, e.g., Ukraine and Mongolia) across two continents according to only their former colonial status, obscuring their identity under a WP:BIASed Russian Federation-oriented umbrella.

As to defining precise scope, if necessary, it should be defined more on a broader historical basis than just by reference to the seven-decade Soviet Union or five-decade Soviet bloc. See Eastern Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and East-Central Europe. A reference points might be the 1054 Roman Catholic–Orthodox schism, but the region was heavily influenced by the Central European Austrian empire and the Islamic Ottoman empire as well.

Thoughts?  —Michael Z. 19:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you could simply request re-splitting of the talk pages of whichever of the two task forces you prefer to use (out from this main talk page), to coordinate any activities you wish to focus on?

What matters is the coordination of article writing, not arguments about where boundaries lie. Every so often we have a long discussion about a new proposed task force - but all the attention is about creating the task force, and few more articles get created or improved.. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The talk tab for both of those task forces redirects to this main MILHIST talk page. Changing anything about the configuration of discussion pages isn’t at issue, as far as I can tell.  —Michael Z. 23:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Buckshot. The long-established reality of task forces within MILHIST is that they are more of a categorisation of articles than any sort of mechanism for concentrating editing effort. People edit where they choose, and examples of collaborative editing across more than a few articles or a narrow field are few and far between. IMHO, the effort of creating a new TF (and defining it in such a fraught area with already existing TFs like the Polish and Balkans ones) isn’t worth the effort and time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Well right, article categorization is what I’m interested in, along with the aggregated article alerts and statistics. I am glad to put in the effort to set these things up

myself.  —Michael Z. 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, my first question would be why just the modern states? That crosses over with the temporal TFs. That would create confusion when dealing with older entities like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth etc. And what current states do you mean when you refer to Eastern Europe? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m not seeing the problems. Why are the Polish and Baltic states TFs defined by just modern states, what is the problem with that, and is it something that makes you oppose the existence of those TFs? Why is the European regional TF defined by a modern regional concept, etcetera? What’s the confusion about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was clearly in Eastern Europe?

What would you suggest? What definition of Eastern Europe would you choose?  —Michael Z. 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s your idea mate, why don’t you tell us what you are proposing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m getting constructive input from interested editors before working out the full details. I’d appreciate an explanation to understand the concrete implications of your objections.  —Michael Z. 23:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem with creating a new task force. Nor with it overlapping other task forces, since many of our existing ones do. The maintenance overhead has all but disappeared since I trained our MilHistBot to categorise them. The task forces have become more of a categorisation tool than the mini-project they were intended to be, but all it requires is interested editors to revive one. The special projects were different, but there has not been one for a while. We haven't created a new task force since 2016. What it would involve is some changes to our project template, to the Rater tool, and to the MilHistBot, and creating some more categories. (Anything else? This should be documented.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. If we were going to do this, my preferred scope would avoid as much overlap as possible. I would suggest defining Eastern Europe for TF purposes as the CIA World Factbook does, essentially the European part of the former Soviet Union less Russia, and therefore to include the following: Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. This is encompasses the current Baltic TF. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

My initial thought was Belarus, Moldova, European Russia, and Ukraine. Their histories connect them to many other countries, of course, especially if we consider the conflicts and empires that involved their territories and peoples.  —Michael Z. 22:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

For information, here’s a survey of how Wikipedia articles cover Eastern Europe.

The main article Eastern Europe tells us that Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are always included, and sometimes Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia.

The main article’s lead also mentions the importance of the traditions of the Slavs and the Greeks, Eastern Christianity, the Eastern Roman and Ottoman empires, and the Cold-War Eastern Bloc.

The article's “Religious and cultural influence” section refers to Eastern Europe formed by countries with dominant Orthodox churches, including Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine, for instance, as well as Armenia, which is predominantly Armenian Apostolic. Some definitions mention that Greece is often omitted as it is tied more closely to Southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

The Catholic–Orthodox split is “a division that dominated Europe for centuries, in opposition to the rather short-lived Cold War division of four decades.” This might encourage us to include Southeastern Europe, which is the Balkan countries, Albania, and sometimes Greece and European Turkey.

There is also a “between” region of East-Central Europe: Hungary, and sometimes Czechia, Poland, and Slovakia.

The following country articles’ leads say their subjects are in Eastern Europe or at its intersection: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine, although two of these are specifically in the Caucasus, and one chiefly in Central Asia. —Michael Z. 22:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about how individual WP articles define it, I would look for an academic consensus about it, or if that isn't going to happen, at least choose some external standard that won't result in never-ending discussion. That is why I suggested using the CIA Factbook as a basis. I would also recommend not overlapping with too many existing TFs, which the CIA Factbook version would avoid to a great extent, mostly capturing the post-Soviet Union countries that are not part of existing TFs. I'd be happy with Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine, and even European Russia (presumably Russia west of the Urals?) leaving the existing Russia TF in place to cover all of current Russia, and leaving out the Baltic TF countries. In any case, articles can be in multiple taskforces, so if something happened in European Russia during the existence of the Soviet Union, it could be in the Soviet TF as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Belarus, European Russia, and Ukraine existed as countries during periods when they didn’t have statehood. And their native peoples, including Indigenous peoples, have military histories. I don’t know Moldova as well, but it corresponds to the historical region of Bessarabia, and has an important relationship with Romania.  —Michael Z. 01:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Gun diameter conversions, caliber, and nomenclature

Hi all - Grieg2 (talk · contribs) and I have been discussing the best way to refer to naval guns, including conversions of bore diameter, how and when to include length in calibers, and squaring those considerations with the proper nomenclature of the guns themselves (see here if you're curious), and we've decided we need more input on how to treat these issues (and probably adopt a more standardized approach - which may be difficult). On to the specifics:

1. How should we convert bore diameters? On many guns, the nominal caliber is different than the actual caliber of the bore (so for example, the 21 cm RK L/22 gun is not actually 21cm in diameter, it is 20.92, so the conversion would go from 8.3" to 8.2". Not a huge difference, but one is more accurate than the other.
2. Should links include conversions? They obviously weren't in the nomenclature of the gun (the British manufactured RML 7-inch Armstrong Guns, not RML 7-inch (17.8 cm) Armstrong Guns).
3. Relatedly, should we include barrel length (generally given in calibers) even when not included in the name? Barrel length (and as a result muzzle velocity) is a significant factor in gun power, so perhaps it should. But it might also add to infobox cluttering (which I tend to oppose).

In any event, we thought it best to broaden the discussion, so please add your thoughts. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, for 1. and 2. I tend to use piped conversions like [[Škoda 7 cm guns|{{convert|66|mm|in|sp=us|abbr=on}}]] L/30 guns because I prefer the actual bore and conversion rounded to a sensible figure to the (in my view misleading) generalised bore used in some sources and article titles. I always provide calibre for the reasons you indicate. Sometimes the same vessel has two guns of the same bore but different calibres, or a gun is replaced by a long barrelled gun of the same bore. I have a FAC nom at present where both of those situations apply. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the names are names, not spec sheets. If it’s called a “21-cm gun,” then an explanation/clarification/“translation” of the name can tell the unfamiliar reader what the name means in terms they understand – but the precise measurement and its conversion belong in the article, infobox, list of specs, etcetera. In fact it could make things more confusing, not less, to imply that 21 cm = 8.2 inches when that is not true.

Conversions can be added to names in redirects for the convenience of linking, but should not be added to names in article titles, as this would be contrary to the naming WP:CRITERIA.

Article titles should follow sources per WP:COMMONNAME regarding the inclusion of conversions or barrel length. References to the subject should generally follow the article title, but exceptions can be made if alternate names are commonly used in sources.

(These are just my responses in principle. Of course concrete examples of usage might point out other practical considerations.) —Michael Z. 16:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good point to note that "21cm = 8.2in" could cause confusion when that is not strictly true - that had not occurred to me. But I have seen quite a few instances over the years of people trying to fix conversions when the conversion templates rounded badly, so it does seem that people are looking at conversions. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Well of course, and where we offer figures, there should be conversions for everyone’s convenience where it’s warranted (although is it always warranted when even the USA has long used millimetres for calibre?). But the example of the the 21 cm RK L/22 proves that some figures are nominal, and do not need conversions. Seems to me they make sense in tables comparing specs. Not convinced there’s any reason to turn navboxes into data tables though.  —Michael Z. 23:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're talking about the infobox, not navboxes, and they are inherently data tables. Parsecboy (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Mzajac that in this context these are names not specs and we should go with the common name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

General characteristics (#1)
Armament	2 × 21 cm (8.3 in) L/22 guns
General characteristics (#2)
Armament	2 × 21 cm RK L/22 guns
General characteristics (#3)
Armament	2 × 21 cm (8.2 in) RK L/22 guns
General characteristics (#3)
Armament	2 × 21 cm RK L/22 (8.2) guns

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting the articles be renamed to include conversions of the gun diameter, so we can set that piece aside. The real question is how to treat them in infoboxes or the text of other articles. For example, which version of the infobox at right should SMS Friedrich Carl (1867) use? Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Same answer, just use the name and don't do any conversion. In this case that looks like #2 but honestly I'd even leave off "guns" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The question I'd ask is, if you leave off "guns", how do you know what it is? Could be any number of other weapon types. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You will notice that the text is blue, that is because it is a link. One can either click the link or hover their cursor over it to cause a small preview box to come up to learn more about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think forcing readers to take another step to understand something is a good solution. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

How would you propose to consistently also list, say Ordnance QF 25-pounder, Skif (ATGM), M142 HIMARS, Tornado (multiple rocket launcher)?  —Michael Z. 16:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Those aren't exactly the same, since they wouldn't be in an infobox as part of the armament of a larger weapons system - a better example would be something like the QF 6-pounder 10 cwt gun. Were I to put it in an infobox, I'd probably list it as "[X] × 57 mm (2.2 in) QF 6-pounder guns", since the weight of projectile is less meaningful to most readers than a simple bore diameter (which can be more easily compared to other guns that may be listed (for another example, what does simply calling something a 100-ton gun tell readers?). Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just thinking about a similar matter, i.e. that for a ship infobox, the caliber/bore seems consistently important, but the relevance of other characteristics seems to change over time.

E.g. when the grenade guns first appeared, it was important to know whether something was a grenade gun or a solid shot gun, because the caliber had a totally different meaning for these two types. When the rifled gun appeared next to these, it became important to distinguish between SBML and rifled guns of the same caliber. When the smoothbore guns had disappeared, etc. etc.

Mentioning the skif is actually relevant in this discussion, because for the Skif or Stugna, the caliber is relevant for the barrel fired version.Grieg2 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The Stugna tank-gun missile is a completely different thing: a 125-mm tank round.

But the Skif/Stuhna ATGM launcher fires rounds of at least two different diameters, that come preloaded in tubes.  —Michael Z. 02:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

To shorten the infobox, I generally don't name the gun, but I do link to it and give a conversion for its actual bore diameter, even if it's different from its name. I usually ignore caliber length measurements in individual ship articles and save them for the class article. I only use caliber length in an individual ship article if a ship had guns of the same bore diameter, but with different lengths, or if the length is formally part of the name. I do think that the bore diameter and the type of gun are the most important item for the infobox. Caliber length runs a distant second, IMO, not least since most readers won't have a clue what it means.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Categorizing military equipment

Referring to Category:Military equipment by country and Category:Weapons by country, and their many, many subcategories. The second (subcategory of the first) gives inclusion criteria in its description (my emphasis):

Most weapons since the Middle Ages can be identified as having been developed by a particular country. This may be as a result of that nation's government or military driving development, or in some cases of private citizens or companies creating new technologies. In most cases, if successful, the invention will spread to other nations. In general, weapons should be listed under the nation that led the development of the project, even if use and production may have spread. In cases where development was the result of shared collaboration between partner nations, the weapon should be found in Category:International weapons

This makes good sense, because some equipment and weapons have been used by scores of states, but categorizing them thus would be unwieldy, unuseful, and contrary to the convention that categories are defining.

1. Perhaps this criteria should be promoted to the parent military equipment category.

I have been adjusting membership in subcategories according to this. But then found templates for defining categories that directly contradict the criteria in Category:Military category header templates. Many of these seem to state, for example ({{Cathead anti-ship missiles of}}): “Anti-ship missiles of [country] include anti-ship missiles designed, built, or operated in [country].”

Some of these templates are more in line with the criteria, e.g., {{Cathead artillery of}} says “Artillery of [country] includes artillery designed by [country].”

2. These templates should probably be changed en masse to conform to the parent category inclusion criteria, if there is no specific objection.

 —Michael Z. 16:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)#Requested move 16 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)#Requested move 16 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Khartoum (2023)#Requested move 21 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Khartoum (2023)#Requested move 21 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Unofficial translations of works on Internet Archives

I've started a discussion about unofficial translations of otherwise RS uploaded on the Internet archive Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Unofficial_translations_of_works_on_Internet_Archives. Opinions would be welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Help with research

Hello I am working on the Luxembourg rebellions, that was a rebellion that consisted of two smaller events including the Luxembourg communist revolution and the Luxembourg Rebellion. I have been doing research but I can not find that much information for an event that was very important in Europe. Anyone know where I can research or translate information. LuxembourgLover (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources:1, 2.--Catlemur (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Elmslie typology

A new article has been created on the Elmslie typology for Falchions. I have placed a banner on it and a holding class of start. It appears heavily cited but, on examination, most citations are essentially footnotes giving examples of different classes. Actual citations tying the typological classes to the general published sources are lacking. I do not know if this is acceptable in typology articles? I think this needs to be done before the B-class check list can be properly completed - I fear the bot will fail to recognise the referencing issues. I recognise the two main sources as correct but do not have access to them to check the class descriptions - I would hope a weaponry expert with access to these uncommon publications could do this. Thanks for anyone willing to give it a look. Monstrelet (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:First Battle of Lyman#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:First Battle of Lyman#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#2020 Venezuelan coup attempt round III

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#2020 Venezuelan coup attempt round III that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. WMrapids (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

For anyone who also has trouble parsing this discussion, Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 19 July 2023_2 is the correct link, and the proposal is currently to move the article to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coup in Kazakhstan

Hi, Looking at the Jackie Shroff article (an Indian actor, born 1957), it states that his mother moved to India due to a coup in Kazakhstan; the actor says the same in the cited interview. There is a clarification tag for when/which this is referring to. Can someone please identify whether a coup did take place in Kazakhstan before 1957, if so which and if not which incident this might be referring to. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

According to this, more than a million Kazakhs "fled to neighbouring Chinese territory" between 1916 and 1939 to escape purges and forced collectivisation. No mention of a coup but since the Soviets killed 1.5 million Kazakhs in the same period, that doesn't seem surprising. Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That is what I was suspecting, added a clarifying note for the same in the article. Thanks for the help. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Arena (countermeasure) Featured Article Review

I have nominated Arena (countermeasure) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Schierbecker (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cold war (term)#Requested move 31 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cold war (term)#Requested move 31 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The United States Helps and Beware of Taiwan

Due to poor quality of translation, I declined one of my students translations from Chinese at User:Wyyz02/The United States Helps and Beware of Taiwan . That said, the topic of American defence of Taiwan, which is what I think this is about, is notable. Chinese article is at zh:美国协防台湾. I have no idea when another student of mine (or anyone else) will tackle this, but frankly given the gravity of this topic this deserves attention from someone who can do the job well. Perhaps the links to the Chinse article and my student draft can help someone get started? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

First Dacian War

Please see competing versions. Please see my note on Talk:First Dacian War. Also, there is but one (inaccessible) source. Perhaps more sources can be found. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gott mit uns#Requested move 9 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gott mit uns#Requested move 9 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HouseBlaster^talk 00:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)