Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

    Any assistance to add appropriate notations to the Chinese 64th Group Army to reflect its participation in this battle of October 1951 would be welcomed. Mztourist I see you have edited the battle article. Do feel free to make additions to 64th Army should you wish. Cheers and Happy New Year to all!!

    Good article reassessment for George Rogers Clark National Historical Park[edit]

    George Rogers Clark National Historical Park 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 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a look at this. The Purpose and Significance section has no citations. It has this sentence: "This law (Appendix A) contains three provisions." The article has no Appendix A. This leads me to think the whole section is likely taken verbatim, or nearly so, from a single source. I spent a little time trying to find the source but did not find it. I checked the citations that are available on line and they do not appear to be the source for this section. Donner60 (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delisted. Now B for military history, C in banner shell. 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    nautical militia[edit]

    Currently Naval militia, maritime militia and Naval Militia all point to Naval militias in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As the U.S. isn't the only place that has had this kind of militia, a general topic article needs to be built. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, the Chinese Maritime Militia and the former British Sea Fencibles spring to mind. Those rediricts should probably be disambiguation pages. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any article ought also to consider historical examples, for instance, the Norwegian Leidang system. Monstrelet (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that the redirects to a diambig. Especially as at least one article, not about the US has a wiki link to the US one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the newly created SIA stub at naval militia should marine militia point there? nautical militia and maritime militia already point there -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kentish Artillery category tree?[edit]

    Is there a proper categorization scheme missing from Kentish Artillery? BD2412 T 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation Seat 12[edit]

    the article for operation seat 12 needs extensive rewriting, as it makes claims about history that can neither be proven or disproven. is an alleged misinformation conducted by the KGB in order to smear Pope Pius XII, and that the 1963 play the Deputy, was written specifically for this purpose. the claims for its existence come from a romanian defector named Ion Mihai Pacepa, claims that are supposedly corroborated by the Mitrokhin Archives, a series of documents smuggled to the UK by an ex KGB employee, and by an counterintelligence conducted by the NSA called the Venona Project. the article keeps getting rewritten as insisting the operation is true. until i rewrote it saying not corroborated.

    the article is strange{

    no explanation of how Pacepa knew about this operation

    no mention of Seat 12 in the page about Mitrokhin archives at all or on venona project (it lists information uncovered that is notable, therefore it would be there)

    doesnt explain how the NSA discovered Seat 12


    the page must be locked to avoid tampering

    regarding "The Deputy", the play and what it claims have been proven to be untrue, but to insist its part of a soviet plot is absurd without evidence. Bird244 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DIY usually works best in cases like this - jump in an improve the article if it doesn't reflect what reliable sources say (taking care to cite those sources, of course). Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Should lists of military aircraft, ships, guns, land vehicles, etc have images in them?[edit]

    Please join the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Images_on_list_of_aircraft,_etc. Dream Focus 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Café de Paris, London, bombed in WWII[edit]

    Input at Café de Paris, London#Bomb(s) would be welcome, please; was there one bomb or two? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Luftwaffe, lang template/italics or not?[edit]

    I'm bringing this up here rather than the Luftwaffe page as it affects far more than just that article.

    My question is, should Luftwaffe be italicised/use the lang template in articles?

    The guideline at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC says:

    Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization. ... Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries.

    The existence of entries in the following dictionaries suggest that Luftwaffe is fully anglicised, and shouldn't be italicised.

    Your opinions would be welcome. (Hohum @) 23:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. I used to italicise it, but I consider the overwhelming inclusion in English language dictionaries these days means it should not be italicised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that, primarily because of its extensive use in English dictionaries. It should only be italicized when specifically referring to a German word. Since we're on the topic, why don't we discuss about "Wehrmacht" as well, it was mentioned in OED, Collins Online Dictionary, Merriam Webster. But not in American Heritage Dictory and Longman. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Wehrmacht as a comparison when researching this. It seems less definitive - perhaps a case of either option being valid, as long as it's consistent within an article? (Hohum @) 13:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Source for mascot[edit]

    In Li'l Abner#Main characters, it mentions that WWII Patrol Boat Squadron 29 used the character as their mascot. I gave a look but couldn't find any sources on this. Figured if anyone would know where to find that sort of info, they'd probably be here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This book might be worth checking. Any books about making models of PT boats would likely be the best source though, as it's the kind of detail model makers like to get right. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a few editions of that book from Google but there was nothing there. After some further digging, I notice I'm struggling to find results for "Patrol Boat Squadron 29" from before the statement was added. Would that be the proper name for such a squadron, or is that throwing my searches off? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT SQUADRON 29 was the official name. Adding that the boats in the squadron were PT Boats 552 through 563. The squadron served in the Mediterranean. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/PT-A.html Donner60 (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that definitely helped find the specific squadron in sources. Unfortunately, I still can't turn anything up involving Li'l Abner. I'm gonna remove the claim as unsourced for now; if it's true, hopefully someone else turns it up eventually. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Review needed[edit]

    G'day all, my current ACR nom Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jozo Tomasevich has been open since 20 January and has had two reviews (all points addressed, just awaiting any final tweaks required) and a source and image review. Just needs a third review to get it over the line. Cheers in anticipation, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will review although it might be a few days before I can get to it. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks HF! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suwałki Gap and current force stndings[edit]

    Hello there,

    I recently updated the article I promoted to GA in 2022, but one thing I was not really able to find was how many soldiers does each side have. The best data I have is from early 2022, which may be much outdated because of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine (for example, Russia's 11th Army Corps was apparently destroyed to pieces in Ukraine in late 2022, but I'm not sure if they sent replacment troops, and if so, how many).

    I would like to request help in finding sources about that. Just as well let me know of any doubts or suggestions so that I can improve the article, potentially towards A-class review stage. Thanks a lot! Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There were some news stories recently about the Poles reinforcing the troops on their eastern borders that might be of use. I suspect that the actual dispositions in this area won't be publicly released on security grounds though. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New draft[edit]

    I could uses some help with a draft I'm working on, Draft:Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units any help is welcome! LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    hello, i found this article today while looking to see if there was an article about Russian imperial settlement in the South Caucasus (there is not, and i plan on writing one) and it's in absolutely dire straits. the vast majority of the article is uncited and it has serious prose issues; it looks like it's been more or less collecting dust since 2016. i have approximately zero experience writing about military history, so i figured i'd post here and see if anyone was interested or willing to work on it. cheers! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]