Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The December newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Teddy Wynyard • Operation Matterhorn logistics • Steele's Greenville expedition • Battle of Morlaix • GL Mk. I radar • Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356) • George Washington Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. • Project Pluto • SMS Berlin • Battle of Köse Dağ • AN/APS-20 • USS Varuna (1861) Peer reviews Sher Shah Suri • War of the Antiochene Succession • 4th Army (France) • List of foreign-born samurai in Japan • Hiroshima Maidens • German Jewish military personnel of World War II • Outline of George Washington • Central Powers Good article nominees Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Charles the Bold • Aromal Chekavar • Tumu Crisis • Mseilha Fort • SMS Albatross (1871) • HMS Savage (1910) • Edward Caledon Bruce • Alt Llobregat insurrection • French ironclad Tonnant • SMS Scorpion (1860) • 1991 Andover tornado • Henry O'Neill (soldier) • Yang Youlin • Tiepolo conspiracy • Statue of John Barry • Richard Haking • Battle of Chunj • USS Gyatt • Zhao Chongguo • Michael Mantenuto • Top Gun: Maverick • Canonicus-class monitor • Hard Rock (exercise) • Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens) • HMS Michael (1915) • SMS Bremse (1884) • SMS Wolf (1878) • SMS Adler • Hiroshima Maidens • Fritz Strassmann Good article reassessments Mikhail Gorbachev • Henry VIII • Battle of Badr • Wings (1927 film) • 102nd Intelligence Wing Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (149,759) • only work on referencing and citation (43,221) • work on coverage and accuracy (125,072) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,928) • work on structure (32,151) • only work on structure (341) • work on grammar (8,203) • only work on grammar (47) • work on supporting materials (32,898) • only work on supporting materials (624) • assessment (6) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (9) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (3) • task forces added (7) • attention to task force coverage (651)

Requests for project input

Talk:Battle of the Java Sea#Recent edits changing scope of article

An editor has effectively changed to scope of the article by incorporating subsequent engagements (with their own stand-alone articles) as being part of this battle. Further input would be welcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the renaming of the article Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge

Please see here for a discussion about renaming Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge to United States support for the Khmer Rouge. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Russian invasion of Ukraine

THere's currently a discussion about whether or not to include North Korea as a co-belligerent. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000#Requested move 19 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000#Requested move 19 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Edwin of Northumbria

Edwin of Northumbria 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Angevin kings of England

Angevin kings of England 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. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:RSM-56 Bulava#Requested move 3 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RSM-56 Bulava#Requested move 3 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frostly (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

RM to lowercase North Yemen Civil War

An ongoing RM to lowercase is at Talk:North Yemen Civil War#Requested move 28 November 2024. It has been relisted and may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

United Kingdom Special Forces has an RfC

United Kingdom Special Forces has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Manbij offensive#Requested move 9 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Manbij offensive#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Capture of Damascus#Requested move 9 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capture of Damascus#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox

Please see subject RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Thermopylae

Battle of Thermopylae 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#Dubious tag

The phrase disputed territory in the territory parameter of the infobox has been tagged as dubious. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) 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 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mark Kellogg (reporter)

Mark Kellogg (reporter) 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Henry VIII

Henry VIII 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Badr

Battle of Badr 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. Z1720 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Italian Ethiopia#Requested move 27 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Italian Ethiopia#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)

Wings (1927 film) 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 102nd Intelligence Wing

102nd Intelligence Wing 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Arthur Phillip

Arthur Phillip 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. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2024 are open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2024

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (UTC) on 16 November and last until 23:59 (UTC) on 30 November 2024. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period will commence on 00:01 1 December 2024 during which editors will be able to cast their approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 30 December 2024, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2024. Please keep nomination statements concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self-nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! On behalf of all the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

1. CommissarDoggo (talk · contribs): A new joiner to the project this year, their work includes bringing the American VC winner William Henry Harrison Seeley to GA and expanding Michael Wettlaufer from stub to B class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Matarisvan (talk · contribs): Significant additions to Indian military history, a notoriously difficult topic on Wikipedia - they have also since been voted a coordinator of the WikiProject. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Klutserke (talk · contribs): Second World War naval history, including the significant expansion and re-writing of HMS Sheffield (C24) and the creation of articles including 8.8 cm SK C/25 naval gun. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Wahreit (talk · contribs): Can I nominate Wahreit for extensive editing to Second Sino-Japanese War articles like the Battle of Shanghai and the Battle of Sihang Warehouse. He joined Wikipedia in April 2024 and has done good work from the beginning. Oh and plus 25k to Battle of Nanking Alexysun (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "military history newcomer of the year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2024.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

CommissarDoggo

1. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Wiki king 100000 (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Internationed (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Kerbyki (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Catlemur (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Klutserke

1. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
3. simongraham (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

1. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Donner60 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
6. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
7. Hog Farm _Talk 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
8. TheRazgriz (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
9. Catlemur (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
10. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
11. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wahreit

1. Matarisvan (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Kerbyki (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2024 are open!

Military historian of the year 2024

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months.

The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (UTC) on 16 November and last until 23:59 (UTC) on 30 November. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of will commence on 00:01 (UTC) on 1 December during which editors will be able to cast their approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 on 30 December, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2024. Please keep nomination statements concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

1. noclador (talk · contribs): Since 2005 has been working mainly on articles about the Italian Army. In 2023 started a project to write articles for all the Italian Army units active after WWII. Since August 2023 noclador has brought to B-class 298 articles about units of the Italian Army, of which 289 were created from scratch. Created 145 articles in 2023 and 2024. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. MSGJ (talk · contribs): Has worked on our Template:WikiProject Military history and the Lua Module:Banner shell and Module:WikiProject banner to implement changes required for our A-class reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks. A barn star would be appreciated but this nomination ... seems excessive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

3. Zawed (talk · contribs): Another year, another seemingly endless quantity of New Zealand-related articles. From the Second World War and articles such as Mick Ensor, to the 1869 Battle of Te Pōrere, Zawed consistently produces a variety of high quality content. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Donner60 (talk · contribs) - for extensive behind-the-scenes work as a coordinator, especially their tireless work with the assessment process. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) - prodigious output of articles relating to British naval ships, e.g. HMS Regulus (1785) and personalities, and also heavily involved in reviewing articles. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Hog Farm (talk · contribs) - another editor with a strong article output, this time relating mostly to the US Civil war, e.g. Edward W. Gantt. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) - yet another editor with tremendous output, particularly in military logistics e.g. Operation Matterhorn logistics. Does a lot of backroom stuff for the project. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Simongraham (talk · contribs) - works away on naval ships, with many articles created and taken up to GA, e.g. HMS Harpy (1909). Zawed (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2024.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Donner60

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Hog Farm _Talk 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
5. simongraham (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
6. For all the unsung but vital work on assessments and the monthly contest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
7. For helping keep the project running behind the scenes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

1. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Wiki king 100000 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Donner60 (talk)
5. Hog Farm _Talk 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Kerbyki (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
7. Catlemur (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
8. Zawed (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
9. For consistently great article work and project coordination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
10. Of course, as lead coord doing the work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hog Farm

1. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Donner60 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Zawed (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

MSGJ

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Kerbyki (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Noclador

1. Donner60 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
2. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
3. TheRazgriz (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Kerbyki (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
5. simongraham (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Hog Farm _Talk 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Zawed (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Simongraham

1. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Catlemur (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Zawed

1. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
4. simongraham (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Catlemur (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
6. For ongoing strong article work, which has branched into areas well outside his original focus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
7. Great commitment to the project and its work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Help needed for draft

I am currently working on a draft on the Chinese 7th marine brigade(more commonly known as the Jiaolong commandos), may I ask if anyone has any feedback or extra third-party sources on the unit?

Also the article already exists on chinese wikipedia. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

AJ3 Tiger?

This 1961 newspaper article about the Harlow Fire mentions some firefighting aircraft, the last of which is described as "an AJ3 Tiger, a post war navy bomber". I'm baffled what that might be - neither the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior nor North American A-5 Vigilante (originally A3J) seem likely. Does anywhere here have any clues? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The only references to "AJ3 Tiger" I'm finding on the Internet appear to originate with that newspaper article, so I think it's probably an error in the original reporting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd suspect it was a AJ Savage, as several were used as water bombers by AJ Air Tankers, first flying missions during 1961. "AJ Tanker" could easily be corrupted into "AJ Tiger" depending on the quality of the draft writing, with the 3 coming from a scribbled AJ-2? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: And looking at this more - seeing as the source describes it as "a post-war navy bomber", it's all but certain that yeah, it's a North American AJ Savage! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Good deal. That seems much more likely for a post-war bomber to be in use around 1961. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Fnlayson@Hog Farm@The Bushranger: Thank you all for your help! That seems very likely indeed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The state of A-Class Review

Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2024/Promoted, the project has 23 promoted A-Class articles so far in 2024, with only a few days left in the year. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2023/Promoted lists 33, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2022/Promoted had 48, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2021/Promoted had 61 if I counted right, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2020/Promoted had 84. Part of this is just less nominating (I imagine the 2020 total is partially driven by all of the extra time a lot of us had during the COVID shutdowns), but this trend is a bit concerning. The robust A-Class has been a calling card of our WikiProject for years, and is a big part of why our project has historically been a leader in producing high-quality content.

I think at least part of this has been due to a decline in reviews - ACRs are often staying open for longer than in the past - I know that's caused me to skip ACR on a couple articles, and I imagine that's a factor for other potential nominators as well. This process has a strong peer-review value, especially for future FAC candidates. It's especially helpful to get subject-matter experts looking those articles over before a FAC. I know I've been remiss with my A-Class reviewing this past year, but I'm going to remedy that if my spare time holds up like I think it well for the next couple months. We've currently got an American admiral from both World Wars, a Cold War-era missile engine project, an early-20th century German warship, a battle from the Mongol conquests of the 13th century, a late-20th century radar system, and an American warship from the Civil War. It would be nice if A-Class could make a bounce-back in 2025. Hog Farm _Talk 20:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Two new Chinese stealth fast jets for Mao's birthday

(Copied from Wt:Aviation) We already have Chengdu J-36; just to double check that the fast jet guys around here are working on something for this Shenyang Aircraft Corporation(?) product: Yes, China Just Flew Another Tailless Next-Generation Stealth Combat Aircraft https://twz.com/air/yes-china-just-flew-another-tailless-next-generation-stealth-combat-aircraft Let's keep watching our sixes. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

INS Shankul (S47) has infoboxes for 2 different vessels

INS Shankul (S47) has infoboxes for 2 different vessels. I assume this is a cut and paste error that needs fixing Vicarage (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

SLNS_Gajabahu_(P626) has 2 different launch dates

For SLNS_Gajabahu_(P626) the infoboxes repeat information under its different owners, but have different launch dates Vicarage (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Articles on Chinese military are a mess

The info on individual units and auxiliary ships are often contradictory and are sometimes completely false. Base information is almost completely non-existent especially for PLAGF bases(which, in fact most articles state the garrison).

New/old ship classes, especially for the Type 055, type 071, type 075, Type 056, Type 053H3 and Type 053H2G are significantly lacking articles.

The weirdest thing is that info is not lacking at all(unless bases, of course). Chinese wikipedia has tonnes of info, the chinese MOD/CCTV channel 7(I have no idea who owns the channel as there are both Chinese MOD and CCTV channel 7 videos) has a literal Youtube channel and the chinese MOD also has a website(more useful for stuff like Navy ship service histories)

Anyways working on a draft on the PLANMC special forces, if you know how to pls help to review it Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that many of those pages are a total mess, but for most of the ships in those classes we don't have enough coverage for individual articles to be due for each ship in the class. Those are appropriaty covered with just one article for the class (at least for the time being). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Im mostly just talking about the type 075 and type 055 classes. Type 056 i really don't think would be that notable(even though it is arguably more notable than some ships in other navies which already have articles). However, im just shocked that most type 075 LHDs and type 055 destroyers/cruisers don't have articles even though they are literally some of the largest navy ships in the world, and for the CNS guangxi(32) there is also tonnes of foreign goverment sources on it. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That isn't surprising. The issues with notability and military history articles is not limited to China, it seems to be topic area wide. I don't think that takes away from your point that there is legitimate room for growth though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Chinese landing ship Yimeng Shan for example is not notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to get into the nitty gritty of Google Translate can easily start expanding these articles. It's not difficult; Chinese sources cross-referenced with all the authoritative U.S. Navy sources. There is a translation program accessible via the Chinese articles. At the other end of the notability spectrum, Type 680 training ship has had enough diplomatic interactions, so that it has been reported properly, and is notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Almost none of those Chinese sources are going to count towards notability and U.S. Navy sources almost never provide signficant coverage so also don't count towards notability. Just because something is notable on another wiki doesn't mean it is here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you regard almost all of the Chinese sources as not counting towards notability? As regards the U.S., I have just created and verified Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps), building on @Thehistorianisaac's hard work, with Naval War College and Foreign Military Studies Office data to get the article properly over the line. A newspaper source drew on FMSO so I tracked down the original OEWatch [Operational Environment Watch] issue of 2018 and went to the original PD-USGOV text. It cited a Chinese source on the drop-out rate of the "Sea Dragon" commandos during training, along with a wide range of other Mandarin sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Because they either aren't reliable sources or aren't independent of the government/party. For example in the linked article mod.gov.cn, China Daily, CCTV, and CGTN wouldn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Should I begin the removal of all United States Department of Defense media references through, for example, United States Seventh Fleet, and all Arleigh Burke-class destroyer articles? They are not independent of the U.S. Government and are heavily influenced by both the Republican Party and Democratic Party. Maybe I could start by listing the 1st Information Operations Command (Land) for deletion - heavily reliant on DOD sources. What are your thoughts? If we are to remove all DOD media sources some articles will have to be quickly considered for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Just reviewed 1st Information Operations Command (Land); apart from Globalsecurity.org, there's a single other source to Federation of American Scientists. Do you wish to start the deletion debate / upmerge to Cyber Command, or shall I? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-independent sources such as government ones can be used, but they don't count toward notability. If secondary coverage can't be found for a military topic, then it should be redirected to a higher level topic article. Not all military subjects are notable. Of course, that requires an actual look for additional sources, which it doesn't appear you have done if you've only looked at the article itself. Silverseren^C 03:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confused about something, they can still be used even if they don't count towards notability. As for the 1st Information Operations Command (Land) presumably signficant coverage of the exists which isn't currently used on the page, remember that notability takes into account all sources not just those used in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Commissioned naval vessels, assuming there is sufficnet overall coverage, are generally considered to be notable by dint of being commissioned naval vessels. Yimeng Shan has at least two non-Chinese reliable sources, which is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you The Bushranger. To my core point: The sarcasm hasn't done the trick. If we use US DOD sources, there is zero justification for not using Chinese government sources, unless there's a clearly acknowledged problem of some kind. Especially for known simple factual data, which would do the trick on the vast majority of the surface combatants and submarines we need to build the data on. I have spent months and years adding a variety of Russian-language sources, including official ones, to various Russian brigades and divisions. I've never been challenged for any of those additions. Myself and the rest of the Red Army editors' group avoid the clearly biased World War II propaganda sources, and remove pre-1990 data that appears unsupported whereever possible. Meanwhile the Foreign Military Studies Office - and Dennis J. Blasko - both rely on Chinese sources, including for this Special Operations Brigade - to write their work. To exclude in toto one government's media while heavily relying on another government's media makes WP look like it is indeed in the grip of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

While there is certainly systemic bias in general, the issue here is one that also plagues US ship articles and German ones and many others. A massive amount of ship articles simply do not meet notability requirements and do not have significant coverage to be found anywhere. In most cases, they are sourced to general directories that have less than a paragraph of information at best.

In short, most ship articles should be redirected to their broader ship class articles. But any attempt to do so usually meets brigading by Wikiproject Ships and Wikiproject Military History editors to prevent the deletion, without providing any policy-based notability arguments. Generally just "It's notable because they've always been notable" pointless claims. It's a walled garden issue that has yet to be cracked, but is possibly the next big subject area the Wikipedia community at large will have to break up after we all did so for sportpeople articles. Silverseren^C 04:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The Bushranger, can you explain which of those two sources counts as significant coverage of the ship in question? The first doesn't seem to mention the ship and is a general discussion of the class of ship which includes multiple different ships. The second is, presumably, the ONI source? Which is a general discussion of Chinese ship capabilities and discusses the Type 071 amphibious transport dock generally as well, without a mention of the Yimeng Shan. So the source would be coverage for the class article I just linked and not any specific ship. Where is the significant coverage in secondary sources to meet notability requirements? Silverseren^C 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That isn't how notability works, it either has to meet the GNG or a SNG. If that is part of a SNG please provide it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren, Horse's Eye Back, you both make a good deal of sense. Let me sketch a possible way ahead, then:

• We admit the significant WP:SYSTEMICBIAS potential in military history articles. Anglo-American subjects are very well covered and the free-content status of U.S. Federal Government writings assists this;
• We admit that once a ship class article exists, U.S. DOD sources are heavily used to fill in details of a ship's service history, whether that ship service history resides in the class article or in an individual ship article;
• We allow a similar standard for notability to submarines, ocean-going escorts, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, other large combatants, aircraft carriers, and ocean-going auxiliary vessels between the USN and PLAN;
• WP policy, I should note, places no barrier to use of other language sources. Whether Chinese, English, or Portuguese ("Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia," from WP:V);
• We allow use of official Chinese media sources for basic factual details of a ship's service history, the same standard as for primary sources, actually. Details on specific deployments, where/when/how etc. I have no particular worry as to whether those details reside at a class or individual ship articles, though WP:SIZERULE may mean splits from class articles into ship articles at some point;
• Opinions on politics or relative combat capability I do not propose to encourage or import into any PLAN-related articles unless they come from gold-standard sources (eg, something like Kenneth Pollack, "Arabs at War," though a different theater).

Thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most of this

however in the end i just want to raise awareness about the fact that most chinese military articles are either non exsistent or completely inadequete with contradicting info

On photos, i still wonder if chinese MOD photos can be used like US navy photos because if yes, that would give us tonnes of media to use Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl can you clarify as to the copyright and usability status of Chinese MOD photos? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Examples:

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/Photos/16361453.html - eng version, Z-20s

http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/tp_214132/16359148.html - Chinese version PLANAF

watermark is notably different however still goverment photos Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it, you're right about the sources on that Chinese LSD, so mea culpa there. I still believe that commissioned ship = notable, but I accept I'm likely in the minority there, and generally agree with Buckshot's suggestions above. Also, unfortunatley Moonriddengirl hasn't been around in quite some time, but I don't think the Chinese government generally issues their images as PD. Then again I may be wrong, given a couple of the images in the Commons category for the Shenyang J-35 are from a Chinese-language Youtube channel that marked its content as CC! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, Chinese government photos are not PD. Nthep (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the policies and guidelines we have now are good. This also doesn't seem to address the notability challenges, especially as the status of those Chinese sources are community consensus and can't be changed by a consenus here. Can I suggest that you work backwards from what we already have? Look at WP:GNG and then ask if the article meets it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all your thoughts. Horse's Eye Back, would you kindly link to the local Milhist (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) or community consensus discussion you are talking about? I need to review the exact wording of the discussion, at the very least. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN has a helpful search tool and you may also find most of the ones in question here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Great!! I was just looking at the perennial sources page, and reviewing some of the wordings, especially for routine factual data. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Joint military units and formations

I want to know whether paramilitary alliances like the Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement (HBDH), the PLO or the UNLFW fit into the inclusion criteria of Category:Joint military units and formations. I thought it might considering the inclusion of Category:Operations rooms of the Syrian civil war. Charles Essie (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Category:Joint military units and formations is a subcategory of Category:Military. The basic definition of military is that of a sovereign state (sometimes "nationstate"). The "joint" in Joint warfare refers to activities together by the army, navy, and/or air force of a single sovereign state.

You are going the right way with paramilitary but not far enough; paramilitary is also of a sovereign state.

The Violent non-state actors or armed groups (redirect to gangs, which are less institutionalised), that you are mentioning, belong elsewhere.

• The PLO in its former guise is properly at Category:Palestinian militant groups along with all the other Palestinian freedom fighters/terrorists;
• The HBDH through a couple of subcategories is reasonably properly and correctly at Category:Rebel groups in Turkey;
• UNFLW at Category:Rebel groups in India
• Category:Military units and factions of the Syrian civil war covers the operations rooms without too much trouble

Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this was very helpful. Now, I was thinking about creating a category for alliances of armed groups. But I'm not sure what to call it or how to categorize it. Charles Essie (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Just keep going towards the simplest category at the bottom of the category tree literally at the bottom of each category page. Here we have Category:Rebel militia groups. You could easily create Category:Alliances of rebel groups as a subcat of Category:Rebel militia groups. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot that the answer is in general no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

USS Zumwalt homeport

the USS Zumwalt article has contradicting info on where it is based. the article says san diego, the infobox says missisipi Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.surfpac.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/3480467/uss-zumwalt-ddg-1000-homeport-shift/

Homeport shift last year to receive upgrades, including Prompt Global Strike, on the East Coast. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Need eyes on this new user's contributions

Hello. I previously posted this at WikiProject Malaysia, but figured more eyes will see it here. I need help checking Mesbmr6710 (talk · contribs)'s recent article creations. A lot (if not all) of them exhibit features that indicate the texts were AI-generated. I've tagged Malaccan-Siamese war for deletion, as so many things are wrong there, with only fake references, I don't think it can be saved without a complete rewrite. But I'm not quite sure about their other articles, as I'm neither familiar with the history nor the language. There's Battle of Fort Legap, Battle of Sakilkilo Village, Battle of Tebedu and Gumbang, KD Sri Selangor incident, Operation Gubir II, Raid on Kalabakan, Whisper Enemy War, Bintangor, Sarawak#Operation Ngayau III, Draft:Battle of Batu Pahat (1456), Draft:Operation Rambo II, and Draft:Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush. If someone has ideas on how best to deal with them, it'd be greatly appreciated. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

CfD of interest

Category:World War II military aircraft is under discussion at CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Adding on to it, if you have any objection to the previous, related cfd closure for Category:Military aircraft of World War I, comment here/the new CfD if that seems appropriate. I (non-admin-closure) didn't realize that some post here might be necessary. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

HMS Cameleon infobox commissioning dates

HMS Cameleon (1795) has time period in the commissioning part of its infobox that does not match the text one Vicarage (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have corrected this. The infobox date range was for fitting out rather than commissioning. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)