Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
New article created; not sure this is a new class of military weapon
[edit]A new article was just created—Rocket drone—following the introduction by Ukraine of a new long-range, low-cost, jet-powered cruise missile called Palianytsia. Although in Ukrainian language, the name for the type of weapon is called ракета-дрон, or rocket-drone in direct word translation, I believe that the Ukrainian (and Russian) word for missile is ракета. So, I'm not clear that rocket drone is really a new class of weapon for the English Wikipedia.
Would appreciate it if an editor from the Military science, technology, and theory task force would take a look at the new rocket drone article, and think through what is going on here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I left a comment. The article looks like a clear merge with its current content, but MILHIST thoughts on whether the concept should have an article would be valuable. (Do we have no articles that cover this already?) Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Battle of Leipzig infobox
[edit]Napoleonic history isn't my regular haunt. Is it, however, standard anywhere on the MILHIST radar to be using headings within infoboxes? It's broken the TOC on the left too. See these diffs. Ifly6 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the section headers as they are very much not supposed to be put into infoboxes. However, the rest of the infobox could still use work—it has way too much information and flies in the face of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. All the specific unit names could probably be put in an order of battle/bulleted list farther down. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- The infobox could be considered a whole separate order of battle! I might see about paring it down a little. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not my area either, so I wouldn't be confident in making these changes myself, but the commander parameter is supposed to be limited to 7 per combatant, and we can see it's gone way over that. Loafiewa (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- The infobox could be considered a whole separate order of battle! I might see about paring it down a little. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Citogenesis on Sihang Warehouse - Thoughts?
[edit]Since the 03:45, 9 April 2006 revision the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article has stated the Japanese attackers were the IJA 3rd Division. Later at 02:24, 11 April 2006 more information was added. Neither of these edits had inline citations added but despite this the order of battle was left more or less unquestioned for well over a decade. It was not until 24 March 2023 when I took notice and updated it to reflect Japanese sources stating it was in fact not the IJA 3rd Division but rather the IJN's Shanghai SNLF.
Since then some editors have taken issue with this change—alleging the IJA 3rd Division was in fact involved and cited Eric Niderost's "Chinese Alamo" to assert the 3rd Division's involvement. Niderost's article, published in December 2007, is un-cited and appears to have paraphrased the unsourced Japanese OOB from the 9 Aug 2007 or later revision of the wiki article:
- 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:
- The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars."
- Niderost, Dec 2007:
- "The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."
As of writing this, the article still erroneously states the IJA 3rd Division was involved using a handful of sources including Niderost's article and a recent book that also cites Niderost. I have a detailed thread on the article's talk page discussing the participating Japanese forces, but have not heard much feedback at all. I would love to hear some input from others. At the very least, how do we handle this citogenesis/circular reference when other editors insist it is a valid source? Adachi1939 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
List of deaths at the Berlin Wall has been nominated for featured list removal
[edit]Thebiguglyalien has nominated List of deaths at the Berlin Wall for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Philippe Pétain has an RfC
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Philippe Pétain 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator election notice
[edit]Hi, I received this notice, while I can figure out that it refers to MILHIST by clicking the link, there is otherwise no indication what wikiproject it is from. Perhaps you could make sure to specify next time. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- While we're at it, the header made it look like voting, not simply nominations, had opened... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is something for Hawkeye7 to cast his eyes over if he would be so kind! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have updated the instructions for next year to address the issues reported this time. (The above, plus another that I found.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Ian Rose, Hawkeye7, and Buidhe: Should a clarified mass message be sent to recipients? I don't have the "massmessage" user right so I can't do it if it should be done. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have updated the instructions for next year to address the issues reported this time. (The above, plus another that I found.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is something for Hawkeye7 to cast his eyes over if he would be so kind! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Ivan Turchin
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/40px-Information.svg.png)
An editor has requested that Ivan Turchin be moved to John B. Turchin, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Yasuke 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. Brocade River Poems 02:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Siege of Szigetvár
[edit]Siege of Szigetvár 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, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 1 September 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 1 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The "legend" of S-5's conversation before rescue
[edit]Can anyone verify the story given at USS S-5#Rescue? I'm seeing it in a 1985 snippet view on Google Books, a couple books from 2004 and 2015 without citations, a whole bunch of blog-level content, and that's about it... so I'm a bit skeptical that this is anything more than apocryphal. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I misread the header as S-5's conversion! Maybe a newspaper story? It's certainly sounds sensationalist enough for one!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, but I just checked Chronicling America and The New York Times' archive to no avail. The latter has a lot of details, especially on page 5, and not a single word on a conversation like the one we report...
- The story has been in the article since its first revision in January 2004, which was done with the edit summary "from DANFS", but DANFS didn't support that claim back then and it doesn't now. I'll work on the article in a bit. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- No templates in section headings; to do so breaks section links from watchlists and histories.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand how on-wiki collaborations work
[edit]The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:
- Take a survey about your experience with collaborations: with this Google Form
- Share examples of Collaborations or WikiProjects that have worked for you: m:Campaigns/WikiProjects
Whatever input you bring to the two spaces will help us make better decisions about next steps beyond the current tools we support. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just to add a bit of additional context—Alex is a long-time English Wikipedia editor and one of the smartest people at the Wikimedia Foundation. If you've ever been doing something inside MILHIST and thought to yourself "this could be better if _____", you should share this with the WMF and potentially have them work on a solution. I also work at the Foundation,* so I can say from personal knowledge that these sorts of surveys are impactful and given careful consideration inside the organization.
- *I'm not involved with this project and I'm definitely not writing in my staff capacity. I've known Alex far longer than I've been working with the WMF. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Re-drafted RFC on weapons in Syria
[edit]It would probably help if a few knowledgeable folks looked at Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism#RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria. The RFC question has been re-written, and I think it's clearer now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:H2X#Requested move 16 August 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:H2X#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: moving RfC requests to their own section
[edit]We've been getting a lot of requests for participation in RfCs, requested moves, and the like. For me, they make it difficult to scan the page and follow ongoing actual discussions. Would anyone object if we started moving those requests into their own section placed at the top of the page? (Is that a thing that could be automated?) Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Intothatdarkness 16:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @The ed17: - alternatively they could be on a sub-page - WT:MILHIST/RFC with a link from here and the project page. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Various MOS talk pages (eg WT:MOS) maintain a list of RMs, RfCs and other discussions as a first section of their talk page. This system seems to work quite well and might be a model to follow here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Intothatdarkness, Mjroots, and Cinderella157: I'm thinking the two options there (subpage or first section) mainly differ in watchlist notifications as long as we transclude it here. Any thoughts on whether it would be better to have a subpage for people to watch, or to keep the notifications centralized on this page? Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a subpage personally, but am fine with anything that keeps these notifications from scattering through the main discussions like they do currently. Intothatdarkness 11:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Intothatdarkness, Mjroots, and Cinderella157: I'm thinking the two options there (subpage or first section) mainly differ in watchlist notifications as long as we transclude it here. Any thoughts on whether it would be better to have a subpage for people to watch, or to keep the notifications centralized on this page? Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Various MOS talk pages (eg WT:MOS) maintain a list of RMs, RfCs and other discussions as a first section of their talk page. This system seems to work quite well and might be a model to follow here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- A sub-page transcluded here would work. I think it is better centralised here for visibility. A separate page would have an independent archive and be easier to search. WT:MOS uses a different strategy to record past discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Lam Dorji#Requested move 26 August 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lam Dorji#Requested move 26 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Spica-class torpedo boat
[edit]Spica-class torpedo boat can anyone complete the citations for Astore and Spica in Swedish service please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I have been doing a lot of copy editing to the subject article. I would observe that it (still) tends to repeat itself in places, making it a bit disjointed, and has a degree of intricate detail that would be considered unsuitable in an encyclopedic article. I'm going to give it a break for now but somebody with a Civil War interest might like to do some more copy editing. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll give it a look when I have a little more time, which won't be in the next week or so. I toured the fort with a group that also stopped at other forts or gun positions in the area about four years ago. It doesn't make me an expert but does give me a feel for the place and what might I may recall having been been emphasized by the guide. More importantly, I have a few books that certainly include coverage of the various actions at and in the vicinity of the fort. The picture with the article shows a quite familiar setting to me. The apparent covered opening just outside the fort leads to an underground tunnel or storage depot of some sort. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Operation White (15–18 November 1940)
[edit]Operation White trying to complete a table of the Italian ships involved but can't find details of Italian destroyers only that 14 were involved from Bragadin. Can anyone help? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack#Requested move 29 August 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)