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!!

    F-117 and Operation Enduring Freedom[edit]

    I have an uncited claim that F-117 was used during Operation Enduring Freedom. I feel like this is probably true but I have searched the wikimedia library and there is not much information. Any advise on finding sources? Czarking0 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that whoever added that was mistaken. B-2s took part in OEF (from memory, just the early stage), but I doubt F-117s did. It's hard to see what value they would have added given the Taliban didn't have any air defences after the first few days of the war. Osprey has published some books on F-117s and the air war in Afghanistan that might be worth checking. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not much use as a source, but see this USAF image. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And a brief mention at The Iraq War Encyclopedia (p. 39). Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick comment on the photo - Operation Enduring Freedom was Afghanistan, but the caption says the mission was over Iraq, which would have been Operation Iraqi Freedom. I can't say which aspect of the caption is wrong, but obviously one of them is.
    I checked Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter (one of the Osprey titles Nick mentioned) and I can only find one reference to Afghanistan, which was in passing and not related to operational use. So far I haven't come across any reputable sources that make the claim that the F-117 was used in Afghanistan. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been reading about OEF for 20 years. I have never seen any reference to use of the F-117. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreviewed military history draft articles[edit]

    Many draft articles on individual battles have been created. Some are still too weak to be published as articles, but it would be helpful if members of the military history project could take a look at them. See Special:AllPages/Draft:Battle. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 15:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eastmain, Hello. I believe one of the primary reasons why articles like "Battle of X" or "Siege of X" remain unreviewed is because many of them might feature invented names by editors, rather than being explicitly mentioned as "Battle of X" in reliable sources. I've noticed some attempts to revive deleted articles in the list as well. Regards. Imperial[AFCND] 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have guidance for when that happens. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to kinda change the topic at hand, but given that this process exists, how did stuff like the targeted articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Alba Longa get through? Ifly6 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed redraft of an article on a medieval castle[edit]

    I've drafted an article where I have a conflict of interest to manage. The situation is outlined at Talk:Lowther Castle Stead, along with a link to the draft, and I'd welcome feedback from the community on the draft to help manage the COI. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Short- vs. long-parameter usage rates in the WikiProject template[edit]

    Since Template Parameters doesn't seem to run on WikiProject templates, I went through all transclusions of {{WikiProject Military history}} to see what the usage rate was for short vs. long parameter variants (e.g. |Aviation= vs. |Aviation-task-force=) (you know...for fun). Figured I'd share the results here in case anyone else was interested.

    * 99.6% of {{WikiProject Military history}} pages use params (312,445 / 313,845):
    * 83.2% use short param variants: (260,041 / 312,445) (e.g. |Aviation=)
    * 16.8% use long param variants:   (52,404 / 312,445) (e.g. |Aviation-task-force=)
    *  5.0% use both param variants:   (15,593 / 312,445)
    

      ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  01:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Van Buren#Requested move 14 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Robertus Pius (TalkContribs) 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Small GA review looking for ideas[edit]

    Looking for input be it a bold edit or suggestions at a GA review related to... "I think the main remaining issue here is article structure" see Talk:Canadian peacekeeping/GA1. Basically what structure will serve our readers best?. Moxy🍁 03:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really tired so I took a very cursory skim of the references section. I think you should change Defence, National to use |author= instead of |last= and |first=. Also, you might want to rename the section "Participation" to more clearly reflect description of how many Canadians have served in peacekeeping missions. I might restructure to move the table into a subsection under "Peace operations" or something like that too; it would be more thematic than the current presentation. Ifly6 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Fortress of Klis[edit]

    Fortress of Klis 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) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, so just got a copy of Buxton's Battleship Duke of York. Check it. ——Serial Number 54129 16:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, is "check it" some sort of colloquialism or are you wanting someone to do something? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe User:Serial Number... means for others to check it out the Battleship book or maybe the HMS Duke of York article linked above. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but I only suggested checking those out; buying the book is another step beyond. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, understood! ——Serial Number 54129 12:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    HMS MMS 54 / HNLMS Haren (1944)[edit]

    The article on HMS MMS 54 / HNLMS Haren (1944) has been nominated for deletion. I've done my best to expand from a stub using internet sources. There are plenty of book sources listed at MMS class minesweeper#Bibliography, which might prove useful to further expand the article if anyone has them. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked my available references. It's not mentioned in Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea and gets no mention of any activities in Lenton's British and Empire Warships and van Willigenburg's Dutch Warships of World War II.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Axis capture of Tobruk/3rd Siege of Tobruk[edit]

    User:Infomanfromearth has changed the title of Axis capture of Tobruk to 3rd Siege of Tobruk without a talk page discussion, except an acrimonious exchange with User:Keith-264 about whether it could be described as an Axis victory (on the grounds that the Japanese weren't present). The original title was agreed in 2019 by discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 153#"Fall of Tobruk" article title before it moved into the mainspace. A quick Google search shows that nobody else calls it "3rd Siege of Tobruk". What is the correct course of action? Should it be reverted? Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely. Have done so. An existing LOCON is not overruled by an, as you say, acrimonious debate with one other editor. "Revert undiscussed page move" is simplest. Note left at user talk. Thanks for the notice Alansplodge. ——Serial Number 54129 14:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed they moved the other two pages to 1st and 2nd sieges, too. Also reverted. ——Serial Number 54129 14:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Veterans cemeteries[edit]

    Hello, I noticed there is no article for veterans cemeteries. Within the US, this is often referred to as a national cemetery maintained by the United States National Cemetery System, but there are many state-run ones as well (ex. Southern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery), and ones outside of the US (ex. Aldershot Military Cemetery). I believe this is different enough from a war grave and should not be merged into that article; most interments within veterans cemeteries are for service members and their qualifying family members who died long after service, not casualties from a single conflict or war as in a war grave/cemetery.

    I intend to create an article within the next couple of days but wanted to open discussion here about it. Help gathering sources and examples, particularly for non-US cemeteries, would be greatly appreciated. TCMemoire 12:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm quite certain that this doesn't exist in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RAF Gaza (former WW2 RAF base)[edit]

    Hello, I have added a military infobox for RAF Gaza, a Second World War airfield located in the current Gaza Strip. But i'm can't seem to get a suitable map of the Gaza Strip that i can add to the infobox in which the marker shows. Any suggestions? Gavbadger (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if there's a problem with the map as well, but your coordinates are in Algeria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went in the page history to the November 18, 2023 version and clicked on the Coords link. The map shows the correct location in Gaza strip, but the coordinate values are unchanged since then. Very strange... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The co-ordinates have changed. @Gavbadger's edit has a typo in it as it's set the longitude to 0 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds rather than 34 degrees, 20 minutes 00 seconds. The second issue is that the infobox uses Module:location map so |pushpin_map= needs a location map data file not an image file. The ones for Gaza are in Category:State of Palestine location map modules. Nthep (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone confirm the location for RAF Peshawar, from reliable sources? Which airport is it today? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why use a map of the Gaza Strip, which didn't exist then, when there's a perfectly serviceable map of the Palestinian Mandate? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buckshot06: Haven't been able to find any reliable source to confirm, but I'm 99% sure RAF Peshawar is now PAF Base Peshawar, which is immediately to the east of Bacha Khan International Airport. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oshkosh L-ATV#Requested move 28 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]