Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks

Good article reassessment for Fort Pasir Panjang[edit]

Fort Pasir Panjang 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.

Good article reassessment for Morea expedition[edit]

Morea expedition 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)

Was there consensus for recent format changes to American Civil War unit Infoboxes?[edit]

Wikipedia recently notified me, via alerts in the Notices icon at the top of my user screen that "Links were made from 2 pages to 25th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment." Those links were made from the 26th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment and the 24th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment to the 25th Pennsylvania article. The revision history for the 26th Pennsylvania article indicates that an editor "added military unit sidebar." Apparently, an editor(s) has been adding this same new section to the Infoboxes of multiple Pennsylvania units, but I don't remember seeing a proposal or discussion of these planned changes on the Milhist or Pennsylvania WikiProject pages, or on the talk pages of the individual Pennsylvania regimental articles that were affected. Did I miss the discussion, or did the editor(s) not seek consensus before adding the new sections to multiple Infoboxes?

I'm concerned because the sidebar that is being added, "Pennsylvania U.S. Volunteer Infantry Regiments 1861-1865," causes unnecessary confusion and may be presenting the wrong information to readers about individual military unit histories. These new sidebars include subheadings of "Previous" and "Next," which create the false impression that these military units had chronological predecessors and successors (that, for example, the 25th Pennsylvania was preceded, chronologically, by the 24th Pennsylvania and followed, chronologically, by the 26th Pennsylvania), which is misleading. The editor(s) who made this change this appears to have followed the same format that is used for elected state and federal political office holders that show each article subject's predecessors and successors (the officials elected before and after them), but Pennsylvania regiments were not formed this way. The data added via these sidebars, while well-intentioned, is confusing and unnecessary. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the entire Milhist group because I believe that a discussion should be held by both the Milhist and Pennsylvania WikiProject groups as soon as possible to determine whether or not these sidebars need to be significantly improved or removed entirely. - 47thPennVols (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Hhfjbaker: as the editor in question wouldn't be wrong. ...GELongstreet (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been adding them as I have on those of other states. I have been trying to keep in line with Dyer and Fed Publishing, both 1908). It is the same sidebar as that of present day U. S. regiments. I thought I was making it easier to navigate. Pensylvania IS a unique case where regiments were given numbers by the U.S. Army, but were always referred to by their "Pennsylvania Reserve" number or were converted to artillery or cavalry. I did not change the article name, but referred to it sequentially and tried to put the article name in parentheses after the volunteer number. Some of the regiments that were three-month call-ups initially re-enlisted keeping the number and their article addresses that. I thought it was helping, and I still think so. as GELongstreet knows, I am more than willing to admit to being wrong. I think it's a good addition. I thought I caught all the conversions on the articles I added the box to. On which specific page(s) does it cause confusion? I can add a note or fix a typo. Cheers. Boo Boo (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hhfjbaker, GELongstreet, and 47thPennVols: - what about a bottom-of-the-page navbox, like exists for Template:Missouri Confederate units navbox or Template:Texas Confederate units navbox? They're in use for the MO and TX CSA units, and I think there's one in existence for Louisana CSA as well. These provide the navigational benefits without the drawbacks of the implied chronological sequence. FWIW, Arkansas CSA units do use a form of Template:Military unit sidebar, although I think the bottom-of-the-page navbox is superior. The only issue is that I don't think it will show up in mobile view. Hog Farm Talk 23:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll echo Hog Farm's preference for bottom of the page navboxes over sidebars. Generally, I think that they're kinda redundant to the lede if the latter is done properly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hog Farm, GELongstreet, and 47thPennVols: - I think they make it easier for the reader since they are near the top of the page. They've been done for a lot of U.S. units as I work my way through them. As far as consensus, I've been making these additions since 2020 and have received no negative feedback until now. I thought that could be considered consensus. Better to ask forgiveness than permission? I think the real issue may be more the accuracy where one has to closely read Dyer et al. to ensure that the sequence is correct when dealing with conversions between the branches (e.g., Pennsylvania). If someone catches an error, they should correct it. All in all, as I have said, if you can convince me these are causing less precision, I may agree. If you find an inaccuracy (better information than Dyer or Fed Publishing) or out right error, feel free to correct it. These boxes work really well for current U.S. Army units, and I started doing them because it was tedious scrolling to the bottom of the page to get to the, e.g., 17th Maine from the 16th Maine. Boo Boo (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both sidebars and navboxes do not show up on mobile devices currently, Hog Farm, and there are about twice as many mobile readers as there are on desktop. :-) While I can appreciate the thought and work that went into these sidebars, I'm struggling to see why adding prominent links to the two regiments in the series benefits readers. Why would they be clicking through these one by one? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one-third non-mobile users is still a huge audience. I know of two currrent history majors that use the regimental pages for background and for finding links to 19th-century sources. I still think they add to the page. Boo Boo (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hhfjbaker: Wouldn't a proper navbox for these instead of navigating one-by-one be more helpful to those history majors? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ed here, we shouldn't assume that a reader at the 16th Maine article is going to be primarily interested in the 15th Maine or the 17th Maine; they could well be wanting to navigate to the 20th Maine or the 1st Maine or an artillery unit. I think the proper navboxes are to be preferred. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's an interesting one. NVR says that the entire Connecticut class was struck from NVR on 10 November 1920. However...

The dates do align for two battleships in the class (New Hampshire and Vermont), and DANFS doesn't give stricken dates for the final two (Connecticut and Louisiana).

For the table at Connecticut-class battleship § Ships, do we trust one source here? List both? Neither? Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DANFS entries often include mistakes, and from memory people in previous discussions of it here have noted that entries were often written by people lacking relevant qualifications (E.g. often junior officers who needed to be kept occupied). I'd go with the NVR as it's likely to have better quality control. It would be worth checking both these references against what's stated in high quality secondary sources though to see how their authors used the various source material. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I’ve noticed things like date errors in DANFS in the past, and have contacted NHHC to get them corrected (RADM Samuel Cox answered my email in one occasion, and he was pleased I brought it to their attention - I think he’s still there). I’d contact them to see if they can double check the dates, but in the meantime, I’d go with the NVR. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NVR isn't perfect either, though is it has less errors, it's a primary source. If there's a conflict between the two, I'd look to see if there's another source available to help confirm one or the other. (imo) - wolf 07:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks all, I appreciate the advice! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Army Strategic Reserve Command#Requested move 15 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joseph T. White might need the page edit[edit]

On his page, it state "[...]was the last U.S. soldier to cross the demilitarized zone into North Korea." I guess after Travis King, that sentence is incorrect? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's already in your little alert box up there, but this Revolutionary War commander could do with some specialist eyes (i.e. not mine!); the creator has a dual chronology of military command and civic office offer holding to present, that may—or may not—be helped by my suggestion. But you must've encountered this before, so I'd encourage any ARW specialists to look in. Many thanks, Serial 15:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move - Blockade of Germany (1914–1919)[edit]

For good or ill, I have put in a requested move to put Blockade of Germany (1914–1919) back at Blockade of Germany as the primary topic. The previous move (8-15 September) went through seemingly unnoticed, certainly uncommented on - neither in support or opposition - so if I've got the wrong end of the stick then please weigh in at Talk:Blockade_of_Germany_(1914–1919)#Requested_move_30_September_2023. Thank you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone verify these "last words" by Trotsky's assassin?[edit]

This is a little outside of the usual wheelhouse, but I figured since Leon Trotsky led the Red Army, it's fair game to ask here. I just removed a startling quote from the page for Trotsky's assassin, Ramón Mercader. It read: [Mercader's] last words are said to have been: "I hear it always. I hear the scream. I know he's waiting for me on the other side."

The source given is a 2017 Guardian article (link), which does indeed include the quote, but also hedges by phrasing it as "said to have been". There is no actual attribution given. An IP editor added the quote to our Wiki article the same day that the Guardian story was published in 2017.

I am completely unable to track down a pre-2017 source for these supposed last words. I don't know what's going on with The Guardian, but it seems to me that if this is not a total fabrication, it *must* show up in some sources between Mercader's 1978 death and the 2017 newspaper article. However, I cannot find any. Does anyone else have any information on where this quote might have come from? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is quoted in this book [1]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a post-2017 source, but it does include a citation! The citation given there for the paragraph which includes the "last words" is The Mind of An Assassin, by Isaac Don Levine, p. 149. However, that book appears to have been published in 1960, so it could not have been used to cite Mercader's last words in 1978. The paragraph includes a few different pieces of information, and the citation for the Levine book also says that Levine "summarizes the findings of the Mexican criminologists", who are described by the body of the text as working in the 1950s. I believe that's the part of the paragraph that the Levine citation is for, leaving the "last words" still unsourced. However, I am trying to track down The Mind of an Assassin to double-check this! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Mind of an Assassin appears to have been republished in 1979, so that could be a plausible source for the "last words" story. I have requested the book through interlibrary loan, but if anyone can check a 1979 edition more quickly or find an alternate pre-2017 source, that would be very helpful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think if there is article Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War and even List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War, just for aircraft losses, there should be also List of military equipment losses during Russo-Ukrainian War for land and navy equipment. So List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War is just a part of missing whole List of military equipment losses during Russo-Ukrainian War. Eurohunter (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it even achievable to create a reasonable list of military equipment losses? Neither side is reporting accurately. Are there reliable sources available? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] is generally considered the best resource on this topic, and it notes that its figures under-count actual losses (as they require photos to verify each and every equipment loss). Any Wikipedia article would basically duplicate that website. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there would be more sources which has articles about military loses because they are often commented by specialists etc. Eurohunter (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To follow up on Peacemaker67's comment, such an article in an ongoing conflict could never have any reasonable basis for any reasonable degree of accuracy and would undoubtedly be based on synth and blog sites. This isn't what we do. And where would we draw the line as to what it is populated with - down to pistols? It would probably head toward this level. While we might have an article for particularly high value equipment like ships and aircraft, even aircraft losses are probably difficult accurately source. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cinderella157: For sure there is notable military equipment losses like tanks, self-propelled artillery or armoured fighting vehicles. I think it's not any less accurate than majority of Russo-Ukrainian War articles. Eurohunter (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will never find reasonable sources for losses in this mess. Any referenced estimates that can be gleaned from reliable sources can be inserted into the war article in a sentence or two. Random, incomplete, and unprovable lists are not needed in an encyclopedia. Per NOT. GenQuest "scribble" 19:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse Peacemaker, Cinderella157, GenQuest. Let's not do this. We *might* get reasonable equipment losses from both sides - 20/30/40 years afterwards. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Re: where would we draw the line, clearly we would need to go as far as the sources go, which in case of Winter War is per-unit lists of "lost: 11x underpants") Ljleppan (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deepest thanks[edit]

G'day everyone. Just a note to express my deepest thanks to those who supported my nomination as coordinator emeritus, and especially to Hawkeye7 for nominating me. I am in august company. Well done to those who nominated for the new coordinator tranche, and to those who served over the last year. As with everything else in life, Milhist is run by those who turn up. I look forward to helping out again when needed. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's extremely well deserved given your huge contributions. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Nick said. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorisation of WikiProject "members" to "participants"[edit]

G'day everyone, you should be aware of this discussion, which will affect a few things around MILHIST, and if successful, may indicate some wording changes within MILHIST pages. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ACW orders of battle titles[edit]

A Raymond Confederate's bottle battle order.

A couple of years ago, there was an RM initiated by Hog Farm at Talk:Confederate_order_of_battle_at_the_Battle_of_Raymond that resulted in a move from Raymond Confederate order of battle to Confederate order of battle at the Battle of Raymond, in an attempt to make it consistent with the titles for orders of battle for other conflicts that are featured lists. However, they noted about all the articles in Category:American Civil War orders of battle are in the format of "Raymond Confederate order of battle" or "Camp Wildcat Union order of battle".. Following this RM, the corresponding Union OoB was analogously moved, as were Confederate order of battle at the Battle of Westport and Union order of battle at the Battle of Westport. However, now years later, as far as I can tell, those two battles remain the only ACW battles having order of battle articles with this title format. All others remain in the form [battle] [belligerent] order of battle, e.g. Gettysburg Union order of battle, or just [battle] order of battle when not separated by belligerent or for redirects. I agree there is no reason the title formats should not be WP:CONSISTENT here, but at least for ACW articles, the de facto consensus on format remains contrary to the result of that RM, and I don't believe an RM about a single lesser known battle should dictate consensus that is contrary to the overwhelming status quo. Is anyone aware of any existing naming conventions or evidence of past consensus that nearly all of the ACW oob articles for some reason aren't following (yet)? Otherwise, I'm inclined to start a new RM to return the outliers to the consistent format, unless there is interest in a wider discussion, either about establishing a clear naming convention, or in the form of a large RM (though the former is probably a better approach). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to say that while many (esp US editors and most milhist buffs) will read "Gettysburg Union order of battle" and know that Gettysburg was a battle, who on earth would know that more obscure ones were battles? Why not sieges? Or raids? Or campaigns? I think that there is way too much assumed knowledge at play here. To me it makes sense to state which side's order of battle it is first ie "Confederate order of battle", then the type of military event and its name ie "at the Battle of Raymond", than say "Raymond Confederate order of battle". My first question on reading the latter is what is a "Raymond Confederate?" Just because the majority of articles are formulated one way does not mean it is better, clearer or anything else. It might be a bit more concise, but in nearly every case that is by making a significant sacrifice of clarity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree with Peacemaker. We are writing an encyclopedia, we are supposed to explicate. (What is a Raymond Confederate?) Gog the Mild (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to my esteemed colleagues above. We're a general-interest encyclopedia, and the article titles should reflect that. Is this something we should propose codifying at WP:MILNAME? Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the proposer of the original RM from several years ago, this was inspired by Peacemaker's comments at Talk:Confederate order of battle at the Battle of Raymond#Quick look, which I agree with. The Raymond Confederate format is more concise, but is also much more opaque, and I think the other format is clearer. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 per above. We might prune a word or two from a long title but certainly not "Raymond Confederate order of battle". Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with User:Peacemaker67 and others above. Donner60 (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would someone like to come up with a draft for us to discuss with a view to the end result be proposed as an addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Naming conventions. I note that WP:MILMOS#CATNAME seems - under Intersection categories at the end - to capture the spirit of what has been agreed quite well. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good grief! Yes, obviously. Completely unhelpful titling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]