Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

Best method(s) to determine if a Bronze Star Medal was awarded with combat V device or not[edit]

While reviewing and editing our article about LTC Daniel Gade (USA Ret.), I have wanted to confirm my working assumption that the Bronze Star Medal Gade received was for reasons other than valor or heroism in combat. But I cannot ascertain a reliable method to determine if a Bronze Star was awarded for valor in combat or not. What method(s) do you all recommend? Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure but it sounds like the information may be available through a freedom of information request - Dumelow (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
What about trying to contact the family? - wolf 02:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The article says he was decorated "for valor". However, the footnote in the article does not support this (as I'm sure you have noticed), it only supports the Purple Heart award. For the present, this phrase should be removed. If you can access the Bronze Star citation, of course it will say if the award was for valor, but even the award certificate will expressly state if it was awarded for valor or for meritorious service. The description of the circumstances under which he received one of his Purple Hearts make me more sanguine than you that the award was for valor. Bronze Stars without the V tend to be awarded to desk jockeys who did a really good job in a combat zone, and that doesn't seem to match his experience. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all very much. Excellent suggestions! @Lineagegeek: I want to be sanguine about "with valor" too (I've met Mr. Gade and he seems to be a man of great integrity), but thought I should err on the side of caution. I'll do some more digging. ;o) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Lend a hand?[edit]

G'day all, if you have a few spare minutes, given it is mid-month it would be good to knock over the human checks of Milhistbot's October assessment work here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for October. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Still a few outstanding there. Any help with getting this knocked over before the November lot drops would be awesome. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Support with Maps[edit]

Long, long ago - there was a forum or a portal where one could request assistance in creating maps, diagrams etc. Does that still exist? If yes - how do I reach those guys (I need a military map created for an article)? Any advice would be appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:GL/MAP and WP:GL/ILL (Hohum @) 00:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly what I was looking for! Thx Hohum. Farawayman (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ribbon issue[edit]

Ref. Eirik Kristoffersen#Awards and decorations: Can somebody try to fix the Brigadeveteranforbundet Badge of Honour ribbon?

It works fine in the Norwegian article, and was showing on the English article before I tried to edit the code. --Znuddel (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I think it's because that ribbon image is a PNG rather than an SVG, but you can get around it by using "name=" rather than "ribbon=" to call up the file - Dumelow (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Nice, thanks. --Znuddel (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

John Fitzgerald (United States Coast Guard)[edit]

Notable or not? Ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day Bearian. A colonel equivalent who has only commanded a coast guard cutter with a crew of 70-odd? And mostly written by CaptFitz1987 which may indicate a COI of some sort. Certainly not presumptively notable under WP:SOLDIER, so he would have to rely on meeting the WP:GNG, and a quick Google search doesn't indicate the requisite significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Worth a PROD and AfD if that is rejected. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not notable. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bearian: Any discussion of officer in the United States Coast Guard needs to keep in mind that the coast guard has far fewer admirals than other branches (two, to be exact, according to United_States_Coast_Guard#Commissioned_officers) and that the coast guard is a "bisexual" organization as it were because it operates under the jurisprudence of the United States Department of Homeland Security unless expressly mobilized for war, in which case it operates under the United States Department of Defense. Some consideration then needs to be given to the WP:GNG and to the Biography aspects as opposed to looking at a Coast Guard article exclusively thorough MILHIST prisms. I had in fact made a similar argument some years prior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig B. Lloyd, but I suspect that most of what I wrote there could be said to apply here as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Task forces (periods and conflicts) - missing crucial period[edit]

Hello fellow MilHist Wikipedians. I notice that there is an omission of a 'Task forces (periods and conflicts)' what must be a critical period of time, namely between World War I and World War II. Is there any reason for this omission? Bearing in mind that significant development of many critical technologies took place between the two world wars (from 1918 to 1939), I humbly suggest that a new task force be created. (Ironically, as I type this, the Interwar period article has no task forces!). May I suggest a name for this new task force? Namely: Inter-war. Apologies if this has been discussed before, I was not able to easily find any archived discussion. Best regards. --78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a random observation while I am browsing; if this task force is created, you will definitely want to name it something more specific than "inter-war." Almost every period in history can be described as "inter-war" for one country or another, so the scope of an inprecise task force will be huge. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments duly noted and agreed, thanks. So would Inter-World-Wars be a better naming suggestion? Best regards. --78.32.143.113 (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The other name for the period is "interbellum", or "Between the wars", the period could also be referred to as "1919-1938". But the usage will be in the background of Wikipedia by milhist editors and fellow travellers who know what the term means. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
+1 for "interbellum". - wolf 16:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Once you have settled on a name, this will need to go through the task force incubator process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator; the instructions are detailed on that page, but it is essentially designed to make sure there is enough interest and scope for a group or task force before its creation. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Interbellum, one word, one meaning, no hyphens, no nonsense; synonyms allowed.Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I prefer "interwar" because this is English wikipedia not latin. Our relevant article on the topic is Interwar period, no disambiguation needed. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • "English" has thousands of words imported from other languages; interbellum is not recondite. Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • in my experience, 'Interbellum' is sometimes used to describe the period and it is certainly well enough ingrained in the English language that I'd imagine most people know what it means, or could figure it out-- for instance, we commonly refer to the Antebellum South. With that being said, I do think that the time in-between World Wars is more often called the interwar period, see for instance this ngram, which I think I've put together correctly. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Just an observation, but the task forces really aren't foci of effort anymore, if they ever were. They are almost a way of internally categorising material within scope of the project. I also agree that what is considered the Interbellum period really is quite subject to different points of view, and would need to be tightly defined by date. If you were going ahead with an incubator concept I would suggest 28 June 1919 (the signing of the Treaty of Versailles) to 31 August 1939 (the day Hitler gave the final order for the invasion of Poland). However, we don't need to have a seamless chronology of period task forces, so I am not at all convinced this is needed or even desirable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
          • I agree with PM above about the usefulness of taskforces. When I saw this post I had virtually the same reaction and in all honesty the creation of such a task force might be more of a hassle than actually resulting in an increase of content. The fact that every task force's talk page (as far as I'm aware) goes to the main MilHist page is telling in itself. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Caps question[edit]

So I came across these two:

I'd like to know which is more correct or preferred. Dawnseeker2000 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Capital FKeith-264 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Yet it belongs to Category: Italian Front (World War I) (with a capital "F") and in virtually every source listed in the refs, the "F" is also capitalized. FYI - wolf 00:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Annnd now the Category is proposed for a move a lower-case as well. Wonder where all this will end...? - wolf 15:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That's wrong; most of the sources I checked use lowercase in "Italian front" (e.g. Keegan, Clodfelter, Cassar). Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Page was moved 2019-06-24 fyi - wolf 00:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Overzealous decapper. There was a (mostly) justified project to decap campaign in article titles last year, but this just smacks of mission creep to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yup, should be Front, afaik. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree, but... if only it were that easy. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151#Campaign article titles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Campaign vs campaign. - wolf 01:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Per the consensus above I've WP:Boldy moved it to a capitalized F along with Mines on the Italian Front (World War I) and update the articles appropriately. Aza24 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that, I think I will move it back. The question is whether sources consistently cap this, and I noted before that they do not. Not even close. Compare Western Front. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I love that the opinion of one editor outweighs that of five, but whatever. Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I just showed the data. The "opinions" embodied in the guidelines represent the cumulative experience and opinions of all editors over many years, and are not to be overridden by a project discussion's WP:local consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
There's a case to be made for consistency even though, according to Dicklyon's evidence, it is not the common name. Maybe a RM is in order. (t · c) buidhe 06:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps an RfC is needed. I would suggest here, but apparently subject-specific WikiProjects are irrelevant, so perhaps at MOS:CAPS to address the whole milterm guideline. (jmho) - wolf 13:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not the case. Determinations made at MOS are strictly local consensus, and we can and do override them here, where more people are engaged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As much as I respect your work, Hawkeye, I must take issue with your characterisation of MOS as "local", and a wikiproject as global. It is the reverse. Tony (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I did not charaterise the wikiproject as "global". Each wikiproject establishes its own style rules. All the expertise on the subject is here, and there is no need to fill the MOS with subject-specific guidelines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Um, no. Zero wikiprojects establish their own style rules. Wikiprojects often create PROJPAGE essays ({{WikiProject style advice}}, but these are not guidelines, policies, or any other form of "rule". If a wikiproject is very certain that something in MoS does not meet a topical need, then they propose a change at WT:MOS (or the talk page of the relevant MoS sub-page, e.g. WT:MOSCAPS). And, no, MoS and other site-wide guidelines are not "local", but exactly the opposite. The very reason we have WP:CONLEVEL policy is because ArbCom got tired of again and again telling wikiprojects that they could not make up their own "rules" in defiance of site-wide guidelines and policies. I'm going to assume this is just one random editor who has policy completely backwards, but if anything like this confusion is rampant in this project, that's ... kind of a problem.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
What cause would you have to think that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Old FAs needing checking for whether a FAR is needed[edit]

G'day all, starting this thread to draw attention to WP:URFA/2020 where that went through FAC or FAR before 2016 are listed. I have already started advising principal editors of Milhist articles on this list, but there are some where the principal editors are no longer active. I will list these here as I work my way through the list, in case some project members who have knowledge of these subjects can take a look and form a view about the state of the article and whether it still meets the FA criteria, needs a little work, or needs a lot of work. Please note what your assessment is under the article subsections as I list them. It would be good to have multiple eyes on each article to ensure our views on each one are robust. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a note: at WP:URFA/2020, the aim is not perfection :) We just need to know which articles are in bad enough shape that they may need to be submitted to FAR. That is slightly different than "would pass FAC today". We can allow for minor issues as long as you wouldn't have to hang your head in shame if the article ran on the mainpage. If you feel an article has minor issues only, they can be noted on talk. If you feel an article is good enough to avoid FAR, you can say it is Satisfactory (which doesn't mean perfect). If there are serious deficiencies, they should be noted on article talk and diffed at URFA/2020 indicating that a FAR may be needed. From what I have observed, few MILHIST articles have fallen into as much disrepair as have those in other content areas. But quite a few articles have been chunked up with unnecessary images and MOS:SANDWICH, which we can fix and move on. Please have a careful look at the start of instructions I have put at WP:URFA/2020, to get an idea of the focus. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks SG, I'm sure project members will keep that in mind. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Eastern Solomons[edit]

  • I did a c/e and checked the image licenses, and this looks satisfactory to me, I'd like a second opinion though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, we know I hate collapsed navigational templates :) But ... anything that any two of you deem "Satisfactory", I am likely to add a third "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020 so we can move those off the list. This one meets my standard for not needing a FAR, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd have some minor comments overall at a FAC, but I think this is in good enough shape that it shouldn't be sent through FAR. Hog Farm Bacon 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This article is good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal[edit]

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands[edit]

  • Has an annoying unreferenced last sentence. Otherwise in good shape. See little benefit is a FAR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Couple minor issues, but nothing warranting a FAR here. Could be easily fixed through normal editing. Hog Farm Bacon 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Rennell Island[edit]

Toledo War[edit]

Corinthian War[edit]

The largest active contributor to this article is unable to help here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Battle of Blenheim[edit]

I have nominated Battle of Blenheim for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think that is over-enthusiastic given the restrictions on numbers of FAR noms, and given the comments were only made on 9 November and aren't actually all that major. Much of the material tagged for citation needed could just be deleted as uncited and unneeded additions since its promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
There are so many really deficient articles noticed that I wish we could leave MILHIST time to sort through theirs, and focus on others, in particular, those that seem to have no one watching them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
That's fine by me, and I'm already skipping those articles on WP:URFA/2020, but when I noticed Blenheim (also Structural history of the Roman military, just to give the heads-up) on its talk page some weeks ago there was no indication that WP:MILHIST would engage in the effort as they're doing now, in a systematic manner (since 4 or so days ago? - we also did not have the list to facilitate matters). We kinda went about it at two speeds here, and Blenheim was caught in the middle. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
A high portion of the MILHIST ones seem to be fine. Historical, so they don't get outdated most of the time, and monitored enough or obscure enough that uncited additions don't pile up. Hog Farm Bacon 04:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Dreadnought class battleship[edit]

The {{Dreadnought class battleship}} template has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing article? Sentry (military)[edit]

I recently came across a bad link to sentries in Ivory Coast expedition. The DAB page didn't help a lot, but after some digging around I settled on picket (military) as the next best thing. During my travels, I came across sentry box; which linked uselessly to sentry (disambiguation).

We have an article on vedette (sentry), which in the sense I'm thinking of is a sentry with a horse. We do not seem to have an article on the PBI meaning; which ranges from the ceremonial ("They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace") through the routinely practical (guards at gatehouses, or over gunpowder, the rum store, or a gibbet (The Widow of Ephesus)) to the short-straw job from Antiquity onward ("You stay awake while the rest of us sleep, and raise the alarm if we're attacked - and do try not to get killed").

An anthem song in English, and another in German (parallel text) (The German Lied feels accurate - my father once told me that two of his sentries were knifed in Normandy in 1944.)

As it's this time of year, Santa Clausewitz. Narky Blert (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Iran has designated the US Armed forces as a "Terrorist Organization". A pair of users added this item, with refs, to the lead of the US Armed Forces page, as well as the leads of all the branch articles. The additions have been removed by multiple editors. A discussion on the issue has been started on the US Armed Forces talk page. I'm posting this here in case anyone would like to contribute. Cheers - wolf 15:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Tank-related RM could use more input[edit]

Talk:List_of_tanks_of_the_Soviet_Union#Requested_move_5_November_2020 thanks! (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)