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 October 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 Central Africa Regiment • Gordon Cooper • Jack Critchley • First Jewish–Roman War Featured article review Augustus Featured list candidates List of Royal Navy flag officers who died during the First World War Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Tailhook scandal • HMS Hyperion (1807) • Operation Matterhorn • Manhattan Project feed materials program • Battle of Guam (1944) • 2002 Marib airstrike • Zungeni Mountain skirmish • 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état • Operation Forager logistics • Bertrand_Clauzel • Emperor Tenmu • SMS Prinz Heinrich • USS Missouri (1841) • 1994 Serb Jastreb J-21 shootdown • Second Battle of Lexington • John Cecil Russell • 1931 Salvadoran coup d'état • HMS Lizard (1757) • Battle of Edington • 2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters Peer reviews Sylvain Charles Valée • Revolutions of 1848 • USCGC Dione • Crusading movement • Cold War • Marching Through Georgia Good article nominees Allied prisoners of war of Japan • Prisoners of war in World War II • Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists • Beaune-la-Rolande internment camp • Gordon Klingenschmitt • Joe Kent • James "Spanish" Blake • John S. Bennett • CRINK • Ahmad Shah Durrani • John S. Westcott • Alan Macfarlane Sloan • Battle of Hrvatska Kostajnica • Florence Nightingale • Death of James Cook • Tamara Bunke • Invention Secrecy Act • Born secret • Mordechai Schlein • Plumbbob Hood • 2009 United States attacks in Yemen • Ednyfed Fychan • Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act 1916 • 2010 Marib airstrike • German AB-Aktion in Poland • Sikh Intervention in Gilgit • Niall Garbh O'Donnell • Don Bacon • Gerald Carr (astronaut) • Louis Adrian • Havana syndrome • Charles Thau • 1914 fleet review • Hugh Roe O'Donnell • Great Blow • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1408–1418) • Battle of Marion • Jean-Pierre Lévy (resistance leader) • Trichy assault rifle • Habicht-class gunboat • SMS Schwalbe (1860) • SMS Panther (1901) • SMS Basilisk (1878) • Raymond Cammock • Lan Yu (general) • Lam Sơn uprising • Thomas Mooney (American chaplain) • Enver Pasha's campaign in Bukhara (1922) Good article reassessments Medal of Honor • Junkers Ju 87 • Kenneth Dewar • Charles R. Forbes • Gunpowder artillery in the Middle Ages • 17th Special Operations Squadron • Shortwave listening • Battle of Long Island • Hindu–German Conspiracy • Battle of Borodino Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (153,930) • only work on referencing and citation (39,927) • work on coverage and accuracy (132,521) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,052) • work on structure (32,215) • only work on structure (325) • work on grammar (8,058) • only work on grammar (52) • work on supporting materials (33,138) • only work on supporting materials (393) • assessment (4) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (13) • task forces added (5) • attention to task force coverage (647)

Requests for project input

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.

Requested move at Talk:2020 Trump Israel–Palestine plan#Requested move 4 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2020 Trump Israel–Palestine plan#Requested move 4 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. WhatADrag07 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move for Knowledge of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Knowledge_of_the_Holocaust_in_Nazi_Germany_and_German-occupied_Europe that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wolfdog (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria#Requested move 5 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria#Requested move 5 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested Move Talk:Siege of Nishapur (1221)#Requested move 20 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Nishapur (1221)#Requested move 20 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shadow. 547 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Shortwave listening

Shortwave listening 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) 00:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Long Island

Battle of Long Island 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) 01:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hindu–German Conspiracy

Hindu–German Conspiracy 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) 01:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Borodino

Battle of Borodino 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) 01:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Fort Doyles are confusing

So, within the Bailiwick of Guernsey there are 2 Fort Doyles: the Fort Doyle in Guernsey, and Draft:Fort Doyle (Alderney) on Alderney, and Wikidata has them as both the same and different.

why must it be this way?

[1] (guernsey one on German Wikipedia)

[2] (Alderney one linked to the guernsey one’s page on English Wikipedia and has info for the Guernsey one) PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 01:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

There are in fact two Fort Doyles. One is an old castle in the Guernsey district on the island of Guernsey. One is an old fort in the Alderney district. This is shown on mapcarta but I can't save a link because I received a message that the site is on the blacklist for Wikipedia when I tried to save it. Maybe there are other sites that show the same thing. As I am sure you have seen, the draft has no content at this time. I don't know whether it is entirely clear whether the one in Guernsey was incorporated into the Atlantic Wall. It appears that the Alderney fort was incorporated into the wall based on a quick search listing other online sources. Perhaps the German article actually does refer to the Alderney fort because of the incorporation into the wall, but they refer to it as Guernsey, for the island of Guernsey, rather than the identically named (and somewhat confusing) district on the island? (I can't read German so I don't know if any clue can be discerned about which of the two "forts" (or both?) that the German article may refer to.) Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I know that both existed, that during the German occupation the Germans would repurpose forts. The draft is empty because I made it yesterday. But the Wikidata and articles say that the guernsey one is the Alderney one, and that both Wikidata entries have data from both forts mixed. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 12:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't focus on that aspect of the problem. The contradictions within Wikipedia itself certainly confuse this. Perhaps a request for comment generally could bring more comments if this page does not generate more. It seems that the contradictions within Wikipedia itself need to be corrected based on reliable, verifiable sources. Perhaps RfC might be the best way to do that or gain agreement on doing that as well? Donner60 (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

On wikidata too. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 02:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s an RfC now because it seems like that’d help get more perspective and end this. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 02:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a RfC is an appropriate solution to this. First, it's early. Only one person has weighed in, and this is a novel question (see WP:RFCBEFORE). Second, there isn't a question here that a RfC can solve yet. Someone, ideally you, would look for available sources that could clear this up on Wikipedia. Third, a Wikipedia RfC can't enforce changes on Wikidata. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikidata are linked. If we can solve the problem on both sides by getting the right data for the right article, then we wont need this RfC anymore. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 11:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggested an RfC in the hope it would get more eyes on the problem than just listing it here, not in the sense that there is a dispute or similar problem to be solved. Perhaps that is not an appropriate way to achieve the desired result. In any event, I agree that the goal is to encourage someone to find reliable sources to clear up the confusion and presumably erroneous or contradictory information. This has obviously been caused by two different sites having the same name and the need to make clear what data or information applies to each site. Whether an RfC may draw more help than the post here, if properly framed, is hard for me to predict, of course. Donner60 (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

November 2025 Article Improvement Drive

The Article Improvement Drive is a backlog reduction drive, which will run from 00:01 UTC on 1 November through to 23:59 UTC on 30 November 2025. The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project; however, only work on articles whose talk pages are tagged with with WikiProject Military History banner will be considered eligible. This year the drive is focused on eliminating four specific backlogs:

Articles tagged as citing no sources (around 1,100 articles) Category:Military history articles needing attention only to structure (around 300 articles) Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials (around 400 articles) Category:Military history articles needing attention only to grammar (around 50 articles) Points will also be awarded for improving articles to B-class, to further our long-term goal of having 15% of all articles at or above this level, and carrying out assessments of articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests.

The drive coincides with Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2025 and editors may wish to participate in both drives. To participate, see the last two sections at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/November 2025 Article Improvement Drive

Wargames?

Are wargames within the scope of this WikiProject? The draft I'm specifically referring to is Draft:Standard Combat Series. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say at least some are, considering Squad Leader has the MilHist banner. With your linked draft article, I'd have concerns about both notability and sourcing. It's mainly a list of games and none of the mechanics discussed so far appear especially innovative. You'd need to find some third party RS (reviews of the games, discussion of mechanics, and so on) to get it over that hurdle in my view. Intothatdarkness 14:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The relevant entry in our scope is "8. Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose". I remember a similar discussion a few years back about historical re-enactment groups, but I don't think we came to a hard and fast definition. There was an acknowledgement that some were in scope and some not, I think on the basis of how historically accurate they were (so yes to The Sealed Knot but no to the Society for Creative Anachronism). I would say it would be a similar situation here - Dumelow (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Charles M. Schulz § GA/FA plans

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Charles M. Schulz § GA/FA plans, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

If the only military connection is his brief WWII army service as a staff sergeant I would suggest he is not within our project's scope per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#cite_ref-3 - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

November article improvement drive

Starting on 1 November the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! - Dumelow (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 234, October 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Three Wikipedia editors review five books Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How specific can pages be?

i have some really detailed info on what each version launch platform each kind of a missile has + their maximum G load however i would've thought this info would already be avalible. is there a limit to how info dense a page can be? what's an example of the bare minimum below this limit? HamezBoi (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a platform you are referring to? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, twas a typo I meant to say “what each versions launch platform is” as in the platforms say an AIM-120 was fitted to HamezBoi (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Please note that your information must comply with our policies on verifiability, no original research and reliability of sources. What is the source of your data, and the provenance of its reliability? I'm interested in this because i play war thunder and, consiquently i'm constantly searching for new and interesting missiles, avionics and aircraft and their specifications. However, wikipedia not the most detailed about specifics and i can spend hours before i find credible sources and i would like to help others so they don't waste their time. -- this comment from your talk page gives me pause and raises some concerns. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The source of my data would be flight and operators manuals and standard missile characteristics documents, which does comply with variability and no original research HamezBoi (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

To be blunt: I'm not sure I trust that explanation. For instance, if we look at these edits, you attribute to Parsch 2002 that the "AGM-78 passive radar seeker tuned to MiG-25 radar frequencies" and that its cancellation was because of "propriety towards the MiG-25". However Parsch 2002 says nothing of the sort -- it does not make any mention whatsoever about any kind of passive radar seeker, let alone one "tuned to MiG-25 radar frequencies"; similarly it does not state any reason for the cancellation at all. We take misrepresentation of sources very seriously here; I'm curious why you made multiple edits citing content that does not exist in the source, and why that should engender confidence that you're going to do better with information that somehow nobody else on the internet has seen fit to add up to this point? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

i apologise i have got my notes mixed up on the specifics of the MiG-25 radar frequencies as the sources i have noted for these pieces of information doesn't match where i remember getting it from. i used the qoute "The Seekbat used a larger propulsion unit than the AGM-78, and supplemented the latter's radar seeker with an infrared homing device." from parsch, so while it is passive radar homing it doesn't state the MiG-25. if you're ok with it i'll make the edits to say that it did use a passive radar seeker but remove any mention of it being tuned to the MiG-25's radar. HamezBoi (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned about the reference to publishing details from the manuals of missiles. Unless these are declassified and publicly available, it could be a very serious crime to have copies of these manuals in your possession and publishing this information would also be a serious crime. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m all for reliable sources, but like @Nick-D said, it might not be in our best interest to use classified military documents. It’s a crime in a lot of places. Also, I’m pretty sure Wikipedia has special policies for Wikipedia:No original research against primary sources. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 11:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nick-D i see, i do still have a large catalogue of websites such as parsch furtheremore these military documents have been declassified first as i have checked, so i don't currently own any military information that would be a felony to keep. HamezBoi (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Royal Danish Air Force

Royal Danish Air Force needs some form of edit protection as an IP keeps adding 16 F-35 to the total of ordered fighters, even though these 16 are merely a stated intention by the Danish government rather than a firm order. Thank you, noclador (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Posting at WP:RFPP usually gets the fastest response. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

HMS Coventry expansion for Operation Blackleg

Hi folks, I'm helping someone on IRC with Draft:Operation Blackleg. At the moment I feel like it's just too detailed/into the weeds of specifics, and the essential details could just be fit into HMS Coventry (D118) as a separate section (currently mentioned in the Tribute section) but I thought I'd get opinions from this project. Is there enough in the draft to merit its own article? Cheers, Primefac (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure. This version was reasearched and compliled by myself using reference material from the official operation report to Admiralty and other sources such as the BBC. Alos Captain Hart-Dykes book Four Weeks in May. I was a memmber of the team and recently completed my Bachelor of Journalism in 2021. I took it upon myself and felt it encumbant on me to write the historic dive into the records. Who else is going to write the account? Very liitle was wriiten or known for 30 years due to the Official Secrets Act. This dive is on a level, if not surpassing the recovery of gold from HMS Edinburgh. One was for profit , Operation Blackleg was for duty to country and NATO. The operation deserves is own entry into all encylopedias. Thank you for your consderation and time. Devargo007 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that it really depends on the availability of published reliable sources. If enough are available to support a detailed article, I don't see why we shouldn't have one as well as appropriate coverage in the article on the ship per WP:NOTPAPER. Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

https://www.vernonlink.uk/

another verifiable resource Devargo007 (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The article desperately inline citations. Also, where is this source from? "Operation Blackleg, Procurement Executive Ministry of Defence, Admiralty Marine Technology Establishment Experimental Diving Unit, Report of Procedure 8 July 1983 NS Hawkins/ MD Kooner". Presumably it was secret or restricted back in 1983: has it been unclassified? —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes now unclassified Devargo007 (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/November 2025 Article Improvement Drive has begun!

The focus of this drive is on adding references to unsourced MILHIST articles and improving MILHIST articles to the b-class level. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Another reviewer?

G'day all, I currently have Jack Critchley at FAC, and while I acknowledge he didn't have a significant military career, I am on the hunt for another prose review and a source review before the FAC coords archive it due to lack of progress. Thanks to HF for already having had a look and Nikkimaria for looking at the images. The review page is here. Any comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gaza war#Requested move 4 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gaza war#Requested move 4 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 03:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)