Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The August 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 Jozo Tomasevich • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman Featured list candidates List of Eureka Stockade defenders Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments Tsugaru clan • 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,993) • only work on referencing and citation (43,200) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,201) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,789) • work on structure (31,837) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,171) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,839) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (1) • assessment as lists (1) • project tags fixed (15) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (0) • task forces added (0) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Space before unit symbol

MilHist project members led by Hohum (center) defend a hill.

I noticed 14.5×114mm and moved it to 14.5×114 mm per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS. Then I noticed there are a bunch more like this. The space seems common enough in sources, and is in agreement with international standards on SI units, as well as our own MOS. Any objection if I fix more of these? Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on that page, shouldn't it be 14.5 × 114 mm? Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes, thrice yes. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It may not be technically accurate, but is it such common practice within the field that ammunition is specified without spaces that we should follow that practice? (Hohum ^@) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if the practice is no spaces in the academic literature, I'm not sure that conforming to a broader Wikipedia standard here is something we should get up in arms about. Things like names of specific units or even dates are something, but the placement of spaces in the size of an artillery piece is not the hill to die on. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The hill I am standing on was made by a mole. (Hohum ^@) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are some observations from n-gram stats:

1. Until recently, the "x" is more common than the "×".
2. With the "x", the unspaced mm was more common than spaced in the 1990s, but otherwise mostly the spaced mm dominates.
3. With the "×", the spaced mm is more common over time.
4. The versions with no space between "x" and number are not found (not enough to show up in n-gram stats, or don't match the pattern due to a number before the "x").
5. Versions with no space between "×" and number are not tabulated, as the book n-grams parsing also treats the "×" as a separate word (like it does with hyphens and apostrophes).

So I'd say putting in all the spaces and keeping the "×", as our MOS suggests, is plenty common in sources, and should not be controversial. If there's a tendency in the ammunition field to do differently, it's not obvious. So I'll plan to work on fixing those, unless someone objects and wants to see an RM discussion. ... I just noticed the MOS also suggests units on each number, as "14.5 mm × 114 mm", but I'm pretty sure that's not going to fly here (though this book does it, sometimes). I'll ask about that at the MOS talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I asked at WT:MOSNUM#Ammunition calibre/length naming conventions about revising that bit of the guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It sounds there like several would rather treat it as a name to which the MOS does not apply. If so, how would people prefer to style it? Still follow MOS:NUM on the spaces and cross, but omit the repeated mm? Or something else? Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at scholarly papers, my impression is that the space before the mm is always there, the spaces in the middle are more common than not, and the cross is more common than the x. But this paper has it every which way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, works by scientists are going to tend to use notation they are familiar with, as are military works and military historians. I think scientific study is the outlier here. Repeating the mm looks very unusual. Presumably most people searching for a specific ammunition will type in and recognise what they are used to, which is probably unspaced everything, and an x, even if this is technically incorrect. It's not a hill I'm prepared to die on though. (Hohum ^@) 23:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We do have redirects, you know, so people can type it in any way they like. Nobody needs to die on any hills or be otherwise inconvenienced by whatever style we choose. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not use spaces and ×, except for bullet dimensions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If a great majority of sources didn't use those spaces, that would be a sensible exception to ask for (that pretty much how the MOS treats other styling exceptions). I think a great majority don't use the first mm, but the spacing is really very mixed, so we might as well use WP style for that, no?. Dicklyon (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Google search is not very good at separating and counting the variations, which are numerous. I just found another in a couple of books: "14.5 × 114mm", and sometimes with conversion "14.5 × 114mm (.57 calibre) round". Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So I propose "14.5 × 114 mm" and such. Keith, I can't tell if you're supporting, objecting, or otherwise this as a plan. Anyone else? Dicklyon (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral. What do the sources day? IMAO several MOS typographical guidelines are based on the preferences of anally-retentive C19 (especially American) compositors, and we should not allow their digestive problems to override common practice in specialised areas. Narky Blert (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Common practice is all over the map, and per WP:CONLEVEL and WP:SSF, we don't generally let specialized areas override central consensus guidelines, so I don't think your comment is helping here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  On the contrary; if there is no common practice, we should follow the MOS both in the spacing and style of the x and the spacing of the unit. Narky Blert (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  OK, good. I may have misinterpreted your nasty remark about the MOS before. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss further, we should do a multi-RM. I'll go ahead and start some moves, and if anyone reverts or objects I'll open the RM. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Flags of Bavarian commanders at the Assault of Brussels (1708)

I have just created a page for the Assault on Brussels (1708), a battle during the War of the Spanish Succession, but I am not sure what flags to use for the commanders on the Bourbon side. Maximilian of Bavaria and D'Arco were from the Electorate of Bavaria but after 1704 Bavaria was occupied by Austria. Maximilian and D'Arco subsequently went into exile with few of their troops. However, despite these two commanders leading this assault on Brussels, I have no source that states that Bavarian troops joined the French in their assaults. Should I in this instance show Bavaria as a belligerent? And should I show the flag of Bavaria next to Maximilian and D'Arco or rather the flags of the troops they commanded? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to not use flags at all in this article. They seem to me to be more likely to confuse than enlighten a reader. See WP:MILMOS#FLAGS. And is there a reason for representing France with the royal standard rather than the national flag? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Which national flag? The modern flag?

As for your other point. You might be right that it is can be confusing, but that still leaves us with the question if Bavaria should be mentioned at all in the infobox. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As a combatant? I don't think so. You can show that two Bavarians participated, which hardly qualifies, even if one was the titular ruler. (Given the state of the HRE at the time "ruler" is probably over generous at the best of times, which these weren't.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @DavidDijkgraaf! After a bit of research (I can list the sources in the article's talk page), I was able to locate the remaining Bavarian troops in the French alliance. They were part of Berwick's Rhine army defending Alsace and the lines of the Lauter and Saar rivers. They still stayed there when Berwick was called to Flanders. When Maximilian Emanuel set off for his temporary residence at Mons to rally troops for the assault, almost no Bavarian troops accompanied him. He gathered local garrisons into a small assault force, probably either French or "pro-French" Spanish troops. The only Bavarian troops participating that I could identify were 3 squadrons of his guard and the personal regiment of Comte d'Arco. Therefore Bavaria should not be listed as a combatant. When it comes to flags, all choices seem misleading to me. Maximilian still commanded over Bavarian troops -but not here, he still called himself ruler of Bavaria - but was outlawed and in exile, he wasn't Governor of the Spanish Netherlands anymore - but still governed over parts of it from time to time. So preferably no flags either. Palastwache (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Palastwache Thank you very much! Yeah, you're probably right that the situation was to complex to have flags for the Bourbon commanders. As for the combatant status. 3 Bavarian squadrons and one regiment still seems significant enough to include them. They only reason not to seems to be if these Bavarian troops served within the French or Spanish armies. Maybe I am wrong though. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily see it as a significant force but given the small size of the overall army and the presence of the personal guard of the (titular) ruler, you might still list it. Palastwache (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the overal army just consisted of 14 battalions and 18 squadrons. Could you give me the source for the precense of Bavarian troops btw? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've just added it on the article's talk page :) Palastwache (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Thomas C. Hindman

I have nominated Thomas C. Hindman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson has an RfC

Woodrow Wilson 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) 02:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Halen 1914

Filled in some missing citations only to notice that text from Hove, P. van den (2014). "Halen, 12th of August, 1914: A Forgotten Battle in a Forgotten Landscape?". Brussels: Flanders Heritage Agency. Retrieved 23 December 2019 appears to have been pasted in rather than paraphrased. Copy edited the section but it might do with another look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Elmer W. Harris

Please see discussion at Talk:Elmer W. Harris#Elmer W. Harris where the content of the article and the subject's status as a Korean War fighter ace are disputed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Trịnh Tố Tâm advice

Howdy. I created Trịnh Tố Tâm through using the Vietnamese article as a base. The statement that he personally killed 272 enemies during the Vietnam War is exceptional, but I can't find any sources that criticize that number. I'm not sure I'm the one to tell what's propaganda or not. Would it be incorrect to use words such as "allegedly" or "claimed" as I did in the article, or would this be a mild form of WP:OR as the sources do not seem to use this language? With this exceptionalism in mind, what articles would you link to this one in order to de-orphan in? Mbdfar (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance

Hello! There has been several threads, some archived, about which of his decorations should be mentioned where in the article, like the infobox, and if a primary source should be used. One ongoing thread is Talk:JD_Vance#Why_do_you_keep_deleting_his_medals?, and it lists some other threads. If you have an opinion, please join. In case you didn't know, JD Vance is Donald Trumps VP-candidate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia:Ownership of content. There is consensus on the inclusion of medals yet you seem to have devoted an inordinate amount of time in pushing for undue change. Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and perhaps you could take a break from hyperediting a single article above all. There is also no need for Wikipedia:Canvassing. 73.123.180.173 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus to include them. His awards are in the category of "was present with a pulse"; I have all of his same medals (or the Army equivalent) with the exception of the sea service medal. They're routine, run-of-the-mill awards that are handed out by the literal hundreds of thousands, and they do not belong in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If there was consensus to include the medal, we wouldn't have like ten separate discussions on the topic. There's more discussions than Vance has medals. Cortador (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024

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: Hawkeye7 looks at two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

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) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move that would benefit from further views

Please see: Talk:Air raids on Australia, 1942–1943#Requested move 25 July 2024 for a discussion of the best title for this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Göring has an RfC

Hermann Göring 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) 00:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Philippe Pétain has an RfC

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) 02:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 130th Engineer Brigade (United States)

130th Engineer Brigade (United States) 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. Hog Farm _Talk 23:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)