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 February 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 Yugoslav torpedo boat T8 • Crusading movement • Manhattan Project feed materials program • Diaspora Revolt • Battle of Goodrich's Landing • Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech-ring • Brighton War Memorial Featured article review Augustus • Douglas MacArthur • USS Kearsarge (BB-5) A-Class review Bertrand Clauzel • USS Missouri (1841) • 1931 Salvadoran coup d'état • HMS Lizard (1757) • Battle of Edington • 2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters • USCGC Dione • Battle of 42nd Street • Scharnhorst-class cruiser • Transocean Air Lines Flight 942 • Richard Thomas Glyn • USS Anzio (CVE-57) • Savannah River Site • Landing at Scarlet Beach • Savannah River Plant • Menéndez's revolution Peer reviews Battle of Diamond Rock • September 11 attacks Good article nominees Sailor tattoos • Niall Garbh O'Donnell • Hugh O'Donnell, 2nd Earl of Tyrconnell • Reign of Augustus • Rise of Augustus • Early life of Augustus • Joscelin II, Count of Edessa • John S. Westcott • Mordechai Schlein • AB-Aktion • Joscelin I, Count of Edessa • 1918 annexation of Vojvodina • Battle of the Bloody Hills (1637) • Tamara Bunke • Gopal Mukund Huddar • Hong Chengchou • Ming–Việt War • The Monuments Men (book) • Invention Secrecy Act • Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act 1916 • CRINK • Andrew Hastie • Sachio Ashida • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1422–1423) • Type IX submarine • Siege of Ravenna (539–540) • Mihir K. Roy • 1987 Aegean crisis • Military logistics • Siege of Naples (542–543) • Siege of Panormus • Battle of Faventia • Battle of Mucellium • Battle of Treviso • Siege of Milan (538–539) • Siege of Salona (537) • Battle of Taginae • Iltis-class gunboat • SMS Wespe (1860) • SMS Crocodill (1879) • Pak Chin • Siege of Amida (502–503) • Battle of Lynchburg • Siege of Urbinus Good article reassessments III Armored Corps • Liao dynasty • Sutton Wick air crash Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (155,408) • only work on referencing and citation (39,976) • work on coverage and accuracy (134,324) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,104) • work on structure (32,301) • only work on structure (316) • work on grammar (8,079) • only work on grammar (52) • work on supporting materials (33,363) • only work on supporting materials (395) • assessment (1) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (10) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (0) • task forces added (216) • attention to task force coverage (644)

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.

Nomination of Louis C. Graziano for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louis C. Graziano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis C. Graziano until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ckfasdf (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fort Southerland

An editor has requested that Fort Southerland be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Operation Northwoods#Requested move 18 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Northwoods#Requested move 18 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kim Yong-hyun (general)#Requested move 19 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kim Yong-hyun (general)#Requested move 19 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Majorca#Requested move 19 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Majorca#Requested move 19 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. veko. (user | talk | contribs) [he/him] 14:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Baldwin IV of Jerusalem#Requested move 26 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Baldwin IV of Jerusalem#Requested move 26 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Iran–Israel war#Requested move 19 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iran–Israel war#Requested move 19 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran#Requested move 28 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Twelve-Day War#Requested move 28 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Twelve-Day War#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Cfls (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran#Requested move 28 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Cfls (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:US-Iran War#Requested move 28 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:US-Iran War#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran#Requested move 28 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wilhelm Baur

The article Wilhelm Baur has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. A Google search found only literally footnotes in books about the Third Reich. Fails the relevant notability guidelines and outcomes at WP:AFD, which have deleted most 2- and 3-star generals. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet#Requested move 24 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet#Requested move 24 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Second Cold War § Term or series?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Second Cold War § Term or series?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. George Ho (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Italian official histories

In case anyone else didn't know, the Biblioteca Militari has been uploading the Italian official history on Archives.org eg [1] here.

Joe George

Hello, a while back I created a stub for Joe George and was hoping some MilHist editors could assist in incorporating him into a few articles. I started to give it a go but these articles are written so well I didn't want to make a mockery. The articles I believe would benefit from inclusion would be USS Vestal, USS Arizona, Cassin Young and Donald Stratton. Any assistance or input is appreciated. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Results Section of Vietnam War Battle Articles

A number of "Operation X" articles in the Vietnam War campaign box seems to be improperly using a battle template, or providing misleading conclusions in the results sections.

An example is Operation Wheeler/Wallowa, which states in the template box, Result - US operational success.

This is openly contradicted in the -Aftermath - section which states "Until reinforcements arrived from North Vietnam the 2nd Division would be only marginally combat effective. PAVN reinforcements arrived in 1969 and the area was never fully pacified."

There is an issue with this being original research when it makes conclusions about a "victory" or "success" when neither the source material or even article describes it as such.

Many of these sources used for these articles are operational-level after action reports which almost never uses terms like "victory" or "success". These sources are working documents and not historical analysis. In other words, making these conclusions is simply not appropriate since they are not necessarily evaluations of battles that took place, rather they are descriptions of military activity and authors do not make these conclusions.

I am requesting comment on whether Results should simply be left out or whether it should be changed. A number of articles have this issue listed here:

Outline of the Vietnam War - Operation Hump - Operation Harvest Moon - Operation Marauder - Operation Van Buren - And so-on.

Summerhall fire (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Your example is clearly flawed. The Results section deals with the immediate operation. You're trying to wedge the outcome of the entire conflict into a single inbox line. If you have other RS that provide results for an operation, they should be used. For example, the Army's history of Vietnam (Taking the Offensive, p 283) considers the outcome of Wheeler/Wallowa to be "inconclusive," so that could be cited and used. However, it's also important to understand how the operations might have been viewed at the time. So it's quite possible for an operation to be considered successful at the time but reevaluated later. Intothatdarkness 02:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

not sure how a conclusive statement at a point in time is even relevant when outcomes have to be approached from its overall effects on a campaign or conflict.

An example I would draw is Operation Barbarossa, which was immediately hailed as a success by German commanders at the time, but evaluated from a historical perspective it is seen as a failure due it having overstretched German lines and leaving them vulnerable to a Soviet counteroffensive. Source And in much the same way, a conflict like the one I used which saw a failed military strategy be used without much progress, one should evaluate any operation from what it achieved in the months or even years after it concludes Summerhall fire (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Not really. RS will still designate some operations as successful within the context of what was desired at the time regardless of the final outcome of the war. Using your logic, every German or Japanese military operation in World War II should be listed as Unsuccessful. If RS lists an operation as successful or inconclusive that's what we should be using. Intothatdarkness 22:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

not quite. I am not referencing the ultimate end State of a war, rather how an operation affects an overall campaign. Operation Barbarossa is assessed as a failure in the aftermath of it, despite making immense gains for the Axis. But it took many more steps and battles until they lost the war. Summerhall fire (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you think you're pulling "overall campaign" from in the context of Vietnam. Again, your basic premise here feels flawed. Intothatdarkness 12:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

US operational success contradicts Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You should have a look at the Results section of the Tet Offensive article. It seems to violate this requirement thoroughly. Summerhall fire (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is likely the changing histography on the war and the way it's presented in high and low quality sources. For a long time the common wisdom was that the US and non South Vietnamese allied forces never lost a battle in the Vietnam War, yet lost the war. The more modern histography identifies quite a few battles that were defeats, but this is yet to filter through into more popular sources. The Australian Official History of the war, for instance, notes a number of engagements where the Australian Army was defeated and concludes that its entire campaign in South Vietnam was a failure. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been reading a new book on Vietnam, and will have a review for the next issue of the Bugle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

As US strategy for most of the war was one of attrition and success was largely measured by body count, it is always debatable if a particular operation was a success or inconclusive. Meanwhile the PAVN/VC almost always claimed victory by revising their aims to reflect the outcome. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily, this is an original research claim you are making. The sources mentioned above include actual objectives to remove opposing forces from a region or weaken their control over routes and rural areas. The war was not simply about killing everything in sight as you implied. Summerhall fire (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm getting a sense you're driving a particular POV with this, so I see no point in continuing the discussion. Intothatdarkness 12:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Royal Navy Naval Historical Branch

Has now posted a selection of Official Histories, Naval Staff Histories and the like on its website [2], which appears to a very useful resource.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, that's really useful. I'd note that the RN staff history on the 'war with Japan' at the bottom of the page is a really detailed and useful resource that provides information on US operations in the Pacific that's not readily available elsewhere as well as lots of detail on RN operations. The set of this history I used to draw on was destroyed in a library flood, so it's great to see it appearing online. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Kites as ship armament

During WWII, SS Empire Star was armed, as were many merchant ships. Part of her armament was kites. Does this mean the toy kite, or something else? Is there a relevant article to link to? Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I would have thought the kite referred to the paravane. —Simon Harley (Talk). 07:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Simon Harley. I've added a link to the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Mjroots, see also the Sauls' Barrage Kite, an "an anti-aircraft device flown from merchant ships in World War II", intended to discourage low-level and dive-bombing attacks. Various other types of barrage kites are described in The U.S. Army Barrage Balloon Program (p. 32). There's a brief mention at Kite applications#Military.

Alansplodge (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: I've added a note re the two types of kite. Let me know what you think/amend as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles backlog drive

Hi all. Just a note that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles March backlog drive is open for sign-ups. We had great success in November with our MILHIST Article Improvement Drive that added sources to 663 unreferenced articles. The current list of MILHIST unreferenced articles stands at 591 so it's not impossible that we could clear this completely, which would be a great outcome - Dumelow (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The backlog drive is now open, with the MILHIST backlog currently standing at 581 articles, any help in reducing this by adding citations to unreferenced articles would be great. Please remember to tag one edit per article with "MAR26" if you wish to participate in the drive and be eligible for barnstars etc. Some of these articles, listed below, have been tagged for more than 15 years! All the best - Dumelow (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Revolutionary Popular Forces Lorenzo Zelaya
• Staffelführer
• VF-133
• Timeline of the Hellenic Army
• Tripartite Accord
• Syntagmatarchis
• Song Hun
• Roman switch line - at AFD
• Jan Roháč of Dubá
• Tobang
• Juan Bautista Vargas Arreola
• Revolutionary Association - at AFD
• Ren Zhu
• List of tank guns
• Douwe Aukes
• Army Aviation School
• Communal Depot of the Foreign Regiments
• Hueste
• Vandenberg Launch Facility 5
• Vandenberg Launch Facility 8
• Vandenberg Launch Facility 9
• Jaan Usin
• Guardia di Finanza Air Maritime Exploration Squadron
• Battle of Pieve al Toppo

Aircraft identification required

What is the make and model of this aircraft please? Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you give a year that the Camp d'Aviation de Cazaux happened?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: the file at commons states "between 1905 and 1910". Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the aircraft is pre-WW1 - it carries roundels which would suggest it was taken during or after the war.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

If it helps, the aircraft carries the serial H312. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It rather resembles a SPAD S.VII, built from 1916-18, judging by the engine cowling and angular wingtips. Later SPAD models had more rounded wingtips. Open to correction though, it's not really my field of expertise. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a pre-war aircraft IMO, but I'm not that familiar with French aircraft. So count me dubious about the dating by the uploader.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this is probably Cazaux Air Base rather than an event. The enwiki article is a bit scrappy but fr:Base aérienne 120 Cazaux suggests established early in WWI, which would fit with the style of the plane. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think "camp d'aviation" translates as "airfield" rather than a camp in the English sense (caveat: failed French O-Level in 1975). Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Salmson 2? Keith-264 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a better fit than the Spad. The square tail planes are a good match. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Concur. Tail planes, wing profile, and cowl match. Intothatdarkness 12:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

On a different tack, the insignia illustrated is a French pilot's badge, that was first issued by the Aéronautique Militaire in September 1916. Ref: The Lafayette Escadrille: A Photo History of the First American Fighter Squadron Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Somewhat to my surprise I passed my French O-level in 1978; I wasn't surprised that I failed Maths though. I passed the Maths O-level in the November retakes, that was a surprise, zut alors! Keith-264 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added a couple more categories to the image at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 238, February 2026

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, Hog Farm and Nick-D review four works Op-ed: GGOTCC discusses the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships 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) 12:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Help with cleaning up unreliable source

According to Intelligence Online (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 [Wikipedia Library links]), the website at antikor.com.ua is part of a network of websites that post unreliable content (quote is from part 2):

The Antikor portal is also the subject of criminal proceedings in Ukraine on suspicion of invasion of privacy and extortion: several businessmen, including Yevhen Chernyak, have sued it for spreading false information. A May 2024 ruling by the cout of appeal in Chernihiv, northern Ukraine, found that articles published by the Antikor portal about Chernyak and his spirits business were defamatory. An investigation by Ukrainian organisation BlackBox OSINT published in November describes the Antikor portal as "a platform exclusively for publishing commissioned documents and editorial articles about individuals and companies containing unreliable and compromising information about them". The portal offers to remove those articles in exchange for payment, and is also said to have helped disseminate "Russian propaganda narratives".

It is currently cited in 68 Wikipedia articles, including a bunch about the Russo-Ukrainian war. As noted at spamcheck:antikor.com.ua, it is already on the local spam blacklists for the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. But as a person not very familiar with editing in this topic area, I'd like to ask for interested editors to help with checking and replacing these citations. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap maps added to battle articles

User Malchemist pointed this out on the First Battle of the Marne talk page, and it's true from my POV also: for articles about historical battles, these OpenStreetMap maps that have been added to many articles in the infobox add absolutely nothing and are useless. They are too small-scale for something like a WW1 battle, but also likely to be too large-scale for pre-modern battles. They typically indicate random locations in/within the general vicinity of the battle, showing modern borders and place-names. They do not add useful context, much less context that is "key" to understanding the subject such that they should be included in the infobox.

Have a look at Siege of Antwerp (1914) - the OpenStreetMap map is a map of the much-larger modern city of Antwerp. It does not provide useful context for the article as most of the locations named in the article are not shown. It is also too small-scale to show the actual location of Antwerp within Belgium (which was what gave the battle its significance in the first place). The article already includes a much-more-informative map - if any map should be included in the infobox, it should be that map, not a close-up map of modern Antwerp.

I'm not against including co-ordinates in the infobox for meta-data purposes, but other than just removing the co-ordinates in the infobox I can't see any way of removing these maps.

Addition of these maps willy-nilly to battle-articles should be deprecated. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to se them appear. When all you can see is a patch of sea, they aren't enlightening. Were they added automatically? Keith-264 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can see, yes? In fact, it looks like as long as the co-ordinates parameter in the infobox is populated, you will have them added automatically without opt-out. They weren't edited into the article through ordinary editing, but instead are added apparently by some kind of plug-in. The only way to remove them appears to just be to remove the co-ordinates. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. A modern map is at best distracting (to put it mildly) in a historical article. If this was done automatically, who made the decision? Did they consult anywhere or just decide to do it (since everyone knows new is always good)? If it's linked to the coordinates with no way to "unlink" it, removing coordinates might be the only way forward. Intothatdarkness 12:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

"|mapframe=no" fixes this, but according to the template documentation this should be set to no by default - Dumelow (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Having a discussion over at Village Pump (technical) that you can see here and it appears to be some kind of mistake by an individual editor.

Regardless it needs to be reversed ASAP. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)