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.

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.

Archives

Topics inactive for seven days or longer may be archived: 2024–2025 2026

The article Mohammad Abbas Baig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 14 years. Unsourced for 16 years. No other language has a sourced article from which to translate. Several Google searches found only a similarly named computer engineer and a surgeon, who might be his family members. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Recent AfDs deleted 2-star and 3-star generals in the Pakistan Army.

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) 20:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022–2023 Brazilian coup plot#Proposed merge of Pro-Bolsonaro demonstrations on Paulista Avenue into 2022–2023 Brazilian coup plot that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Suslov 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) 03:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SDF–Syrian transitional government clashes (2025–present)#Requested move 11 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:124th Battalion (Governor General's Body Guard), CEF#Requested move 12 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:American invasion#Requested move 22 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nuclear weapons and Israel#Requested move 7 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MM Naravane#Requested move 7 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chilean icebreaker Almirante Óscar Viel#Name of ship that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syrian conflict (2024–present)#Requested move 6 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've just written an article on Bertrand Pierre Castex, which has been assessed against B-class criteria by MilHistBot. It comes up good for all areas except "Referencing and citation". The article is liberally peppered with references, all to RS, so I don't really see what more I need to do to get across the line to B-ness. I'd ask the reviewer, but it's a bot. Chuntuk (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chuntuk, I'll have a look and comment on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like every paragraph has at least 1 reference now except several entries in the Family section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if i am wrong but is it not that the bot thinks that every bullet point is a paragraph, and thus needs a citation? A.Cython(talk) 16:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's probably it. Repeated refs (<ref name="lehr"/> or other) can be added to each entry where appropriate. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone show me how to undo a redirect from Convoy QP 4 to Arctic convoys of World War II please? Keith-264 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the link on the redirect page (Convoy QP 4?) to the other wiki link you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he/she does not know to get the redirect page. If you click on the Convoy QP 4 it will take you to the Arcrit convoys article but at the same time you will see a line (at the bottom of the screen on mobile view or at the top just before the intro on PC) saying that you were redirected from "Convoy QP 4", which is a link. If you click this "Convoy QP 4" link, it will take you to the redirect page. A.Cython(talk) 16:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm a he, ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know, but glad we could help. A.Cython(talk) 16:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article on a civil war has been completely unreferenced since its creation in 2007. If anyone can help verify its content to WP:RS I would appreciate it. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place at WT:SHIPS#Category suggestion re creating a new set of categories for ships scrapped by year. Please feel free to voice your opinion. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this draft after seeing it on the list of articles to be created for this WikiProject. Is it that a potential article being on that list does not immediately qualify it's notability (ignoring other issues with the draft article)? Sgtnugg (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the tone and style of the draft contributed more to its rejection (twice) than the sourcing, at least from my reading of it. Also, the sourcing appears thin and might rely too much on the notability (notoriety) of Walker and the actions of KMS. Just my take. Intothatdarkness 14:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have a very thin stub article, London Victory Parade of 1815, which has only one reference (not viewable). The date given for the event, 20 June 1815, is clearly impossible since news of the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June didn't reach London until the evening of 21 June. [2]. If you can help, please reply at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#London Victory Parade of 1815. Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - We have discovered that the event was actually in 1814 and has been amended accordingly. Proposed merge with Allied sovereigns' visit to England, commemts please to Talk:London Victory Parade of 1814#Merge proposal. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ru.wp also has an article on the "1815" parade at ru:Лондонский парад победы (1815) - not sure how best to deal with that. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Andrew Gray, I have added a brief (machine translated) note to the Russian talk page, hoping it is intelligable. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've a web site which displays scans of plates from out-of-copyright atlases. I'd like to donate all of them to WP Commons, but I'm not willing to upload all 2000+ myself, one by one, manually. However, if this project has need of a few plates, let me know, and I'll upload those. The military volumes are

• von Groʃs's Historisch-Militarischen Atlas 1808. Campaigns of Napoleon   de,fr
• Siborne: Atlas to History of the Waterloo Campaign 1844.   en
• Atlas to Alison's History of Europe 1850. Campaigns of Napoleon.   en
• Atlas to Coxe's Marlborough 1865. Campaigns of Marlborough.   en
• Moltkes Taktisch-Strategischen Aufsätzen 1900. German battles and campaigns, 1813-1866.   de
• Kriegsgeschichtlicher Atlas Schirmer, 1912. Battles and campaigns, mostly European, 1792-1912.   de

Maproom (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: @GELongstreet, Djmaschek, and Thelifeofan413: As information this may be of interest to you. Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the first one. That is, the von Gross Historisch-Militarischen Atlas. I will be responsible for copying them to Wikipedia Commons and categorizing them. I am open to any suggestions about naming the categories. Djmaschek (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a regular issue over who to include, are there actialy any guidelines, and if not should there be? Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in the conflict infobox? If so, there is guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict; the pertinent part being "For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended". It's been a not infrequent topic of discussion (see the talk page archives for the template), the consensus as I understand it is that who counts as "prominent or notable" is best left to subject-matter experts at the individual article level rather than try to impose a project-wide ruling as it will vary between each battle and war - Dumelow (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Has now posted a selection of Official Histories, Naval Staff Histories and the like on its website [3], which appears to a very useful resource.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Project members may be interested in the article 2026 Jalisco operation. Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]