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

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:John Hamilton (British Army officer)#Requested move 22 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mohammed al-Haddad#Requested move 26 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bugle and trumpet calls of the Mexican Armed Forces has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources; an online search on Google found no reliable sources.

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) 03:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Douglas MacArthur 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Guinea-Bissau coup attempt#Requested move 28 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 10:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI if you, like me, checked this RM to find it already closed, the closer has reverted for a few days to allow more participation, as they hadn't realized this and other WikiProjects had been alerted so recently prior to their close. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kursk campaign § RfC on the end date of the Kursk campaign, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting is now closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Military historian of the year 2025

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months.

The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (UTC) on 1 December and last until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of will commence on 00:01 (UTC) on 15 December during which editors will be able to cast their approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 on 30 December, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2025. Please keep nomination statements concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Donner60 - for significant behind-the-scenes work with project coordination tasks, the monthly contests, and the assessment process. Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• GGOTCC - for content improvement for the warships of navies whose vessels are less-well represented at the B-Class and GA levels, including Wikipedia:Featured topics/Java-class cruiser and HNLMS Kortenaer (1927). Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am honored! Thank you very much for thinking of me! <3 GGOTCC 22:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gog the Mild - for numerous FA promotions such as First Treaty of London and Siege of Utica. Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hawkeye7 - for consistently turning out content at the GA, A-Class, and FA levels, particularly military logistics articles such as Operation Forager logistics and larger World War II operations such as Operation Matterhorn. Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hog Farm - For their unending efforts to all things American Civil War on Wikipedia, whose list of GA, A, and FA-rated articles is unending, along with their constant effort to contribute to GA, A, and FA reviews! GGOTCC 03:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe - For a content work at the GA, A-Class, and FA levels, particularly on the 19th century British Army and Royal Navy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sturmvogel 66 - for extensive content work related to warships of various eras and nations, such as HMS Prince Consort and Soviet submarine Shch-307. Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Zawed - for extensive content work related to Allied flying aces of the Second World War, such as Raymond Cammock and Edward Darling (RAF officer). Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Peacemaker67 - For contributions to numerous GA, A & FA-Class articles & reviews, publishing new articles in challenging and lesser known/addressed Balkan military history and general upkeep . OyMosby (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2025.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60

1. Hog Farm _Talk 01:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kierzek (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GGOTCC

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. OyMosby (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kierzek (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

1. Hog Farm _Talk 01:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Donner60 (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. OyMosby (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Donner60 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kierzek (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. OyMosby (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Donner60 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66

1. Hog Farm _Talk 01:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting is now closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Military history newcomer of the year 2025

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (UTC) on 1 December and last until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period will commence on 00:01 15 December 2025 during which editors will be able to cast their approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 30 December 2025, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2025. Please keep nomination statements concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self-nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! On behalf of all the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Historyguy1138 - focuses on small wars involving the U.S., creating articles such as the 1840 Fiji expedition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah wow thanks Hawkeye7. I am honored to even be mentioned among so many dedicated editors. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Joko2468 - writes about Vichy France (Charles Huntziger) and Ukraine (Mykola Stsiborskyi) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Very kind of you thanks! Joko2468 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LeChatiliers Pupper - writes about French military history, working on articles like Bertrand Clauzel and Thomas Robert Bugeaud Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• PhoenixCaelestis - writes about ships: created SS Dixie Arrow and USCGC Dione, which she took to GA, and has the latter at an A-Class nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thelifeofan413 - writes about Napoleonic Royal Navy; took the Battle of Edington to GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Nominations for this year'snewcomer of the year award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.[reply]

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2025.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historyguy1138

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. GELongstreet (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Donner60 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joko2468

LeChatiliers Pupper

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. GELongstreet (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hog Farm _Talk 01:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. OyMosby (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PhoenixCaelestis

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. GGOTCC 18:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hog Farm _Talk 01:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Euryalus (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kierzek (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. OyMosby (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8. Donner60 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thelifeofan413

1. Killertrant (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. OyMosby (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Donner60 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello everyone. I've initiated a discussion at WikiProject Ukraine about the creation of new task forces. In particular, one relating to the Ukrainian military history may be of interest, and if created, would be classified under WP Military History rather than WP Ukraine. I tried searching for similar discussions on this WikiProject but have only found old proposals from a couple of decades ago that, unsurprisingly, did not come to fruition, as the interest in Ukrainian military specifically was very low. However, the situation is completely different now, with the topic experiencing a surge following Russia's ongoing invasion. I realize that, currently, Ukrainian topics are covered by both the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force and the European military history task force; however, the same could be said about the Baltic states military history task force and the Polish military history task force, which surely have less members than a theoretical Ukrainian-oriented task force (as out of 91 current active WP Ukraine participants, about 20 have claimed an interest in the Ukrainian military). Participation in the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs sourcing if anyone can help.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In writing Charles Shepard (artist) (1892-1962; he was English) I have found sources (e.g. Art and Industry) referring to him as "Captain Shepard", and other referring to "F/O J.C.M. Shepard" (Antiquaries Journal; also, though not cited, The London Gazette), which fit his full name and biographical details (he was certainly a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London).

Can anyone untangle all this, please, or provide sources for his military rank and service? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing Joseph Charles Mardel Shepard commissioned into the 3rd (Special Reserve) Battalion, the Essex Regiment on 7 March 1913 (Army List August 1914) - attached to the 2nd Battalion on the outbreak of the war. Promoted to Lt 2 February 1915 (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/29241/supplement/7306 London Gazette 23 July 1915]). By the end of the war he was attached to 1st Garrison Battalion, the Northamptonshire Regiment (Army List February 1919) - this occurred 1917/18 afaict. Remained in the militia until he resigned his commission on grounds on ill-health on 18 December 1926 (London Gazette 17 December 1926). I can't find any Gazette mention of him being a captain but temporary captain is noted on his medal card.

He appears in a picture in The Sphere of 7 April 1917 with all the other officers of the 2nd Battalion [1].

He was commissioned into the RAFVR (Administrative and Special Duties Branch) as a Pilot Officer on 22 June 1940 (London Gazette 16 July 1940). Promoted to Flying Officer on 22 July 1941 (London Gazette 29 August 1941). Erroneously reported as having resigned his commission on 21 July 1942 (London Gazette 17 July 1942) - this notice cancelled on 15 September 1942 (London Gazette 15 September 1942). Relinquished his commission from the RAFVR and keeping the rank of F/O on 10 February 1954 (London Gazette 7 September 1954). Nthep (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will add that to the article. See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#J. Charles M. Shepard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my BNA access has expired; could I trouble you to kindly clip the Sphere piece, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He held the temporary rank of captain whilst in command of a prisoner of war camp, relinquishing this on 1 March 1919. The Gazette has the order of his initials misprinted in the notification - Dumelow (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 'operation' was really just one part of the larger French offensive, spearheaded by General Challe, like: Crown, Belt, Ruby, etc.

There's not very much to talk about in the stub as is, whereas a larger article would allow for the other operations to be mentioned as well.

Thoughts? Mnohohrishnyi (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. This is probably a long shot, given his rather generic name! I'm hoping to take George Brown to FAC soon, but need some info/references for what he was up to during WWI. It would seem he did not serve until 1917, when he was paid severance by Hampshire County Cricket Club, and possibly joined the Army Service Corps in Aldershot. As a professional cricketer, he would likely not have been commissioned as an officer. Would anyone be able to find whether he did indeed serve in the ranks of the ASC? Appreciate this is a long shot and thanks in advance! AA (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no info on Brown's middle name or did he not have one? Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not, he's plain old George Brown! AA (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

Sicily

Sardinia

Naples

class=notpageimage|

Relief map of Italy and surroundings

Does anyone know the formula for labelling the map (Italy, Sicily and Sardinia etc? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look here - User:Gog_the_Mild/Misc#Maps - in edit mode things are hopefully clear. The Brazil map, with just one location, gives you the basics; the other two give you a few tips and hints. The links are to various helpful pages. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks babe but I need something more step by step. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the example at right (I've replaced your image with the labelled map) something like you were looking for? In the markup you need to specify details for each label separately (the numbers distinguish them from each other), the "mark1size=0" etc. just removes the default "pog" location marker maps usually have (which I don't think you want in this case but would if you were labelling cities etc. as I have done with Naples as an example), the latitude and longitude are for the pog location and "label1_size" just specifies the size of the text (as a percentage of the default). You can do other things with colours, label position in relation to the pog etc. the full documentation is at Template:Location map many - Dumelow (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I kept the formula I used for Operation Sonnenblume but your one is new to me. I want it for Operation Collar (convoy) and other Malta convoys. I'll give it a try. Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC) I have pasted it into the infobox of Operation Collar (convoy) but there's something missing, there's Location {{{place}}} under the map? Keith-264 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to squeeze in Pantellaria and Malta if I can. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at fixing it and adding the other two islands, see what you think. I went with pogs for the new islands as they are so small on the map. ANything else you want to change or add, I am happy to have a go - Dumelow (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that'll do nicely, I owe you a favour. Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any suggestions, please, for a good source on Roman history: specifically one that compares the historical record with Shakespeare's plays? At the moment I'm particularly focussed on the wars between Octavius Caesar / Mark Anthony / Marcus Julius Brutus / Gaius Cassius Longinus / Cleopatra (especially the battles at Philippi, Actium and Alexandria) but it would be brilliant for the future if it covered (to the extent that they're historical) the battles dramatized in Titus Andronicus, Coriolanus and Cymbeline too.

The kind of thing I'm ideally looking for is something equivalent, for the Roman period, to two excellent sources I have about Shakespeare's English histories: Peter Saccio's Shakespeare's English Kings and John Julius Norwich's Shakespeare's Kings.

But any suggestions gratefully received. AndyJones (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a quick look at the opening sections of the Wikipedia articles Titus Andronicus, Coriolanus and Cymbeline. Not exactly what you are looking for but some sources for the plays are given There are not more modern analyses, at least for the most part as far as I noticed. Yet, Titus Andronicus, in particular, is described as mostly, if not entirely, fictional. The other two may have some basis in fact but I think it is open to question from the information in the articles as to how close to factual they are. I did not read the entire articles since it appeared unlikely more about the history would be included. You may wish to read or glance through the entire articles to see if I have missed some other useful information.

I have several books about the military history of the Roman Empire. Norwich is a good source for Roman military history but, of course, I am not sure his general Roman history books have much if anything about Shakespeare. I know that I do not have any sources which cover the relationship to the Shakespeare plays as specifically as the books you cite for Shakespeare's English histories. While it is an interesting question, and if I have time in the near future I may take a quick look at my general Roman history books to see if there is any mention of Shakespeare, I am not sure that will yield much information. My guess is one or more probably cover the periods at issue but may not mention the Shakespeare plays at all or at least in any depth. I am pressed for time right now for at least another week. I cannot look into his further right now since I am not sure how long it will take. And, again, I am not sure that I will find anything useful to you even when I have more time. I look forward to your articles or revisions to existing articles if you can find useful information.

I encourage other editors who may have more sources and insight into this question to reply. My comments are not comprehensive and do not completely answer the question, if at all. So don't take the above comments, lengthy as they are, as a good enough answer. Donner60 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: that's brilliant, thank you. My further thoughts are:

• The Wikipedia page I'm working on is a fairly long-term project with no actual deadline, so feel free to ping me at any time if you find something of relevance, and I'd be really grateful.
• Yes, for what it's worth I'm only looking for the historical battles not the fictional ones, although even then I'd want to be able to reliably source that any particular battle is fictional - although sometimes the Shakespeare-related sources, of which I own loads, are enough to cover this.
• I was thinking of buying one or other of these, if anyone here has read or has any opinion about them:

• Shakespeare’s Roman Plays And Their Background by Mungo William MacCallum
• Shakespeare's Rome by Robert S. Miola
• Shakespeare's Rome: Republic and Empire by Paul A. Cantor

Thanks again Donner60, and anyone else who has any thoughts. AndyJones (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With tongue slightly in cheek, may I suggest the Emperor Claudius's memoirs as related by Robert Graves? ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No! Anything but that!! AndyJones (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I put a brief note about my Roman military history books on your talk page so as not to clutter up this thread and deter any other commenters or to make it longer than necessary. I am noting this here since it is related to this section. Donner60 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you @Donner60:. I thought one more reply here might help to explain my problem. I'm trying to write a section in article for Wikipedia about wars and battles dramatized by Shakespeare. And that's fine until you start going into detail. But consider Act 3 scene 1 of Antony and Cleopatra: Ventidius enters in triumph with the body of Pacorus, leader of the Parthians. Wikipedia tells me we must be witnessing the aftermath of the Battle of Mount Gindarus. But these is no Shakespearean source which names that battle (or at least none that I own, which include the Cambridge and Arden Antony and Cleopatras). It's a fleeting scene with characters we never see again. I worry that me including it borders on WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. And I'd feel that way probably even if I had an excellent source on Roman military history which gave me all the details of the actual battle. What I really want is a book that can join-the-dots for me, reliably sourcing the connection between Shakespeare's plays and the actual historical conflicts.

In the absence of any other ideas here I'll probably just buy one of the three books I listed above, and hope for the best! AndyJones (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I have the Peter Saccio book on the English kings plays. I do not have any of the Roman play books. I will look as for useful information in my military history books later in the week. Donner60 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real battle or OR?Keith-264 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was the opening engagement of the Battle of Verdun, which lasted most of the year of 1916. Driant did put up a brave defense and was killed along with the defenders (or almost all of them) holding the line. The French needed to bring up reinforcements. Nonetheless they soon lost Fort Doumant and spent much of the year in a stalemate trying to regain the ground and ultimately were successful. The Battle of the Somme also took place for most of the year. (I gave a talk on Verdun about 10 years ago though I am not relying on that much if at all for my answer. This opening engagement is also mentioned in the Battle of Verdun article.) I can't comment on the quality of the article and whether there is any OR there. I am pressed for time currently and it is hard for me to say how long it would take for me to determine whether there is any OR here. I do think the article could be better sourced, however. Donner60 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's one place where the German infantry advance began but do French historians call it a battle? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It looks like an engagement within the wider operations at Verdun, but is this seen as a standalone "battle" by existing French RS, or a fusion of OR and POV that resulted in the article being created? Keith H99 (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A logical place to start is Google Books, and there appears to only be a handful of hits en Français for "Bataille du Bois des Caures". Seens a bit ORish. —Simon Harley (Talk). 22:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a literal translation of an article on fr.wikipedia. As is to be expected, there is very little in the way of inline citations on that article. Most articles in that domain are poorly sourced.Keith H99 (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if there aren't RS it isn't and that Wiki is not a source although I can't find the WP for that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis here [2] Keith-264 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor keeps changing the lead of this article on Leapfrogging (strategy) to say that Japanese forces were "unable to maneuver into posing a threat for Allied forces anymore" despite the fact that the article (and sources) say the opposite: that "they remained capable of offensive action, and mounted major counterattacks against the American forces in the Battle of Driniumor River and the Bougainville counterattack. Containing these Japanese forces tied up six American divisions, threatening to make the American Army the one that became strategically ineffective." If someone could have a look, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mairéad Farrell#Requested move 30 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 05:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and merged a stub article with the Battle of New Orleans.

I did raise the subject that the skirmish was not notable in its own right. To this day, I have never seen a book devoted to the skirmish of December 23. The creator of the 3 paragraph stub opposed the idea of his stub being merged, the NOLA article having been purloined without attribution for a fair chunk of the stub article. That creator was not able to provide a plausible counter argument to support notability. He has a sidekick that opposed the merger, who was likewise unable to provide a plausible counter argument.

Talk:Battle of New Orleans#Proposed merge of Battle of Villeré's Plantation into Battle of New Orleans

Previously mentioned Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 178#Merger discussion for Battle of Villeré's Plantation

I think this may not be the last of the issue, and can imagine the article being resurrected. Keith H99 (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA and FA post a note on the nominator's talk page when their nomination is promoted, but A-class does not. Should it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would help toward homogenize the promotion processes. A.Cython(talk) 20:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone point me to where it is please? Keith-264 (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are these what you need Template:More footnotes needed, Template:More citations needed section? A.Cython(talk) 12:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, thanks babe. Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to highlight @Tokeamour's really helpful work on revising this somewhat mangled article. Thankyou Tokeamour!! Buckshot06 (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have done it without you so thanks! Tokeamour (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm that this is an M5A1? Nthep (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

in the article "Greek Summer Offensive" there is a line which reads "On this occasion, the British 15-inch naval guns saw their first action by bombing Turkish positions"

I think this line ought to be removed, not in the least because it is wrong. There are two citations for that line. One citation is a newspaper article from 1920, which indicates that 15" guns were fired at the events indicated earlier in the paragraph, but doesn't say anything about this being the "first" time such guns were used.

The second source references a specific 15" gun which was purportedly used for the first time sometime in Turkey in 1920, but it doesn't tie that "first use" to the Greek Summer Offensive in any specific sense, so I think the relevance of that citation is dubious. Even granting that citation is relevant, both citations taken together might support a sentence like "On this occasion, there was a specific British 15-inch naval gun which first saw action by bombing Turkish positions".

I think such a line is out of place in the article. I'm new to wikipedia but I think the phrasing is "not notable". 15" guns were mass produced pieces of British war material that were used on numerous occasions in the first and second world wars, and describing the lineage of one specific such gun is out of place in an article primarily about Greeks and Turks.

Anthonymrainey (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]