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.

Requests for input archives

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

Nomination of November 2025 United States military video controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article November 2025 United States military video controversy 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/November 2025 United States military video controversy 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.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Obiekt 140#Requested move 7 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Obiekt 140#Requested move 7 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Charles de Batz de Castelmore d'Artagnan#Requested move 9 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Charles de Batz de Castelmore d'Artagnan#Requested move 9 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 21:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Operation Rentier#Requested move 10 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Rentier#Requested move 10 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 08:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lord Mountbatten#Requested move 10 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lord Mountbatten#Requested move 10 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 22:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:War of the Two Pedros#Requested move 11 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:War of the Two Pedros#Requested move 11 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chayka transmitter Slonim

The article Chayka transmitter Slonim has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for 18 years. Tagged as Unreferenced for 20 months and for Notability concerns for a month. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. A dictionary definition without any definitions. 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) 23:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pēteris Dzelzītis

The article Pēteris Dzelzītis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for 14 years. Tagged as Unreferenced for 20 Months and Notability concerns for a month, giving notice. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Unsourced biography. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. 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) 23:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

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

I initially raised the issue at Template talk:Post-Cold War European conflicts about the removal of Western European events seen in this version (oldid link), but I've yet to see replies. I'd like to know the justifications of such removals, or... Can related events in western Europe be reinserted? George Ho (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

From what I can see the template was substantially reduced from this to the present version. But this also cleaned up a lot of bloat.

For Western Europe, it used to list "Basque conflict (1959–2011) The Troubles (late 1960s–1998) Corsican conflict (1976–present) Dissident Irish Republican Campaign (1998–present)". I think the issue here is all but one of these are not clearly "post-Cold war European conflicts", because they extend in the largest part long before the end of the cold war. Indeed, they are only weakly linked to the cold war. FOARP (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This article is a sorry underreferenced mess. Now that we have to figure out which ships have *actually* been sunk (hovercraft anyone??) I will start to work it over. There are also new Northern Fleet and Southern Fleet articles that need to be linked etc. In addition, the Bayandor-class corvettes have no data about how they were sunk. Any assistance would be appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: - all entries for Iranian Navy losses in the war on the list of shipwrecks in 2026 are referenced. Feel free to copy over. Mjroots (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? See Talk:Superpower#China superpower status Moxy🍁 03:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I was looking to add at least one citation to the 1920 Battle of Cyców article to remove it from the project's backlog of uncited articles (now down to 341, from 581 at the start of the March 2026 WikiProject Unreferenced articles drive). There look to be two decent articles from 1920s Polish military journals linked from the Polish Wikipedia article that might be used. I tried Google Translate but it wasn't that helpful; perhaps someone better equipped than me could look them over and, if they are reliable sources, add a citation or two to the article? Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Daniel Case: Dumelow: In my experience, User:Piotrus would be the active editor most likely to be able to help on this. User:Daniel Case, a very active administrator, is also listed as a user who has offered to help with Polish translations. Donner60 (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow What's the problem with translation? Most modern AIs like ChatGPT should be able to handle the translation well (perhaps in chunks if you hit word limits). All sources cited on pl wiki (the two old academic ones + the book) look reliable, although the book is a bit hard to get. If you want to read the relevant page yourself, asking at pl equivalent of WP:RX should procure the relevant scans for you in few days/weeks (and again, AI will translate them even if they aren't ORCed; these days language is becoming increasingly irrelevant of a barrier). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr. I was having issues working out if it was an academic-style article or something like a letter from someone who had been involved. I'm always a bit nervous about sources that are close in time to the event in question but will try to add this if I can. Google was a bit frustrating with work limits, I have not tried ChatGPT but will give it a go. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow A quick glance on pl wiki shows that both authors of the cited articles are notable; the bio of the second one does confirm he was a participant of that particular battle. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr. I have added a quick summary of the action from Rakowski (his account focuses on the 7th Uhlans) but I was reluctant to use Bystram as he was the Polish commander for the engagement, though Commons has some maps from his report that I will add. It sounds like an interesting action if other editors want to expand upon it - Dumelow (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

While we are at it: I ran a Bot job against our task forces to comment out members who have been inactive (ie have not edited) in more than 365 days. This has reduced the participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Polish military history task force to just Piotr. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the update on the task forces. Donner60 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 Ha. Not that I am surprised. This is a niche topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Although I should correct myself and ping @Dreamcatcher25 and @Marcelus - perhaps they'd like to join. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow @Piotrus Yeah, no problem, I can look into that, but not right, within a week. I hope that's ok. Marcelus (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Marcelus I pinged you here in the context of inviting you to join that subproject :) The Cyców article is I think fixed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus Oh ok, thanks then :) Marcelus (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus and Marcelus, much appreciate. The Cyców article is now in a much better state. I am struggling to find any references to assist with the 1831 Battle of Poryck though. Any assistance welcomed! - Dumelow (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow Pl wiki article is unreferenced, but the battle seems possibly notable. GS search for this query produces several mentions in Polish academic articles: . as does a smilar GB query. Unfortunately, GB sources are mostly offline or a pain to use with snippets :( I will note that this article has been written by the still-active @Bocianski - perhaps they'd be willing to come back to it, 20 years later, and bring it up to modern standards? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Are there any Italian artillery aficionados around? I'm trying to link the guns in the table Leros artillery in the OOB but can't help wonder if things like 120/45 are typos? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The one at PL127 noted in the article as "90/35" is shown in Rogers p239 as "90/53", presumably Cannone da 90/53? The others are as the source has them - Dumelow (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any real knowledge but the 76/50s might be QF 14-pounder naval gun Mk I & II which are the right calibre and barrel length and saw service with the Italian navy. The 120/45s would presumably be Schneider-Canet-Armstrong 1918s known to be used as coastal artillery - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Keith-264, Dumelow, and Noclador: User:Noclador can probably comment on this. Donner60 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I checked the lists of Italian artillery for both world wars but ended up thinking that Smith and Walker were a bit wayward. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the Royal Italian Army had one of the most confusing/nonsensical artillery naming systems in the world and even historians at the Italian Army's History Office struggle with it. Guns were named: type + caliber / barrel caliber-lengths. The three types were Cannone (cannon or gun), Obice (Howitzer), and Mortaio (Mortar). If there were two with similar caliber / barrel caliber-lengths they both added the introduction year (e.g. Cannone da 75/27 modello 06, Cannone da 75/27 modello 11, Cannone da 75/27 modello 12). In some cases the same model came with two different mounts, so the initial of the manufacturer were added (e.g. Mortaio da 210/8 D.A. (De Angelis) Mortaio da 210/8 D.S. (De Stefano), Cannone da 149/35 A (Armstrong))... and that was before the Royal Italian Army added all captured Greek and British guns, that were renamed according to the naming scheme. I also just checked the Italian article about the Battle of Leros and they editors there didn't bother to figure out what the guns were. They just listed the batteries. If any you @Keith-264, Dumelow, and Donner60: have questions, please let me know and I will try to answer them. Cheers, noclador (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Noclador: I've found wikilinks for most of them, with help from the editors above but there area a few missing. Any suggestions welcome. The main tables are on the Dodecanese campaign page. regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the Royal Italian Army's Comando Superiore delle Forze Armate dell’Egeo map, which lists all the units the command had in the Dodecanese in August/September 1943. (A good break down in English can be found at here - just have to scroll down to Leros to see a list of all the artillery pieces / and better look at the map as reported by the Italian command in 1943). The cannone da 120/45 does not have an article in English, but it is this cannon it:120/45. Cheers, noclador (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

hi milhist, i've put together the entire article for Draft:Special Striking Division. the issue is, there is only one source! if you guys could add sources like Hovannisian or any academic journals, it would help a lot. this is so its passage into the mainspace will be accepted. of course, you can fix the page too, as i am not perfect and probably made a mistake or two. it would help with the article's overall feng shui. frankie 🍑 04:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I found this article which is assessed by MilHistbot as B-class. On what basis did the bot made this assessment? I am asking because I am ignorant of how the bot operates? Even without the citation needed tags that were added on a later date, the article is too short having 161 words well below the stub threshold WP:STUBLENGTH. Is it reasonable to downgrade it to stub or start on the grounds that it fails on accuracy and structure? Thank you for your feedback. A.Cython(talk) 04:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)