Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to abolish WP:MILMOS#TANKS

CONSENSUS
There was consensus in support of the proposal to abolish WP:MILHIST#TANKS Donner60 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

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.


Should WP:MILMOS#TANKS be abolished? Schierbecker (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of uniformity, ease of understanding and clarity, all articles documenting tanks should include "tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end.

The guideline—written five years ago after a discussion with minimal participation—gives the examples of Type 1 Chi-He medium tank and M6 heavy tank. The latter no longer even follows that guideline.

I don't understand why we need an ostensibly hard-and-fast rule that very few of our articles seem to follow. Going down the list of 100 popular tank articles: Merkava, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, M4 Sherman, T-90, Tiger I, T-72, T-34, Tiger II, T-54/T-55, TOG2, Panzer IV, Panzer VIII Maus, Leopard 1, Challenger 2, T-80, M48 Patton, PT-76, M10 Booker, T-14 Armata, M26 Pershing, T-62, T-64, K2 Black Panther, Panzer III Panther KF51, M3 Stuart, M24 Chaffee, Type 10 and Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte are not using this convention.

M60 tank, Centurion (tank), Panther tank, Kliment Voroshilov tank, Chieftain (tank), Leclerc tank, Arjun (tank), Churchill tank, Type 99 tank, T28 Super Heavy Tank are named that way because their names are ambiguous. Schierbecker (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom Loafiewa (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Support Doesn't seem to have been followed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Support No need to have a guideline that has not been followed. In addition it would likely be difficult, or at least a big chore, to find and revise current article titles. I surmise that most, if not all, interested searchers will include only the name of a tank in the search without adding the word "tank". They would find the article whether or not the word is included in the search. If the article title is ambiguous, the proposal would not preclude inclusion of the word "tank". Donner60 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I think that someone after information on a Patton tank will likely key in "Patton tank", knowing that most hits from the search engine will be for the general. Keying in "Patton" to the Wikipedia will give you the article on the general, and you will then click on Patton (disambiguation) which in turn will point you to Patton tank, a set index article that will ask you if you want the M46, M47, M48 or M60 models. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Support however, there is a very specific issue of WP:PRECISION with less well-known bits of kit, which the current MILMOS doesn't have any guidance for. As an ex-Army officer with nearly three decades service and a pretty good knowledge of WWII and Cold War military hardware, I believe I am "a person familiar with the general subject area" per WP:CONCISE, but I didn't know what a TOG2 was. Where a tank (or other bit of kit of any size) has a well-known and recognised name (such as Tiger), or the "model number" and the name together (such as M4 Sherman) are well-known to relate to a tank, that is just fine. However, TOG1 and TOG2 were obscure British heavy tank prototypes in WWII, and it seems to me that in such obscure cases, where there is no "name" such as Patton or Sherman to go with the "model number", then at least "tank" should be included as natural disambiguation so that the article title meets the requirement that "usually titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". In reality, any short alphanumeric combination standing alone is inherently ambiguous in nearly every case (obviously some of the well-known examples above are exceptions, as few who are vaguely familiar with WWII could fail to know what a T-34 is), as it could relate to any piece of equipment or component or even be the international code for something that is not physical. Here is an example of what I mean: yesterday I saw a series of articles about Soviet/Russian ballistic vests that had been titled using their GRAU index, eg 6B23 only. 6B23 could relate to just about anything, and in fact is also the code for hypochondriasis under the International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Adding "ballistic vest" to 6B23 as natural disambiguation unambiguously defines what the scope of the article is, and provides for a "more natural and recognizable title" (per WP:PRECISION) than the alphanumeric code alone. I consider we should try to distil this idea into some guidance to replace MILMOS#TANKS but relating to all types of kit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The examples show such general guidance would be helpful. Donner60 (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps if we divided them into a few types: those bits of kit that are so well-known that they can be identified by just their alphanumeric code (such as the T-34 or AMX-30) or name, (such as Merkava) - with or without a model number such as Challenger 2 or Tiger I (a subset of which would be those that need the natural disambiguation of "tank" due to not being the primary topic, like Chieftain tank and Centurion tank); those that need both a code and name, (like M48 Patton and M4 Sherman); and those where their alphanumeric code/type/model is so generic as to be ambiguous, (such as Type 74 and TOG2), where natural disambiguation of "tank" is also needed. Can anyone think of other variations? I've used tanks to demonstrate the types of titles, but they would equally apply to AK-47 and FG 42, Panzerfaust, Modular Tactical Vest and Walther PP, FN Minimi, M16 rifle, M60 machine gun, 6B23 ballistic vest etc. The aim here is to give guidance not create a hard and fast set of rules. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Some articles follow the Make-Model convention. (e.g. General Dynamics Griffin). Schierbecker (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Many heavies, especially prototypes, have received a recognition boost from authors like R. P. Hunnicutt and games like World of Tanks and WarThunder. It's difficult to say what will be recognizable to the average reader. Schierbecker (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that reflects what the general reader will know. The ones above, like Soviet tank models, are extremely well known due to blanket coverage about WWII and during the Cold War. Do you have some examples you would like to suggest wouldn't need disambiguation? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight), M8 Armored Gun System, Main Ground Combat System, Panzer 68, Chonma-ho and Ariete. I have an arbitrary personal preference for article titles that are somewhere between five and 40 characters long. Something like T-95 would be an edge case for me as the title is already very short and the tank is relatively unknown. Schierbecker (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Support with guidance to replace it, as suggested by Peacemaker67. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Support per Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Include tank or (tank) in article title to clarify what this thing is to the reader is adequate for me. [clarified/corrected wording] -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Just making sure that you know this is a proposal to abolish this policy? I am confused by your wording. Schierbecker (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll correct that to oppose. My preference is to only use "tank" in the name where it may be needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Support: This isn't needed. Tank articles, like all articles, already have enough "guidance", and despite that, it appears that, in many cases at least, that common sense has prevailed when it comes to the naming of tank articles. (jmho) - wolf 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Amend Per PM. Short model codes will generally require some clarification if they do not have a commonly recognised name - ie some lesser known tanks may have a name (eg Japanese tanks) but are not comparable to the M4 Sherman. Panzer means tank. If not consciously know, the cognitive association nonetheless exists and adding tank is redundant. Things like TOG2 will definitely benefit by appending tank. As guidance, it will be applicable in many instances but not across the board. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
What emerging consensus do you detect, Schierbecker? Just to be clear what is being agreed to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
A compromise to name every tank "Gavin". I was actually hoping you could suggest language to replace the current guideline. Schierbecker (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67 Seems like several participants are waiting for you to suggest a text to replace the current guideline with. They appreciated what you said about it. NLeeuw (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Support per Thewolfchild's reasoning, but also because "tank" is an ambiguous term open to debate -- including it as a necessary part of the naming convention simply opens the door to arguments about whether something is a tank, a tankette, a tank destroyer, an armored gun system, a fire support vehicle, or some other near variation. Tank should only be used when it's a necessary descriptor to disambiguate the meaning and nothing else applies. Given how most tanks tend to have a model name as well as an alphanumeric designation, this should only come up in the scenario when it's missing the former and the latter is ambiguous (e.g. the scenario Peacemaker67 describes in their comment w/ the 6B23 vest, but for armored vehicles). ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
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.

WP:TITLECON for WW1+2 aerial victory accuracy articles

Hi fellow MilHist editors, I've been doing a lot of improvements recently on these two articles:

I think these article titles should be harmonised per WP:TITLECON. But I can't decide on a formula that would work well for both, and makes clear to all readers what they are about. There are so many options we could choose from, so I think this could use some broader discussion over here at MILMOS.

Some suggestions:

  1. Aerial victory standards of [war X], the current WW1 article title
  2. Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during [war X], the current WW2 article title
  3. [war x] aerial victory claim accuracy, the Template:About description I came up with for both articles
  4. Aerial victory overclaiming in [war x], perhaps the most straightforward name.

Option no. #4 might be the best. The problem discussed is overclaiming. The standards only arose in response to the problem of overclaiming. Confirmation can only happen in accordance to a standard established in response to the problem of overclaiming. Accuracy is merely the difference between reality and claimed aerial victories, i.e. how much overclaiming is going on. So while standards, confirmation and accuracy are all relevant, the problem that they seek to deal with is overclaiming. So I think that should be in the title, and the other words belong in the main text.

On a related note, we may consider splitting off a separate article on Aerial victory overclaiming as a general concept, because this has essentially happened in every war involving aircraft since the advent of military aviation in the early 20th century. We shouldn't need to explain to our readers the same terminology, causes, and attempts at mitigation in every article dedicated to a particular war; that would create needless WP:OVERLAP. But for that, I think we should first agree on consistent article titles for these two. Your input would be appreciated. NLeeuw (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the most prolific editors of both articles @Georgejdorner, The PIPE, Soundofmusicals, MisterBee1966, and Dapi89: I'd like to know what you think of these suggestions. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The WW2 article was created in 2008, a time when article referencing was weak, and words like "aerial victory claim", "credited with X victories" and "aerial victories" were used ambiguously here on Wikipedia, leading to many heated debates. The WW2 article was an attempt to explain the problem, how different air forces addressed this topic, and what might have been deliberate overclaiming (falsified claims). In WW1, aerial combat was much more contained over the battlegrounds. I would assume that the issue of overclaiming was much smaller in comparison. In consequence, I would prefer if we retain the words "confirmation and overclaiming" in the title. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Aerial victory standards of [war X] seems broad enough to cover the subject.
  • Formal standards for victory claims
  • Factors influencing actual victory claim reporting
  • Process for verifying (not "confirming") victory claims
  • Actual practice and results of verification processes
  • Cultural influence of victory claims
Just fold in the parts for overclaiming as relevant to the various areas. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good. NLeeuw (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

What is exactly a "nuance" in the infobox military conflict?

According to WP:RESULT (in this page): The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Does this mean that the only thing that can be in the "result" parameter of the infobox is "X victory", "Inconclusive" or "See Aftermath" or can it include a little more information? I ask because I tried to remove "End of the Reconquista" from the infobox of the Granada War and another editor, @Snowstormfigorion, reverted it saying that it's not a nuance. Since I don't really know, I'd rather ask, although I don't think it's necessary to include that information per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. --RobertJohnson35 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

See Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Proposal re: Result parameter - bullet points. Reflecting MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to supplement the lead. It is not a place for nuance or detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks --RobertJohnson35 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I honestly find it ridiculous that this infobox has an explicit parameter for territorial information but any strategic, political or macrohistorical information is completely out of the question. We can't even state fact as basic as that the Battle of Zama ended the Second Punic War. If an infobox is meant to summarise key facts of an article, why would you remove 6 words explaining a battle's macrohistorical importance? The Granada War example falls into the same problem. "End of the Reconquista", the example brought up by OP, isn't even a particularly nuanced detail for an infobox, it's 4 words summarising a basic fact and the only reason it's not allowed is because Wikipedia is stuck up its bureaucratic ass. Troop numbers and commanders are not the most important information in a battle that ends a war. Koopinator (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Fully agree. It's insane how Wikipedia has this sort of thing where if a guideline was set however long ago, it has to be followed. Why can it not be changed or have exceptions? Bullet points not only are clearly insanely common, but are insanely useful. If I want to briefly look over a conflict, I'll look at the infobox. Why can't the infobox summarise a few key points? A few bullet points quite frankly hurt no one, and are really good at giving people the most important facts.
This doesn't even apply to only this case. There are so many problems like this on Wikipedia where it seems many people are completely against change. Why do the guidelines have to be strict, and even more importantly, why are they in place? Just because someone set a guideline in 2009 (exaggeration, no clue when it was set) and a discussion agreed on it in 2016. I saw the point of "and will just encourage disputation over something that should be explained properly in the lead and aftermath sections". If this does happen, then clearly there's a problem with the information within the bullet point rather than the existence of bullet points. If a bullet point may cause controversy, remove it. However, if something is fully backed by the article and the sources, who does it possibly hurt? Setergh (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
If you think a guideline is wrong, start an RFC to get it changed. Or be bold and make the edit yourself. Guidelines are created by consensus -- if you can show that the consensus has somehow shifted since the guideline was written, it shouldn't be difficult to get it adjust. Complaining about "Why won't anyone fix anything" is going to do exactly nothing to get something "fixed". ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I was indeed complaining (at least partially) to see if I'd get a suggestion about where to go to it, so I'll probably do that soon. Setergh (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Result in infobox

Should the result parameter allow bullet points as opposed to simply "X victory" or "Inconclusive"? Setergh (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I think so. It would allow for people to give out conciser yet slightly more detailed results of important battles and conflicts (e.g. X won despite Y happening). But I'm not too familiar with articles about military history and how they're supposed to be written so for all I know this could already be possible. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
No. Far too many squabbles start over who won what, especially in campaigns or battles where the results aren't clear-cut. The infobox is a poor place to try to express nuance.Intothatdarkness 13:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Then you can just say the results are debated, can't you? The specifics can be detailed outside of the infobox if need be. (e.g. "both sides claim victory") But if the results are clear-cut I see no problem with adding this functionality. » Gommeh (he/him) 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Both sides claim victory already exists as far as I know (see Battle of Khe Sanh for one example). That infobox also contains bullet points. Not a fan of that layout, but it does exist and has been relatively stable for some time. The last thing we need is yet another guideline for people to fuss over. Intothatdarkness 15:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was previously discussed here. The pertinent issues are unchanged (see for example this comment I made. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE prose and prose-like statments seen against dot points are detail best suited to summary in the lead and not the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support I can see purpose for it supplementing the infobox with useful information such as a treaty, or other details. Most people look at a lede and then the infobox, so for the infobox to also remain consistent with lede info would be nice. Noorullah (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    The infobox is a supplement of the lead, not a duplicate and INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is better. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Support - Repeating myself from earlier: I honestly find it ridiculous that this infobox has an explicit parameter for territorial information but any strategic, political or macrohistorical information is completely out of the question. We can't even state fact as basic as that the Battle of Zama ended the Second Punic War. If an infobox is meant to summarise key facts of an article, why would you remove 6 words explaining a battle's macrohistorical importance? The Granada War example falls into the same problem. "End of the Reconquista", the example brought up by OP, isn't even a particularly nuanced detail for an infobox, it's 4 words summarising a basic fact and the only reason it's not allowed is because Wikipedia is stuck up its bureaucratic ass. Troop numbers and commanders are not the most important information in a battle that ends a war. I will also note that Infobox person has a "known for" field, which requires the same kind of "subjectivity" as key outcomes on a battle. Koopinator (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Campaign boxes

In relation to current discussions on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 21, should WP:CAMPAIGN be changed to allow such campaign boxes such as Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns as opposed to being restricted to "battles in a particular campaign, front, theater or war"? Setergh (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it should.
According to Template:Campaignbox/doc "the campaignbox template is intended to provide context and convenient navigation among articles on the battles in a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars)", this should include colonial campaigns like Dutch colonial campaigns or lists of conflicts between two countries such as Anglo-Spanish Wars since it makes navigation easier. However, I think campaignboxes like "Portuguese battles in the Indian Ocean" are too specific and not useful. RobertJohnson35 – talk 21:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment/Alternative As I have commented in the discussions for individual TfDs, it is a matter of utility. I have stated in these discussions (eg here): There is a slight conflict between MOS:CAMPAIGN, in which it would not be permitted, and the template documentation which parenthetically states: or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars [emphasis added]. While the template doc is more permissive it also indicates that it may or may not be appropriate and the guidance takes precedence. While this sidebar is not particularly long, it is still probably more appropriate to present this info as a navbox. If there is too much information for a sidebar to reasonably deal with (ie making it very long), it looses its utility and becomes an interference to the reader. In such a case we should place the info in a navbox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a reasonable proposal, mainly because the difference between a battle and a campaign is somewhat arbitrary. I also agree with Cinderella157 that really long campaign boxes should be replaced with navbox, and we should state that here too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cinderella157 and Hawkeye7. Donner60 (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to remove call for preemptive disambiguation from MOS:MILUNITNAME

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unanimous consensus to adopt the change and delete the language due to conflicting with our article title policy and disambiguation guidelines, as we do not generally pre-emptively parenthetically disambiguate. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

{{rfc|hist|style}} Should text at MOS:MILUNITNAME that advises all unit names include a parenthetical qualifier even when no other unit covered on Wikipedia uses that name be deleted for conflicting with article title policy? Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Following up on discussions at Talk:60th_Mechanized_Brigade and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Ukrainian_brigades, I propose the following sentences in MOS:MILUNITNAME be deleted, as they conflict with WP:AT policy and WP:DISAMBIGUATION guidelines:

In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically named unit. If this is done, the non-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version).

Specifically, this text seems to call for either a disambiguation page with one entry (one blue link), which is not allowed, or to redirect the base name to the qualified title, which is contrary to WP:QUALIFIER and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT as discussed at WP:MISPLACED. Only unit names that refer to more than one unit covered in Wikipedia should be disambiguated. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Support - in short, we don’t disambiguate unless we need to. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - the sentence referring to the creation of a disambiguation page or redirect is not calling for doing so with one entry; the qualifier "If this is done" is referring to the creation of a second article on an identically named unit. This is poorly written, but what it's trying to say is "If you think the same title is going to be used by multiple nations but hasn't yet, preemptively title the existing unit's page with a national disambiguator; when the second article is created (also with a national disambiguator), ALSO make a generic disambiguation page at the base unit name *without* the national disambiguator." That page would have two entries. The part about the "redirect to the disambiguated version" I agree doesn't make sense. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    So if 12th Foo Brigade (Ukraine) is created, should 12th Foo Brigade remain a redlink until a second 12th Foo Brigade exists? jlwoodwa (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    Presumably yes unless a better redirect target exists. Kind of depends on the reason why the second brigade (let's say 12th Foo Brigade (Moldova) for example) is a redlink -- does it not exist yet but is planned, does it not exist and nobody's talking about making one either, or does it maybe exist but for various reasons (sourcing, nobody bothered yet, etc.) we don't have the content to make an article about it vs. a redirect? The MOS text calls for using the disambiguation where it can "reasonably be expected to be used" -- if there's been reason to disambiguate (Ukraine) in the first place, it's because we already know another example exists or is reasonably expected to exist in the future (i.e. reliable sources say that it's coming). If not, we shouldn't have disambiguated it in the first place. To be clear: I'm not saying we should do it this way, or that we shouldn't change the MOS or rewrite it to be better; just pointing out that my read of the MOS differs from what's presented above by Mdewman6.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support – There is no reason why military units would be an exception from our general titling rules. We don't include parenthetical disambiguators when no disambiguation is required. Graham11 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. No reason to preemptively disambiguate when there's no need to. We can always move and disambiguate later if we need to. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support – Per nom. FaviFake (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. We don't do it elsewhere. No need to make an exception for military units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI