- Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Requests for project input
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Discussion on the renaming of the article Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge
Please see here for a discussion about renaming Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge to United States support for the Khmer Rouge. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
RFC on Russian invasion of Ukraine
THere's currently a discussion about whether or not to include North Korea as a co-belligerent. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000#Requested move 19 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000#Requested move 19 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Edwin of Northumbria
Edwin of Northumbria 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) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Angevin kings of England
Angevin kings of England 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. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:RSM-56 Bulava#Requested move 3 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RSM-56 Bulava#Requested move 3 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frostly (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
RM to lowercase North Yemen Civil War
An ongoing RM to lowercase is at Talk:North Yemen Civil War#Requested move 28 November 2024. It has been relisted and may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
United Kingdom Special Forces has an RfC
United Kingdom Special Forces has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Manbij offensive#Requested move 9 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Manbij offensive#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Capture of Damascus#Requested move 9 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capture of Damascus#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox
Please see subject RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024
Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Battle of Thermopylae
Battle of Thermopylae 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) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#Dubious tag
The phrase disputed territory in the territory parameter of the infobox has been tagged as dubious. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)
1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) 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. Hog Farm Talk 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Mark Kellogg (reporter)
Mark Kellogg (reporter) 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) 02:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of the Java Sea#Recent edits changing scope of article
An editor has effectively changed to scope of the article by incorporating subsequent engagements (with their own stand-alone articles) as being part of this battle. Further input would be welcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Henry VIII
Henry VIII 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) 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Battle of Badr
Battle of Badr 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) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Italian Ethiopia#Requested move 27 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Italian Ethiopia#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)
Wings (1927 film) 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) 16:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 102nd Intelligence Wing
102nd Intelligence Wing 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) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Arthur Phillip
Arthur Phillip 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) 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Yom Kippur War#Result
What the result should be in the infobox as a reflection of the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for input Talk:List of Norfolk airfields
Talk:List of Norfolk airfields has an ongoing discussion regarding the scope of this and potentially other equivalent lists, regarding the inclusion of civilian airfields to a mainly military list. List of former Royal Air Force stations already has a table that can be sorted by county. Also if the list could be replaced by a templates similar to "Template:RAF stations in Lincolnshire" Gavbadger (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Marlin-class submarine
The article Marlin-class submarine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Could not find reliable sources to establish notability.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
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, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esw01407 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources about this submarine design, some data could be upmerged to the the designer article, DCNS. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)
1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom) 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) 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212#Requested move 9 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212#Requested move 9 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --RobertJohnson35 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#Requested move 1 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#Requested move 1 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Bertrand_Clauzel
Sorry I am new to wiki so apologises if this is the wrong place to ask, I requested peer review following some changes I made to the linked article. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Houthi movement#Requested move 12 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Houthi movement#Requested move 12 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 18:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion on the infobox result and territorial changes of the Granada War
There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Granada War about the result and territorial changes on the infobox of the article. Feel free to participate. --RobertJohnson35 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Angolan Civil War
Hi all. Recently the infobox to Angolan Civil War has been amended to include a long list of the various nationalities that served as foreign mercenaries or volunteers during that conflict. This results in the respective nations essentially being listed under the "combatants" heading of the infobox. I think this is highly unusual, and most of the other conflict-related articles I've read or revised do not have this feature, even those in which foreign fighters took part, whether as mercenaries or otherwise. As is it seems to make the infobox rather bloated, and I'm in favor of restricting the use of the "combatants" section solely to national governments which participated directly in hostilities. Thoughts? Katangais (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. "From that country" =/= "That country was a combatant". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd:: Please explain why the listing of different nationalities of mercenaries is necessary in the combatants section of the infobox. I've yet to see this in any other conflict-related article, so I'm genuinely puzzled at its inclusion at Angolan Civil War. --Katangais (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look at the Iran–Iraq War article for example. You can see under volunteers. We could either:
- A. Place the mercenaries under the “units involved” section since the infobox had a Units section
- B. Keep it as it was SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Iran–Iraq War lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for Angolan Civil War. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --Katangais (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- We could still list the indiviual nationalities under "units involved" section. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nationalities are not units. That’s the type of information that would be useful in the body of the article, but too granular for the infobox. --Katangais (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- We could still list the indiviual nationalities under "units involved" section. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Iran–Iraq War lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for Angolan Civil War. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --Katangais (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mercenaries do not represent their country of origin and should not be presented in a way that suggests they do. They are not state players or a faction in a civil war so they do not belong under "belligerents" in the infobox. They are not a "unit" unless they are organised into a specific unit. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not the place for nuance or detail. An extensive list of units would be inappropriate. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments have no substance unless the other stuff represents best practice - ie two wrongs don't make a right. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone know where to find a list of the size of the major European navies in the 1680s?
I am currently making a[REDACTED] page for William of Orange's invasion of England and such a list would be valuable. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- DavidDijkgraaf, I found a comparison of Dutch, British and French warship strength by decade from 1650-1700 at Dutch Warships in the Age of Sail 1600-1714 (p. 33), if that helps. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- A more comprehensive table is at Talking about Naval History: A Collection of Essays (p. 54). Alansplodge (talk) Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And another that includes Spain and Russia, at The Oxford Handbook of the Ancien Régime (p. 66). Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I like Rodger's appendix II in The Command of the Ocean: Ships of the line and cruisers for the six main European maritime powers every five years from 1650 to 1815. I can't find an on line version, but would be happy to photo and email it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you guys. Luckily I found Rodger's book on the internet archive DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I like Rodger's appendix II in The Command of the Ocean: Ships of the line and cruisers for the six main European maritime powers every five years from 1650 to 1815. I can't find an on line version, but would be happy to photo and email it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And another that includes Spain and Russia, at The Oxford Handbook of the Ancien Régime (p. 66). Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- A more comprehensive table is at Talking about Naval History: A Collection of Essays (p. 54). Alansplodge (talk) Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Need Help Writing & Checking Already Written Summaries
I have been working on Draft:List of attacks on the United States for several weeks, and I have a lot of summaries already written, but still a lot to write. The lead is still incomplete, but it is on the docket to do at the very end (to help clearly define the scope and such). The scope will eventually be any attack or overall campaign (like the Gettysburg campaign) which is against the U.S.. Large scope, I know, but my vision for the article will make it extremely good and extremely useful.
Anyway, if anyone wants to help me write some summaries (1942 to 2025) or do some accuracy and grammatical checks on the already written summaries (1776 to 1941), feel free to help out. I started it in November 2024, so probably only a couple more months of work to do on it to get it ready for mainspace. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Chinese navy ship prefix
http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/TopStories/16278919.html
This source from the chinese MOD uses the CNS prefix for Nanchang(101), meaning that it is official that the chinese navy uses the CNS prefix. Chinese navy ship articles should not use names like "Chinese destroyer Nanchang" but be replaced with CNS Nanchang per norm(e.g. USS, HMS).
More reliable sources(some third party) uses CNS:
https://news.usni.org/2024/09/18/chinas-liaoning-carrier-strike-group-deploys-to-philippine-sea - US naval institute
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202407/12/WS6690f94ea31095c51c50dd2d.html - Chinadaily, with ties with chinese goverment Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- PRC MOD is republishing something from the China Daily, which is not quite the same as PRC MOD using it themselves. China Daily is also, at best, inconsistent in its application of "CNS". Take a browse through the first couple pages of results in:
- Most references to Chinese warships are not using CNS; foreign ships, on the other hand, typically have their prefixes. Interestingly, "CNS" (https://newssearch.chinadaily.com.cn/en/search?query=CNS) seems to be applied by CD to the aircraft carriers than anything else.
- PRC MOD also republishes articles from China Military Online (http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/OverseasOperations/EscortMissions/index.html). Here, too, there's a distinct lack of usage of CNS.
- Overall, the form <ship type/function> <ship name> predominates in the above. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the important question is why would China officialy use the English term Chinese Navy Ship for a prefix? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- In chinese there is no prefix but in english I mostly see CNS or no prefix instead
- Might be inconsistent overall(maybe translation problems?) but I think since the Chinese MOD used it(even though it was a republished article people have reviewed it and decided not to remove the prefix), and it is one of the more common prefixes used for the PLAN(other than PLANS, which is used on wikimedia commons however not much anywhere else) so i think if we get any more official sources we should move chinese navy articles to start using CNS. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As for the inconsistency, I have a theory for this
- Articles with CNS were written originally with english(which is why they added the prefix), articles without CNS were translated from chinese; there is no prefix in Chinese which is why the translated version has no prefix Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the important question is why would China officialy use the English term Chinese Navy Ship for a prefix? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Very long-standing practice is to only use prefixes when the navy in question officially uses them. The top source linked is a republished article from China Daily, not an official government publication, so there is no evidence that the PLAN uses prefixes (and it's highly unlikely that they do, given that prefixes are more or less a Western thing that don't exactly make sense in non-alphabet languages). As far as I can tell, "CNS" falls squarely into the category of invented prefixes. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even though it is republished, the fact still stands it is on the Chinese MOD website which means they had no problems with publishing an article with that prefix; However on the chinese MOD website seems that most articles do not use a prefix, as they seem to be direct translations from Chinese Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just because they "have no problems" with the prefix doesn't mean they use it internally. That is the bar you need to meet. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know, however in Chinese prefixes are never used; in the end CNS is the closest thing we have to an official prefix for the Chinese navy(the link I put, and the fact that many external sources, though likely made up, also use it), so until any more sources come out, articles using CNS should only be redirects
- However this still is a huge leap in the search for more official prefixes to use. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just because they "have no problems" with the prefix doesn't mean they use it internally. That is the bar you need to meet. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Concur with Parsecboy - it's an invented prefix and we should never use it. Similar to multi national agencies using ITS, FS, ESPNS, FGS etc Lyndaship (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Military-industrial complex
Please note there is an ongoing discussion about including countries other than the United States. I'd appreciate input from other editors. Thanks. – Asarlaí 22:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Statistics
Does anyone know how to fix the table at the above location? It's currently showing zero pages in most non-article categories. Looks to be the result of a recent move of these categories eg from Category:Disambig-Class military history articles to Category:Disambig-Class military history pages - Dumelow (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Operation Barbarossa § Proposed lead improvements
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Operation Barbarossa § Proposed lead improvements, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — Goszei (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Missing basing topic: weapon range
Has ru, pl and bg interwikis at https://www.wikidata.org/Q4154317 - but I was surprised to find nothing on en or in most other languages. Seems like a basic and notable military topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Chyah airstrike#Requested move 6 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chyah airstrike#Requested move 6 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Is "Howitzers of similar caliber, role, era, and capability" redudant?
Many articles (narrowly artillery, but we also do this for aircraft engines) include a list under their 'See also' section for a list of Howitzers of similar caliber, role, era, and capability, i.e. 155mm towed artillery of the '70s. Is this redudant ?
I reverted this, prompting a comment here. But then realised that they'd blanked a whole bunch of them too: Special:Contributions/Eurohunter (20 Jan 2025). I would support restoring the lot. It's a useful section for a comparison and pointer to related articles. Very far from "there is no point in doing this."
Thoughts? @Eurohunter: Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Me and other people already removed similar redundant lists from articles about tanks. This is just a list of other howitizers unrelated to this one. The whole point of see also is to add links to articles which haven't been mentioned yet in the article, so once they are mentioned in the article you remove them from see also - in this case there are just unrelated articles which will never be described in the text as it has nothing to do unless you have sources for some kind of comparison. Eurohunter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you ought to read WP:SEEALSO, which does not support your argument, Eurohunter. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Parsecboy: Are you sure? "A "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web". Eurohunter (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- What are other, similar howitzers of the same period if not "comparable articles"? Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Parsecboy: How it makes it comparable? There should be direct source which clearly indicate comparison in some way - some kind of professional review, opinion from forces etc. Eurohunter (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because that's what the the word "comparable" means? There are no sources required to identify articles that meet that basic definition. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now you're just shifting goalposts in the hope that something will stick. You first claimed that these comparisons were redundant. Now you're claiming they're so significant that they must be easily sourceable. Which is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, "See also" exists for a reason, and it's not the reason Eurohunter apparently thinks it is. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Parsecboy: How it makes it comparable? There should be direct source which clearly indicate comparison in some way - some kind of professional review, opinion from forces etc. Eurohunter (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- What are other, similar howitzers of the same period if not "comparable articles"? Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Parsecboy: Are you sure? "A "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web". Eurohunter (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you ought to read WP:SEEALSO, which does not support your argument, Eurohunter. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Behind Enemy Lines (1986 film)#Requested move 19 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Behind Enemy Lines (1986 film)#Requested move 19 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
List of wars involving the United States
List of wars involving the United States could use some attention from experience editors. Despite the accessibility concerns and lack of sources...there seems to be a little criteria for the list. Not sure how something like Operation Ocean Shield is a war. Seems to be confusion between military assistance, military interventions and military deployments etc. Moxy🍁 23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is the right place to respond, but I'll do it anyway. The reason for this is because in reality it's meant to be a list of armed conflicts, not just specifically wars. Every "List of wars involving" page does it this way. Obviously the title doesn't exactly correlate to the topic, but at this point I feel like you either just have to deal with it (either way they are very simple and recognisable titles) or go out of your way to try and rename hundreds of pages like this. Setergh (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Pacific War § Proposed lead improvements
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pacific War § Proposed lead improvements, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — Goszei (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Polish–Ottoman War
Please see Talk:Polish–Ottoman War (1620–1621)#RFC: How should the war be characterized in the infobox? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments
There are comments at Talk:Al-Faddayn that might be of interest to editors here. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments on Notes section
- There are comments at Talk:Fourth Fitna, that may be of interest to editors, especially any on the Middle East, Medieval, or Early Muslim task forces. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Colt's Manufacturing Company#Requested move 13 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Colt's Manufacturing Company#Requested move 13 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: