Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024]] 

message: Following The AfD discussion about whether or not the  article should be deleted or not (closed as no consensus to delete after more than 6 weeks discussion and deletion review), I would like to raise the issue of auxiliary warships for discussion.
The auxiliary warships are mostly, but not limited to, Naval Trawlers / Kriegfischkutters /Vorpostenboote of WWI and WWII. Wikipedia has pretty good coverage of the larger naval vessels of this period, but not so good coverage of the smaller vessels. Attempts to cover them are met with some resistance from editors such as , who nominate them for deletion with little success.
One big advantage of Wikipedia is we are not a paper encyclopedia. We are able to cover many more subjects than any printed encyclopedia, including this subject. Gapeau served as a commissioned vessel with two navies, and is, in my opinion, more than notable enough to sustain an article.  raised WP:SIGCOV in the Gapeau AfD discussion. Once an article has been created, it can always be added to when further information comes to light. Again, this is another big advantage of Wikipedia, the ability to update and expand articles.
It is accepted that some vessels had more exciting careers than others, but a comprehensive approach to a subject is better than a patchy approach. So, do we hold that auxiliary naval vessels are generally going to be notable enough to sustain articles given book sources such as Colbert and Gröner, fleshed out with Lloyd's register? Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Our List of requisitioned trawlers of the Royal Navy (WWII) includes several stub-articles of a only a couple of lines for unremarkable vessels, but the most famous RN trawler of the war, HMT Ayrshire (or HMS Ayrshire (FY 225)) of Convoy PQ 17, is not one of them. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Auxiliary warships

message: Link: Talk:Second Cold War#Map of NATO. George Ho (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of NATO discussed at [[Talk:Second Cold War]] 

message: there are a lot of pages about military missions (personnel sent to a country to help train another nations military) yet the page about military advisors is threadbare. it would be difficult to accurately list all military missions, so i suggest the following: 
i propose a new category called "military advisors" be created, under which military missions pages, and pages on notable people who took part in these, so its properly organised.  Bird244 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean :Category:Military advisors, with the subcategory :Category:Military advisory groups? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: yes Bird244 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Missions 

message: Does anyone know why the wl in the lead of Operation Hurry are causing dupe wl warnings in the text? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a look but the infobox wl aren't showing as dupes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fort Capuzzo is doing the same. Could the dupe wl scanner be defective? Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Hurry question 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Words of estimative probability#Requested move 25 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Words of estimative probability#Requested move 25 May 2024]] 

message: Quick question: should articles about the bombing of a location in country X by the airforce of country Y be categorised as a ? One could argue that, aside from using air defences against country Y's airforce (if X forces did so), the location bombed in the country X is not an active participant in the combat, but rather passively undergoing it. I'm asking because :Category:World War II strategic bombing of the Netherlands is not directly in :Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving the Netherlands (which is a second-cousin category); but through its parent :Category:Netherlands in World War II, it is nevertheless in :Category:Wars involving the Netherlands. 
I'm not necessarily in favour or against it; just wondering if there are conventions about this, because I'm considering creating a , and I'd like to know if strategic bombings of the Netherlands by the Axis or Allies, without any Dutch aircraft involved, should 'count' as "involving the Netherlands". (Perhaps a precondition is that Dutch air defences on the ground were somehow involved in order to "count"?) That is going to be important for my selection criteria. Thanks in advance! NLeeuw (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Best not to widen the definition of 'battle' into any old skirmish unless the RS call it one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing of country X = battle involving country X?