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.
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Requests for project input
editPlease 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Requested move at Talk:Abdulkerim Abbas#Requested move 12 August 2025
edit
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Abdulkerim Abbas#Requested move 12 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 13:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Inviting other users to coordinate on a project? List of US WW2 Aircraft
editI've been working on an expanded table version of the List of US WW2 Aircraft, but it's taking a pretty significant time to do alone. How can I advertise projects such as this within this WP to get other editors involved?
I completed the USMC section of the list, but work on the Navy section slowed when I hit senior year of high school and now I'm in college so.. Anyways, the sandbox is here if anyone wants to take a look. Tylermack999 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've had a sneaky-beaky and think you've done well to get as far as you have. If you're a student now, shouldn't you be drunk in a ditch? ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Keith-264, Tylermack999, Lineagegeek, L293D, and ZLEA: This is the right place to start with the invitation. I will add this to the top of the page for more exposure. It probably could be simply moved there but this seems to be in an in-between category (which I just made up). If there were a way to directly notify the large number of members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force, that might help. I should know if there is a way to do that, but I don't. Some may not be very active or may even be retired. Some might not be interested in this area. I have added to this post the names of a few regular editors who are in that group and might be interested in looking at this. Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Please add reliable sources to this article. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
2025 India–Pakistan conflict has an RfC
edit
2025 India–Pakistan conflict 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. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment Sandschak#Not an SS unit. Probably not even a part of German forces (although German organized)
edit There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment Sandschak#Not an SS unit. Probably not even a part of German forces (although German organized) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Discussion on the state and quality of the article List of wars involving Pakistan
editThere is an ongoing discussion on the state and quality of the article List of wars involving Pakistan. To editors, please join the discussion at Talk:List of wars involving Pakistan#Why I removed content. KashanAbbas (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Siege of Yorktown
editSiege of Yorktown 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) 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Invasion of Isle de France
editInvasion of Isle de France 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) 15:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
There is an edit war going on on this article. Battle of Yultong. If some knowledgeable editors could review the infobox information, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- When I have time, I may have or can find sources that can straighten this out. On the Philippine Army site, I see mention of other Allied units in the area. This could be a situation where the Chinese forces attacked Allied forces that included the Filipinos, but not only them at first. The total Allied force might have been outnumbered and in a perilous situation. So the various other national forces may have pulled back, leaving the Philippine forces to face the entire Chinese force until they could also pull back. That might mean that initially, the Philippine force faced a large number of attackers, but more like the lower figures given. Then, before they withdrew, they might have been confronted and in danger of being surrounded by the whole Chinese force - at least briefly. This is just a suggestion based on the little information that I have already seen about the battle, mainly from the Philippine Army site. It will take some more research to try to verify exactly what happened. Maybe someone knowledge about this or who can investigate in sooner will come forward. @Brigade Piron: Is this something you may be interested in and can help research? Donner60 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have yet to come across a battle in the Korean War in which the US (at a minimum) was not involved in some capacity. I do not have any special expertise in this area but an obvious source is The History of the United Nations Forces in the Korean War (vol 6) which may be available online. Also tagging @Jim101: in case any interest.—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
FAC reviewers needed
editHi all, a FAC of mine (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser/archive1) will likely be archived if there aren't more reviews in the next few days, so if you have a minute, I'd appreciate it if you could swing by and review the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are a certain number of reviewers required? I'll certainly help out, although I don't have experience with the FAC process yet. GGOTCC 21:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's no hard and fast rule, but the article only had two reviews posted in about a month and a half, which is not enough (hence the notice from one of the FAC coordinators there). If you're interested in reviewing the article, there's the FA criteria, which gives a high level idea of what to look for. In my experience, looking at other reviews to see what people look for was helpful for me. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have an article at FAC too - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NASA Astronaut Group 3/archive1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Alright! I'll review both as I
procrastinatestudy tomorrow. GGOTCC 00:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Alright! I'll review both as I
World War I dogfight before 5 October 1914
editcurrently at DYK we have Aerial combat of 5 October 1914, where the proposed hook would be "... that the first "dogfight" of World War I took place on 5 October 1914 in France?" does anyone know of a WWI dogfight prior to this? thank you. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on your definition of a dogfight. Serb Miodrag Tomić and an Austro-Hungarian aviator were shooting at each other with pistols earlier in the war on 15 August, according to this Forces News article, but looks like both survived. As far as I can tell Russian pilot Pyotr Nesterov has the first aerial "kill" of the war; he took out an Austrian aircraft (and his own) by ramming on 8 September, but that doesn't involve firearms. In my view Tomić and his opponent have a good claim to "first dogfight" and perhaps the 5 October as the first "dogfight ending in a kill" - Dumelow (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note that our List of firsts in aviation#Practical flight 1914–1938 article has the Nesterov action of 8 Sep as First aircraft intentionally downed by another aircraft and the Frantz/Quénault action of 5 Oct as First aircraft to shoot down another aircraft. This seems sensible, given the somewhat nebulous definition of "dogfight". Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
List of aces of aces needs attention
editThere seems to be some sort of slow edit war on the List of aces of aces page about entries associated with the Russia-Ukraine war, with tempers fraying in edit summaries [[1]. It needs more attention from independent eyes (and perhaps some admin attention).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for making this talk. Page should be protected so random IPs can't vandalize it. Too many try to use wiki as a propaganda page. Also balloons and 30 cms self destructing drones shouldn't be counted as "kills". TransilvanPolyglot (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Protecting the page temporarily, blocking the repeated violators of WP:GSRUSUKR. We can all move on with our lives. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 232, August 2025
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Should an article titled "Feeding Britain in World War II" be retitled as "Feeding Britain in the Second World War"?
editI created the article Feeding Britain in World War II. Editor DuncanHill has insisted that the article be titled "Feeding Britain in the Second World War" and has reverted my original title.
This seems to be a fundamental disagreement on the primary name of the war that needs resolution by the military project. I have no objection to the term "Second World War" as an alternate name for World War II -- but in cases of dispute, the primary name of the event is World War II. I note that the umbrella Wiki article is titled World War II, not "the Second World War." World War II is the more common name for the event and that title is more concise and precise than "the Second World War."
I don't believe that arguing with User:DuncanHill will result in a resolution of this issue, so I seek additional opinions. Please join the discussion at Talk:Feeding Britain in World War II. Smallchief (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you were more open about the actual history. The article was moved to Feeding Britain in the Second World War by @S Marshall: on 4 October 2024, with the edit summary "per talk" - in response to your comment "Anybody who wishes may change my American English into British English. You have my concurrence." It stayed there until you moved it on the 25th August this year. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- As something of a tangential comment, the "AmEng uses WWII, BrEng uses SWW" orthodoxy is a wee bit overboard. Both terms are used in both varieties of English, and while one is somewhat more common than the other, using the less common one isn't going to surprise anybody. And yet we treat it as "American topics must use WWII and only WWII", and the reverse for BrEng. It's nonsensical. Surely we have better things to do with our time than argue over stuff like this. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Second World War"" is the official name in the UK; "World War II" is official in the US. Originally, the First World War was called the "Great War" in the UK right from when it started. The Germans called it the "World War", and the US adopted the German name. The British adopted the name "Second World War" during that conflict, at Winston Churchill's suggestion, and the Great War then became the First World War retrospectively. Thus, the naming is indeed orthodoxy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#ENGVAR and gaol / jail ? seems to indicate that some people have do not' have better things to do with their time Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have always tried to use FWW/SWW for British subjects and WWI/WWII for American but generally am more ambivalent on the latter. On Google Ngrams you can see that FWW is 2.5 more prevalent that WWI in British English in sources published in 2022 and this has always been the case; the situation is almost exactly reversed in American English sources. The split on SWW/WWII is a little less distinct (British & American) but SWW has always been the slight favourite in British English sources (2022=1.2x) and WWII the clear preference in American ones (2022=4.7x)- Dumelow (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Aside from the SWW/WWII aspect is "feeding Britain" the right title? "Feeding" comes across as a bit informal. I note we have Food and agriculture in Nazi Germany and Food in the Occupation of Japan as comparable article titles - Dumelow (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have always tried to use FWW/SWW for British subjects and WWI/WWII for American but generally am more ambivalent on the latter. On Google Ngrams you can see that FWW is 2.5 more prevalent that WWI in British English in sources published in 2022 and this has always been the case; the situation is almost exactly reversed in American English sources. The split on SWW/WWII is a little less distinct (British & American) but SWW has always been the slight favourite in British English sources (2022=1.2x) and WWII the clear preference in American ones (2022=4.7x)- Dumelow (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#ENGVAR and gaol / jail ? seems to indicate that some people have do not' have better things to do with their time Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Second World War"" is the official name in the UK; "World War II" is official in the US. Originally, the First World War was called the "Great War" in the UK right from when it started. The Germans called it the "World War", and the US adopted the German name. The British adopted the name "Second World War" during that conflict, at Winston Churchill's suggestion, and the Great War then became the First World War retrospectively. Thus, the naming is indeed orthodoxy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- As something of a tangential comment, the "AmEng uses WWII, BrEng uses SWW" orthodoxy is a wee bit overboard. Both terms are used in both varieties of English, and while one is somewhat more common than the other, using the less common one isn't going to surprise anybody. And yet we treat it as "American topics must use WWII and only WWII", and the reverse for BrEng. It's nonsensical. Surely we have better things to do with our time than argue over stuff like this. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
It's about the food supply to the British Isles (the archipelago), which then (as now) had a population of nearly double what its farmland could feed, and consequently relied heavily on imports, enabling the Axis to try to starve Britain by attacking the import ships with u-boats. Neutral Ireland was also affected although not quite in the same way. We need a form of words that succinctly captures the military, economic and political aspects of this.—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Food and agriculture in Britain during the Second World War". The topic is quite substantial, and I could imagine separate subarticles on Food and Agriculture. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
For all my years and large library on this subject, I never realized there was a controversy as to the formal, official name of the event in question. So, I changed the title of the article to that "official" name -- and learned that Brits prefer another name for said event. So be it. Two countries divided by a common language. The suggestions for a name change to "Food and agriculture" rather than "Feeding" is perhaps a good one -- although "Feeding" is more evocative. Smallchief (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Second World War it is then. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm more focused on "Feeding Britain" than on the various names of the war. Feeding is more than agriculture -- "feeding" in its natural meaning would include the Battle of the Atlantic and rationing, whereas "agriculture" would exclude them. "Britain" is probably meant as shorthand for the British Isles although the article doesn't cover Ireland. Personally I'm blessed if I can think of a better way of phrasing it than "Feeding Britain" -- the drier, more precise article titles that Wikipedia generally prefers would get very long in this instance.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Persuasive. "Feeding", it is then (in my humble opinion). Smallchief (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- If Ireland isn't involved then presumably it should be United Kingdom and not Britain? It's not Rationing in Britain after all. —Simon Harley (Talk). 11:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that at the time, "the United Kingdom" held dominions, crown colonies, and protectorates including for example India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa that aren't within the logical scope of this article. I think the article should be about a certain archipelago in the North Sea that our Irish friends wish we didn't call the British Isles, but I suspect that Smallchief's sources might not give much attention to Ireland.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Unlike some other countries (eg France), the United Kingdom has never included its Dominions and crown colonies as an integral part of its polity. Even the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Good point.I wonder if it's better to call it "Feeding the UK in the Second World War" or whether it's better to expand this article to include Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II and make it about the British Isles.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Unlike some other countries (eg France), the United Kingdom has never included its Dominions and crown colonies as an integral part of its polity. Even the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that at the time, "the United Kingdom" held dominions, crown colonies, and protectorates including for example India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa that aren't within the logical scope of this article. I think the article should be about a certain archipelago in the North Sea that our Irish friends wish we didn't call the British Isles, but I suspect that Smallchief's sources might not give much attention to Ireland.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- If Ireland isn't involved then presumably it should be United Kingdom and not Britain? It's not Rationing in Britain after all. —Simon Harley (Talk). 11:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Persuasive. "Feeding", it is then (in my humble opinion). Smallchief (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm more focused on "Feeding Britain" than on the various names of the war. Feeding is more than agriculture -- "feeding" in its natural meaning would include the Battle of the Atlantic and rationing, whereas "agriculture" would exclude them. "Britain" is probably meant as shorthand for the British Isles although the article doesn't cover Ireland. Personally I'm blessed if I can think of a better way of phrasing it than "Feeding Britain" -- the drier, more precise article titles that Wikipedia generally prefers would get very long in this instance.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident FAR?
editCan someone take a look at the current state of this article: 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident? Note the last comment on the talk page from SIX years ago by S.Rich. I think this article may need a FAR done on it. Thanks. MisawaSakura (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Battle Dress Uniform article
editi'm planning on rewriting the article for the US Battle Dress Uniform, which is currently in disrepair with unsourced material, original research, and general disorganization. if anyone wants to help work on the article with me, it would be a massive help. i'm relatively new to MILHIST, so if anyone could give me pointers for uniform articles that would also be vital. Waning Star (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- This 1979 journal has some details about the initial proposal for the BDU.
- 1979 article
- This 1981 House committee report describes early problems with shrinkage.
- Digital Human Modeling discusses men's amd women's sizing for the BDU.
- This newsletter briefly discusses the introduction of BDU into the USAF.
- an award for the guy who designed the cammo pattern
- Time magazine article 1984 criticism of BDU.
- US Navy Uniform Regulations 1981 may be of use.
- That's all I could find. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- thank you very much for these sources! Waning Star (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to try coordinating with SergeantSelfExplanatory (talk · contribs) who has done a ton of work on US uniform and camo patterns and individual equipment. They're probably one of the most familiar editors I'm ware of on the topic. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- good to know. i'll drop by their talk page and let them know. Waning Star (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to try coordinating with SergeantSelfExplanatory (talk · contribs) who has done a ton of work on US uniform and camo patterns and individual equipment. They're probably one of the most familiar editors I'm ware of on the topic. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- thank you very much for these sources! Waning Star (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Requested moves
edit There are requested move discussions at Talk:Flamingo (missile)#Requested move 30 August 2025 and Talk:Tomahawk missile#Requested move 30 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Bushranger One ping only 07:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Use of formal battle/siege names vs descriptive phrasing
editI would appreciate input on a point of prose style. My practice is to avoid repeatedly using formulaic expressions such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of Y" when narrating military engagements in prolonged conflicts, such as wars or the crusades. I find the surrounding text makes it clear to readers whether an event was a battle or a siege. For example, I would write: "the crusaders and their Byzantine allies compelled Nicaea’s garrison to surrender to Alexios in June 1097", rather than: "The crusaders and their Byzantine allies defeated the Seljuks at the Siege of Nicaea, surrendering to Alexios in June 1097". Dr. Grampinator has expressed the opposite view, suggesting in an edit summary that my approach "is not consistent with an encyclopedia article" and that "it is weird not to show the names of important battles" ([2]). I fully agree that battles and sieges should be linked in the text, but I believe it is preferable to avoid overusing terms that add little to comprehension and risk making the prose cumbersome. I welcome further thoughts on which approach best serves clarity and readability. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- The rewrite that you did does not explicitly reference (i.e., by formal name as represented in seperate Wikipedia articles) any battles or sieges of the First Crusade. Readers trying to learn of the Crusades would not find it cumberson to learn that there was a Siege of Jerusalem or a Battle of Ascalon. I totally disagree that it adds little to comprehension and makes the prose cumbersome. It is just the opposite. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting that military engagements should never be referred to by their formal names—a formal mention can certainly enrich the text in places. My concern is that the constant repetition of 'battle' and 'siege' is counterproductive from a stylistic perspective. Academic works also tend to use such formal titles rarely, most often confining them to the index. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I find myself agreeing that "it is weird not to show the names of important battles". And the MoS would suggest that a link is not an adequate replacement for including all of the information in line - MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." Gog the Mild (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that MOS:NOFORCELINK applies here: a sentence describing a battle is clear enough without a link to the article on that event. For example, if we read "King X was routed by Sultan Y at A", it is immediately understood that this was a battle between X and Y at A—the Battle of A. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I do not wish to get into a to and fro, nor be gratuitously awkward, but while these things may be clear to you, "King X was routed by Sultan Y at A" does not convey to me that there was a battle. And your attempt to defend not telling the reader that there was has me scratching my head. And in the example you initially gave it was similarly not clear to me - who I would have thought more alert to this sort of nuance than the average reader - that you were talking about a siege, until you used the word "siege". Gog the Mild (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Roma locuta, causa finita. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
It seems to me to be unnecessarily vague to avoid an 'official' title. Why not start with it and then use a few synonyms ('the battle', 'the siege', 'the campaign') and put the official name in again every now and then? I don't like the idea of allowing editors to use their imaginations for obvious reasons. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Dr. Grampinator, Gog the Mild and Keith-264. My view is that Wikipedia is written for the average or casual reader looking for basic information, not just for sophisticated PhDs. The mentioned commenters seem to have that reader in mind with their comments. Donner60 (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
No, as long as the title is 'battle' or 'siege' or some such, we do not have to labour the point. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- As long as the proper name is in the lead and the body of the article inside links and gets a mention in the analysis, synonyms will do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Finding a renamed article
editStructure of the British Army was moved to its current title on 26 April 2021. Was there a previous, old, article with that title? If so, could users with the appropriate permissions find the previous article? Many thanks and kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's a single deleted edit from the 2021 pagemove, which indicates the original page at that title was moved to Units of the British Army in August 2019. That was redirected back to Structure in October 2021 - looking at the history I think there must have been a (partial?) merge, but it's not explicitly labelled as such. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Dear all, as a result of certain events beginning after January this year, it appears our articles on some Antarctic military activities may need revision. See [3] and several similar pieces of evidence. Possibly significant Cold-weather warfare forces. @Nick-D, you wrote half the original article, might you be interested in taking a look? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- It fair sends a chill through your heart doesn't it? Keith-264 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Abu Obaida (Hamas)#Requested move 31 August 2025
edit There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Abu Obaida (Hamas)#Requested move 31 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. QalasQalas (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)