Talk:World War I: Difference between revisions
ChristieBot (talk | contribs) m Transcluding GA review Tag: Reverted |
Restored revision 1228618972 by Aemilius Adolphin (talk): Im a dumbass, will reopen |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA nominee|09:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#000080;">'''''Wolverine'''''</span> <span style="color:#8A307F;">'''''XI'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#2C5F2D;">talk to me</span>]])</sup>|page=1|subtopic=Warfare|status=|note=|shortdesc=1914–1918 global conflict}} |
|||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header|archive_age=2|archive_units=months|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III|hide_find_sources=yes}} |
{{Talk header|archive_age=2|archive_units=months|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III|hide_find_sources=yes}} |
||
Line 38: | Line 39: | ||
|action7oldid=327095592 |
|action7oldid=327095592 |
||
|maindate=June 8, 2004 |
|maindate=June 8, 2004 |
||
⚫ | |||
|aciddate=February 2, 2008 |
|aciddate=February 2, 2008 |
||
|otddate=2011-07-28 |
|otddate=2011-07-28 |
||
Line 55: | Line 57: | ||
|action9result=kept |
|action9result=kept |
||
|action9oldid=2192499 |
|action9oldid=2192499 |
||
|action10 = GAN |
|||
|action10date = 22:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
|action10link = Talk:World War I/GA1 |
|||
|action10result = failed |
|||
|action10oldid = 1228566311 |
|||
⚫ | |||
|topic = Warfare |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B1= |
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|b5=y|A-Class=fail|WWI=yes|African=y|ANZSP=y|Balkan=y|British=y|Canadian=y|Chinese=y|French=y|German=y|Indian=y|Italian=y|Japanese=y|Latin-American=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Ottoman=y|Russian=y|US=y}} |
||
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Top}} |
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Top|military=y|military-importance=Top}} |
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Top|military=y|military-importance=Top}} |
||
Line 271: | Line 265: | ||
I don't have the time at the moment to make detailed edits but I would be interested in comments from other editors with good knowledge of the subject. [[User:Aemilius Adolphin|Aemilius Adolphin]] ([[User talk:Aemilius Adolphin|talk]]) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
I don't have the time at the moment to make detailed edits but I would be interested in comments from other editors with good knowledge of the subject. [[User:Aemilius Adolphin|Aemilius Adolphin]] ([[User talk:Aemilius Adolphin|talk]]) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
{{Talk:World War I/GA1}} |
Revision as of 22:41, 12 June 2024
World War I is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by Wolverine XI (talk to me) at 09:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: 1914–1918 global conflict |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
WW1
In ww1 Germany and France declared war on each other despite both their armies being where they're supposed to be. Both Germany and France had the security system that has every power.
Britain didn't declare war on Germany until the German army had gone through Belgium. The German army is not supposed to be in Belgium. Britain had mi5 that does agent handling and surveillance, and then police that display badges and arrest people. 211.29.202.35 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @user:211.29.202.35 Write this again, making it intelligible and say what your point is, otherwise it will be removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we can be more tolerant and welcoming of people whose first language may not be English and what they say is reasonably intelligible even though some clarifications may be needed. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that tolerance should be encouraged, but contributors do have a basic responsibility to be reasonably articulate and concise. It's not the responsibility of other editors to puzzle out the meaning of an incoherent submission. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand but there is a way to be more welcoming and tactful in how we approach users, specially if they may be new. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- or wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CIR also states "We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently".
- Asking (politely) to clarify the point would achieve the same thing, as well as modelling effective behaviours for others. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that tolerance should be encouraged, but contributors do have a basic responsibility to be reasonably articulate and concise. It's not the responsibility of other editors to puzzle out the meaning of an incoherent submission. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we can be more tolerant and welcoming of people whose first language may not be English and what they say is reasonably intelligible even though some clarifications may be needed. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe rather than complaining about how some of us acted, user's time would be better spent doing what they are telling us to do, as this is about WW1, not any editor. Comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contribution; unexpectedly enlightening in various ways. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Well i have found atleast 1 but there might be more words with no links like in 1 place "Germany" isnt linked to the germany wikipedia page World War I LostThisGame (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Now that I look at it a bit more it is probably made like that so it is not just a bunch of link everywhere.
- Please decline my edit request im sorry for being a problem. LostThisGame (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries @User:LostThisGame! Articles don't tend to link every time something is mentioned – typically just the first time, maybe more if there is distance between them. See MOS:OL for some more details on that. I'll also put some useful links on your talk page in a minute which you might find useful. Thanks for the request all the same! Irltoad (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Serbia was one of the most important nations in ww1 and you didnt even put it in "entante" list, no u have to click "expand list".... thats so dissrespectfull, the war was won because of the push on Salonica/Thessalonici front, and u didnt even put us on the list but there are Japan and Italy that didnt do shit in war... Please put us in main countries Markosrbija10 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit semi-protected}}
template. While there doesn't seem to be previous discussion on this, I presume that the determination of principal powers is based on the text of the Preamble of the Treaty of Versailles, plus Russia which was a member of the Triple Entente. It's a waste of time trying to debate things like "who were the top five contributors to winning WWI", and that would probably constitute original research anyway. Liu1126 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)- Given the war actually began in Serbia, I agree with Markosrbija that it deserves inclusion in the main list of Allied Powers, especially as Bulgaria is listed for the Central Powers.
- While we're on the topic, surely it should also be "British Empire" and "French Empire"; I understand the various sensitivities around this, but (unlike 1939), Australia and the other Dominions were committed to the war by virtue of being part of the Empire. And if you suggest to modern Egyptians, Indians or Sri Lankans they entered the war voluntarily, you'll get a pretty sharp response.
- Since none of these can be considered separate Belligerents, which is a closely defined term, both legally and per Wikipedia, I'd argue the current Infobox is actively misleading on this topic. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the heading in the box simply says: "Belligerents" and no criteria is stated for the decision to only display a small number of them. We could avoid this by displaying none of them except through the links. (This is the way the WWII article does it.) Of course, then we would have the problem of deciding who are the "Main Allied Leaders" and "Main Central leaders" (whatever that means). This is a bigger problem than whether or not we add Serbia. In my view, info boxes aren't designed to handle such complexities. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this is nearly as complicated as you suggest. The primary participants on both sides are easily identified, and inserting "British" and "French" empires (for example) actually simplifies the list. But I'm not dying on this hill. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Request to review Central Powers leaders of infobox
To some extent there is a consistent simplification of leadership in the infobox which is completely necessary, and for this reason I believe the Allied side of the leaders makes sense. I don't share this sentiment for the Central Powers Leaders listed. Like George V who is not on the infobox, Mehmed V was not calling any shots during his reign and was totally out of power, I would instead replace Sultan Reshad with Enver and Talat, they were the key decision makers on the Ottoman side during WWI. I would also advocate putting von Hindenburg, von Bethmann Hollweg, Ludendorff, or von Hotzendorf there as well but I don't have as much confidence to back up this request. I would appreciate input from a Bulgarianist in this discussion to verify whether Tsar Ferdinand was the leader of Bulgaria during the war or if there was a massive power behind his throne. Benlittlewiki (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- In listing leaders, we should be aiming to list no more than seven leaders a side (per template documentation). Furthermore, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE any entry must be supported by the article - ie, why they were key or significant should be evidenced by the article, otherwise a listing would be meaningless to the reader. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given this criteria, Mehmed V doesn't have a single mention in the article, at least Enver has one mention. Presumably we can at least replace the Sultan? Perhaps someone can add more information about the Ottomans during WWI in this article. Benlittlewiki (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think we need to clarify the criteria we are using. The heading in the info box is "Commanders and leaders" which sugget a distinction between political leaders and military commanders. However, given the importance of the home front and political aspects of the war, I'm not sure that such a distinction in meaningful. There is a huge historiography on the question of "who was really in charge" of Germany alone (and of course the answer often changes over the course of the war). Perhaps we should first settle the issue of who the major allied and central powers were. If we can do this we can then list the nominal head of government and the nominal head of the military for each major power. I suspect that this will be a lengthy process. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the current list of Allied and Central powers is sound. I am sympathetic to adding Serbia and/or Belgium to the infobox, but I would also like to hear arguments against this. Benlittlewiki (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- After a week there hasn't been any more input. Since no one objects to not adding Talaat to the infobox, I'm thinking of going through with this edit soon. To answer a likely FAQ, Djemal Pasha was not a key decision maker like Talaat and Enver were, and was principally a soldier on the Syrian front. He had a lot of political authority in that sector, but he did not have national decision making power. Talaat was Interior Minister, CUP leader, and then Prime Minister; he was basically running the civilian government, it doesn't make sense to exclude him from the infobox. German, Austrian, Hungarian, and Bulgarianists should do a similar inspection of the infobox. Benlittlewiki (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to have missed the implications of what I said. Enver is at least supported by on mention in the body of the article. Wheter such a passing mention is sufficient to place them in the infobox is another issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case I can add some information of the dynamics within the Ottoman Empire's government to the article. This said, given this criteria Vittorio Orlando, Poincaré, Franz Joseph I (who is mentioned not as a war leader but in the context of the July Crisis), and Yoshihito should never have been listed in the info box either, given that they are never mentioned in the article. Benlittlewiki (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that other commanders/leaders not supported by the article or with a minor passing mention should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to have missed the implications of what I said. Enver is at least supported by on mention in the body of the article. Wheter such a passing mention is sufficient to place them in the infobox is another issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Potentially wrong year
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says "In 1911, the Russian Stavka agreed with the French to attack Germany within fifteen days of mobilisation...". Isn't it 1914 and not 1911? Frogeater1 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
easy war
the first world war starts for a hungariyan king who was killed by a small teneger 61.2.121.248 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- What? Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated by Serbian nationals. Alexeyperlov 15:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Was not a king. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Archduke Franz Ferdinand
- Never implied he was. Alexeyperlov 15:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- So what has this to do with the OP's question about a kings death starting WW1? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mistook your confusion about a "king" for confusion over the start of ww1. Alexeyperlov 16:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- As no king was killed by a small teenager and that did not start Ww1, both. As this is now fruitless you may have the field. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mistook your confusion about a "king" for confusion over the start of ww1. Alexeyperlov 16:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- So what has this to do with the OP's question about a kings death starting WW1? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Was not a king. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated by Serbian nationals. Alexeyperlov 15:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- That’s 2 misspellings I can see, and some more in the other paragraphs.
- are you still in primary school or were you just too lazy to correct yourself? DogeofWisdom69 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Ottomans and WWI
@Benlittlewiki If you wish to add more information about the Ottoman Empire please ensure that your contributions are properly sourced and do not just represent your own interpretation of events. It might be better if you discuss your proposed additions in Talk and seek consensus before adding them to the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
A Small Misunderstanding
Although Japan did occupy Germany’s colonies, It did not further fight Germany or the Central Powers, And was not in the Triple Entente either. I would request an edit to fix that problem, have a nice day! ;) DogeofWisdom69 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect - Japan sent destroyers to the Mediterranean for anti-submarine duties in 1917 - see Japan during World War I#Events of 1917.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Lead suggestion re: middle east
I would like to propose the following addition to the article's lead paragraph on the results of the conflict. It would highlight the new middle eastern order dominated by France and Britain in place of the Ottoman Empire and the end of the Islamic Caliphate, both very important historical developments unmentioned in the current lead. This edit would also help move the lead to be less eurocentric. I would like to establish a consensus first before going through an edit. The following paragraph is the current lead paragraph of the result of WWI, and the paragraph after my suggestion.
>The fighting ended with the Armistice of 11 November 1918, while the subsequent Paris Peace Conference imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, notably the Treaty of Versailles. The dissolution of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires resulted in the creation of new independent states, including Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939.
>The fighting ended with the Armistice of 11 November 1918, while the subsequent Paris Peace Conference imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, notably the Treaty of Versailles. The dissolution of the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires resulted in the creation of new independent states in Central and Eastern Europe based on the principle of national self-determination, including Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. In the Middle East, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire resulted in a new Middle Eastern order dominated by Britain and France, as well as the end of the Islamic Caliphate. The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. Benlittlewiki (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, this suggest that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire led to instability causing WW2. I do not think this would be an improvement. The Banner talk 16:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Truth Social video
Part of this article (specifically part of the first sentence of Arms race) appeared, unattributed, in a video posted on Truth Social. Since the word "Reich" is plainly visible there is naturally a widespread negative reaction, without general realization that it's referencing Bismarck's Reich. Not that it makes it much better. I tried using {{Press}}, but can't identify any RS that mentions WP. David Brooks (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I already added a press mention template (to this AP article) earlier today. Funcrunch (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I changed my original wording to more accurate reflect the meaning and context. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- This edit seems entirely gratuitous. There are several mentions of a "unified German Reich" after 1871
- "It was only during the 1871 unification of Germany that the newly unified German Reich was first assigned an official capital."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_of_Germany
- "The classic expression of Bismarck’s approach to diplomacy was his 'Kissinger Diktat,' which laid out his foreign policy maxims for the unified German Reich."
- https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-iron-revolutionary/
- "Not only was it an independent kingdom until 1871, when it became part of the newly unified German Reich; this southern state is also home to the Alps,"
- https://macleans.ca/news/world/no-more-bavarian-separatism/
- And in fact is the "second" reich, preceding Hitler's Third Reich. Thus removing context around the term "third reich" instead of adding context. 108.35.187.202 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
GA and infobox collage
In light of the GA request, I would raise concerns about the use of a collage as the lead image as it relates to prevailing P&G. The purpose of the lead image is not to be a photo essay of the article subject. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. Per the WP:LEADIMAGE, the lead image should carry a representative image ...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
We might think of a representative image as one which is emblematic. Per WP:COLLAGE, Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way
[emphasis added]. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative
[emphasis added]. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us we should not try to write the article in the infobox. This applies equally to text and images. Mutiple images stacked togeather are smaller and more difficult to see (making them more of a distraction rather than a benefit) while extensive captioning bloats the infobox when WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is better. I would observe that the placement of these images togeather is not necessary and that the collage here tends to being decorative in function and intent. WP:OTHERCONTENT is not of itself a sound rational for use. I would suggest that the present tank image is suitably emblematic. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157: There's nothing wrong with the collage. We cannot represent World War I with one image; that's impossible. We instead use a collage to showcase the focal points of this global conflict. Using a single image on this article is like representing the animal kingdom with a pig, which obviously serves no one. My point is that certain subjects cannot be represented by one image and this is one of them. So if we were to use a single image, what would it be? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 10:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the problem is that you can't capture a global conflict with six small pictures either. On my (fairly large) screen most look like pictures of lines of tiny figures in a landscape that could be anywhere in the world. You have to read the lengthy captions and click on links to figure out what the hell they are. If you need an image that seems typical of WWI, I remember one that AJP Taylor used: it shows a headless soldier lying in a trench. It's pretty graphic but it captures the horror of the war far better than the current six pictures. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
GA request
A couple of editors have worked hard to tidy up this article and I understand one has put in a GA requests. It looks like they have made considerable improvements, but I think there are still quite a few problems and it probably would have been more productive if there was more discussion of the recent changes on the Talkpage before the GA request was made. Some concerns I have are:
1) Overlinking. The lead has too many links making it look like a sea of blue. There is no need to link common words like "machine gun" and the names of well known countries etc. There are also multiple examples of the same thing being linked more than once.
2) Some of the sourcing looks dubious. There are some pretty controversial assertions which are linked to websites or media articles rather than scholarly sources.
3) I have concerns over the balance of the article: with some relatively less important events with their own articles getting too much space in what should be a high level summary article.
4) The collage and other aspects of the info box needs improvement and more input from interested editors would be valuable.
I don't have the time at the moment to make detailed edits but I would be interested in comments from other editors with good knowledge of the subject. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees awaiting review
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- B-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- B-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- B-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- B-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class Ottoman military history articles
- Ottoman military history task force articles
- B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- B-Class South American military history articles
- South American military history task force articles
- B-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- B-Class European history articles
- Top-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- B-Class Australia articles
- Top-importance Australia articles
- Top-importance Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- B-Class Austria articles
- High-importance Austria articles
- B-Class Austria-Hungary articles
- Top-importance Austria-Hungary articles
- Austria-Hungary task force articles
- All WikiProject Austria pages
- B-Class Belgium-related articles
- Top-importance Belgium-related articles
- All WikiProject Belgium pages
- B-Class British Empire articles
- Top-importance British Empire articles
- All WikiProject British Empire pages
- B-Class Bulgaria articles
- High-importance Bulgaria articles
- WikiProject Bulgaria articles
- B-Class Canada-related articles
- High-importance Canada-related articles
- B-Class History of Canada articles
- High-importance History of Canada articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- B-Class France articles
- Top-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- B-Class Germany articles
- Top-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- B-Class Greek articles
- Top-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece general articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- B-Class Hungary articles
- Top-importance Hungary articles
- All WikiProject Hungary pages
- B-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of High-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Italy articles
- Top-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- B-Class Moldova articles
- Top-importance Moldova articles
- Moldova articles
- B-Class Romania articles
- Top-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- B-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class Serbia articles
- Top-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- B-Class Turkey articles
- High-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- B-Class former country articles
- B-Class Ottoman Empire articles
- High-importance Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- United States military history articles with to-do lists
- B-Class United States History articles
- High-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Yugoslavia articles
- Top-importance Yugoslavia articles
- WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
- B-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- High-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press