Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.
Shortcuts:
WP:MILMOS
WP:MHMOS
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → A-Class FAQ / B-Class FAQ
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
 → Copy-editing alert box
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
 → Improved! Review alert box
Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes

The Military history WikiProject's style guide is intended to apply to all articles within the project's scope—in other words, to all articles related to military history. While the recommendations presented here are well-suited for the vast majority of such articles, there exist a number of peculiar cases where, for lack of a better solution, alternate approaches have been taken. These exceptions are often the result of protracted negotiation; if something seems unusual or out-of-place, it may be worthwhile to ask before attempting to change it, as there might be reasons for the oddity that are not immediately obvious!

The current status of these guidelines as part of the Manual of Style was established following this discussion.

Contents
Style and formatting
Manual of Style and its subpages
Related policies and guidelines
Related help, tutorials and proposals
Related to specific cultures

[edit] Naming conventions

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#f5f1ff

[edit] Events

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events).

An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event (such as Battle of Gettysburg, Siege of Leningrad, Attack on Pearl Harbor, or Doolittle Raid). If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations; see also the section on capitalization. Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care.

If disambiguation is needed, the year may be added in parentheses (as in Battle of Salamis in Cyprus (306 BC)). Multiple battles at the same place in the same year should be called "First", "Second", and so forth (as in First Battle of Zürich and Second Battle of Zürich); alternately, the month of the battle may be used as a disambiguation (as in Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)).

Operational codenames

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#f321f5ME

Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa).

[edit] Units, formations, and bases

Shortcuts:
WP:MILMOS#fffff5ME
WP:MILMOS#45f1f5ME

An article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature.

A name originally in a language other than English should be adapted by translating common terms (such as designations of size and type) and transliterating the remainder of the name. The choice of which components of the name are to be translated (and how) should follow the conventions employed by reputable historical works on the topic; some collected recommendations for specific terms are maintained by the relevant national task forces. The original name should be provided in the first sentence of the article, following the translated name; for example, "The 3rd Mountain Division (3. Gebirgs-Division) was..." or "Boden Fortress (Swedish: Bodens fästning) is...".

Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army".

For units, the optional disambiguator should be the common name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs to (as in 4th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)), or, if such usage is still ambiguous (or where the unit does not serve a country), the name of the service branch to which the unit belongs (as in 1st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)). The disambiguator is not necessary in cases where the name of the country is already present in the name of the unit (as in The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada), or where the name is clearly unique (as in Preobrazhensky regiment).

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

For bases, the optional disambiguator should be the region, province, state, or territory in which the base or fortress is located; for example, "Fort Lyon (Virginia)" and "Fort Lyon (Colorado)". The disambiguator is not necessary in cases where the name is unique to a single fortress or base.

When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names.

[edit] Topic-specific conventions

There are a number of other naming conventions which are applicable to the articles in our scope. The most relevant ones are as follows:

In addition, several task forces maintain more detailed naming recommendations for particular topics:

[edit] Category names

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#35fff5E

A number of naming conventions exist specifically for category names; most of these are used to ensure consistent naming among all the sub-categories of a particular category.

"X by country" 
In most cases, sub-categories of a category named "X by country" take names of the form "X of [the] Y", where Y is the most common name of the country in question. For example:
The subsidiary "by branch" categories for topics such as military units or personnel follow the same convention, with the full branch name replacing the country name (as in Category:Military units and formations of the United States Army).
Categories classifying military conflicts and operations by country take names of the form "X involving [the] Y" instead:
"X by era" 
In most cases, sub-categories of a category named "X by era" take names of the form "X of the Y era", where Y is the name of the era of warfare in question. For example:
"X by war" 
In most cases, sub-categories of a category named "X by war" take names of the form "X of [the] Y", where Y is the most common name of the war in question. For example:
"X by size" 
This category tree is used primarily for military units and formations; sub-categories take the name "Y", where Y is the size in question (as in Category:Military units and formations by size → Category:Regiments, Category:Corps, and so forth).
"X by type" 
In most cases, sub-categories of a category named "X by type" take names of the form "Y X", where Y describes the type in question. For example:
Note that this form of category tree tends to exhibit more varied naming than the others. For example, Category:Battles by type also includes the non-standard Category:Sieges (since "Siege battles" would be a cumbersome name).
Intersection categories 
The names of intersection categories generally follow the same conventions as above, with the name components of their parent categories placed in normal grammatical order (usually with era/war designations given after country/branch ones). This produces, for example, "Naval battles of the Early Modern era" (type and era) and "Airborne regiments of the United States Army in World War II" (type, size, branch, and war).

[edit] Notability

This section is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's.

WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability that meet or exceed the expectations of notability or the applicable sub-guideline (BIO, ORG, NUMBER, ACADEMICS, and rest of the sub guidelines). Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.
Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#fff1ff
For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Notability.

In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

In particular, the following types of individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify:

  • Recipients of a country's highest military decoration.
  • People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat.
  • Holders of top-level command positions (such as Chief of the General Staff).
  • People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works.

Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is probably not notable.

[edit] Article content

[edit] Article structure

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#fffff3URE

The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss.

[edit] War

The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:

  1. The name of the war (including alternate names).
  2. When did it happen?
  3. Who fought in it?
  4. Why did it happen?
  5. What was the outcome?
  6. What was its significance, if any?

The article can be structured along these lines:

  1. The historical background to the conflict, including preceding conflicts, the political situation, military preparedness, and technology.
  2. The causes of the conflict.
  3. The trigger, if notable. For example, the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria triggered a sequence of events that led to World War I. Take care to distinguish a trigger or pretext from the underlying causes that allowed the event to trigger a war.
  4. A summary of the conflict. When a war is large, it can often be divided into phases, geographic regions ("theaters"), or naval and land campaigns. Don't describe individual battles in detail; refer to a separate article on the battle and just explain the result of the battle and its consequences for the war.
  5. How the war came to an end. What treaties were signed, and what were their conditions?
  6. What were the consequences of the war? Who did it affect? What happened next? Did the war lead to peace or to further wars? Were countries conquered or liberated? Were there significant advances in tactics or technology?

[edit] Battle

The opening paragraph (or lead section in a longer article) should concisely convey:

  1. The name of the battle (including alternate names).
  2. When did it happen?
  3. Where did it happen?
  4. Which war or campaign does it belong to?
  5. Who were the combatants?
  6. What was its outcome or significance?

The article can be structured along these lines:

  1. The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously?
  2. The prelude. What forces were involved? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?
  3. A description of the battle. What tactics were used?
  4. The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?
Summaries of battles in other articles

Because of the key role the discussion of individual battles plays in military historiography, it is often useful to summarize information about a particular battle in an article of broader scope (such as one discussing a war or military leader). In such cases, the bulk of the material should be in the article on the battle itself; the summary in the external article should be trimmed to one or two paragraphs that concisely present the following:

  1. Why did the battle take place? Who was attacking and who was defending? Why was it worth fighting the battle instead of avoiding it; what was at stake?
  2. What was the troop strength of each side and approximate composition of the forces?
  3. Who won, and how decisive a victory was it? Were there any important personages that were captured, wounded, or killed? What was the impact of the battle on the overall campaign?
  4. Were there any notable strategies or tactics that make this more than just one of many battles? Were there any brilliant moves or notable errors that contributed to the outcome of the battle?

[edit] Unit or formation

The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:

  1. The formal name of the unit, its abbreviation, and its nickname(s).
  2. What is the unit's country or allegiance?
  3. What service (Air Force, Army, or Navy) was the unit part of?
  4. When was it formed?
  5. If the unit no longer exists, when was it disbanded or deactivated?
  6. In what notable battles, operations, or wars did the unit participate?

The article can be structured along these lines:

  1. The unit's history. Why was it formed? Who formed it? Where and how has the unit served in peacetime and war? Who has commanded it?
  2. If the unit still exists, where is it now? What higher-level formation is the unit assigned to, if any? What is its current role?
  3. The unit's traditions. What mascots does it have? What anniversaries does it celebrate?
  4. What gallantry awards (such as the Medal of Honor, Param Vir Chakra, or Victoria Cross) have been awarded to members of the unit? What unit awards (such as battle honours or presidential citations) has the unit received?

[edit] Firearm

The article can be structured along these lines:

  1. History. A history of the weapon, including background events leading to the design and the evolution of design, plus service history.
  2. Design and features. A description of the major points of the weapon, including details of the operating mechanism, how the weapon is maintainted and operated by the user, and ballistics.
  3. Accessories. A list and description of the officially approved accessories issued with the weapon, such as bayonets and any special cleaning kits.
  4. Variants. A list and description of all variants and close descendants of the weapon, plus production details.
  5. Civilian use. A general description of the use of the weapon by non-military, non-government, and legally entitled groups.
  6. Cultural impact, if any. A general summary of the weapon's impact on culture, complying with the guidelines on popular culture.

[edit] Base or fortress

The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:

  1. The formal name of the base in English, any appropriate foreign names, and any nickname(s).
  2. Who owns or operates the fortress or base?
  3. What is the purpose of the fortress or base; in other words, why was it built?
  4. When was it built?
  5. In what notable battles, operations, or wars was the base or fortress involved?
  6. If the base or fortress no longer exists, when was it demolished or deactivated and why?

The article can be structured along these lines:

  1. The base or fort's background. What events led to the need for a new fortress or base?
  2. The planning and construction of the fort or base. Who built it? What were its physical features and what problems arose during construction? Consider the surrounding terrain and other potentially hostile conditions, including opposition to its construction.
  3. The base or fort's history. After it was built, how did the base serve its builders? What purpose did it serve, and how effective was it in that role? Was it involved in any battles or provide a supporting role to an army or unit? What units were stationed at the base, and who were its commanders?
  4. If the base or fort still exists, what is its purpose and condition? Who is in charge of the base? What are the politics surrounding it?
  5. If the base or fort no longer exists, what happened to its site? Has it been turned over to commercial use, another military, or converted to park land?

[edit] Popular culture

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#ffffff

"In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic. Items meeting these requirements should typically be worked into the text of the article; a separate section for popular culture items, and in particular the following, should be avoided:

  • Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia)
  • Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research)

This tends to be a particular problem in articles on military hardware (weapons, vehicles, and so forth); for example, the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand may appear in any World War II film, and their many appearances don't warrant an exhaustive list. On the other hand, a discussion of the Webley representing a stereotypical British revolver, or a conceptual artist's public response to the symbolism of the East European tank monument, is certainly notable.

[edit] Usage and style

[edit] Capitalization

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#fffff5ry terms.

The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.

[edit] Flag icons

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#f0f5ff
For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags).

In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider:

  • Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not.
  • Can flag icons be used consistently? In other words, do all the groups in a given list have usable flags? If only a few have them, it may be better to omit flags for all the items than to have a different layout for each one.
  • Will adding icons disrupt the existing structure or flow of the text? It is important to keep in mind that infobox templates permit limited useful width, so the use of flag icons in them can potentially conflict with readability.

When flag icons are used, they should be historically accurate ones. In particular:

  • When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods. Be especially careful to avoid using the flags of modern countries for ancient ones; in many cases, the proper successor of a country no longer in existence is a matter of considerable controversy.
  • Avoid using national flags in inappropriate contexts, such as for groups or individuals not aligned with any country.

When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. However, there remains considerable disagreement regarding the appropriateness of flags in such cases, so editors should not regard this as a universal rule.

[edit] Precision

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#ff13ffE

In general, articles should strive to be precise. Where the names of specific operations, formations, or commanders are available, for example, it is usually better to use them instead of more general terms; "The Ninth United States Army would launch an offensive, codenamed Operation Grenade, across the Roer" is likely to be more helpful to the reader than "The United States would launch an offensive across the Roer".

It is important to note, however, that the level of precision in an article should be appropriate for its scope. Articles dealing with narrower and more specialized topics can use more specific terminology than may be feasible in articles dealing with broad overviews or very general topics; and general terminology is often appropriate in an introductory section even where more specific terms are used in the body of the article. Precision should not be pursued to such an extent that it impairs the average reader's understanding of the topic.

[edit] Pronouns

Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.

[edit] Sourcing and citation

[edit] Sources

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#ffff31S

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article.

[edit] Citations

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#f3f1ff

The nature of historical material requires that articles be thoroughly—even exhaustively—cited. At a minimum, the following all require direct citation:

  1. Direct quotations of outside material
  2. Paraphase or other borrowing of ideas from an outside source
  3. Controversial or disputed statements
  4. Subjective or qualitative judgements
  5. Numerical quantities or statistics

In general, any statement for which a citation has been explicitly requested by another editor should be provided with one as well.

Beyond this, editors are encouraged to cite any statement that is obscure or difficult to find in the available sources, as well as any significant statement in general. There is no numerical requirement for a particular density of citations or for some predetermined number of citations in an article; editors are expected to use their best judgement as to how much citation is appropriate. When in doubt, cite; additional citations are harmless at worst, and may prove invaluable in the long term.

[edit] Citation styles

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#f3f1ffYLE
For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#fffff1 citations.

In general, articles may use one of two citation styles:

  • Footnotes
    Footnotes are generally the more appropriate option when the level of citation is very dense, or where the citations include additional commentary. A number of different formatting styles are available; so long as an article is internally consistent, the choice of which to use is left to the discretion of the major editors. For example, discursive notes may either be combined with citations (as here and here), or separated (as here).
    A single footnote may be used to provide citations for any amount of material; while they typically apply to one or a few sentences, they may also cover entire paragraphs or sections of text. In cases where the connection between the citations and the material cited is not obvious, it is helpful to describe it explicitly (for example, "For the details of the operation, see Smith, First Book, 143–188, and Jones, Another Book, chapters 2–7; for the international reaction, see Thomas, Yet Another Book, 122–191").
  • Harvard-style references
    Harvard-style references are useful where a limited number of simple citations is needed; they typically should not be used if the article has a significant number of other items in parentheses, or if citations must be accompanied by commentary.

The final choice of which style to follow is left to the discretion of an article's editors.

[edit] Requesting citations

Editors should attempt to take a reasonable approach when requesting citations. Unless the accuracy of a statement is in significant doubt, it is generally better to start with a request for citations on the article's talk page, rather than by inserting {{fact}} tags—particularly large numbers of such tags—into the article. Over-tagging should be avoided; if a large portion of the article is uncited, adding an {{unreferenced}} or {{citation style}} tag to an entire section is usually more helpful than simply placing {{fact}} tags on every sentence. Note that some articles contain per-paragraph citations, so checking the citations at the end of a paragraph may yield information about facts or figures in the paragraph as a whole.

[edit] Templates

The various primary and auxiliary infobox templates and navigation templates maintained by the Military history WikiProject are all coded to use a common set of styling characteristics. This is needed primarily because a number of the templates are designed to be stacked together to present the appearance of a continuous block; it is also beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope.

[edit] Infobox templates

Shortcut:
WP:MILMOS#fff0f4X

A few general guidelines apply to all military history infoboxes:

  1. Most of the fields in each infobox can be omitted if desired; the choice of which ones are appropriate for a particular article is left to the discretion of the article's editors.
  2. Multiple values given in a single field should be separated by both commas and, where appropriate, line breaks; merely spacing them onto separate lines can confuse screen reader software, and is ambiguous when long terms wrap onto multiple lines in their own right.
  3. Any use of flag icons should follow the relevant guidelines.

[edit] Primary infoboxes

A primary infobox is intended to provide a summary table for some topic. It should generally be placed at the top of an article, before the lead section; this will cause it to be displayed in the top right corner.

{{Infobox Firearm Cartridge}} 
Used for cartridges and artillery shells.
{{