Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The May newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu • Sabuktigin • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I • Sam Manekshaw Featured article review Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Ernest J. King • CSS General Polk Good article reassessments Lockheed YF-22 • Galatian War Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,402) • only work on referencing and citation (43,150) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,516) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,641) • work on structure (31,788) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,185) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,754) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (11) • assessment as lists (123) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (13) • assessment checklists completed (34) • task forces added (292) • attention to task force coverage (679)

Reorganization of the Military history WikiProject task forces

Recently, the Coordinators for the XIV tranche have discussed the matter of introducing a new continental based task force system intended to allow the project to cover by proxy all nations and regions on the Earth. The new system proposed would see the nations and regions task force section reorganized with the introduction of a North American, European, and Asian task forces, a reclassification of the current Latin American task force into a dedicated South American task force, and the retention of the currently used African and Australian, New Zealand, and South Pacific task force (ANZSP).

The proposal for reorganization is based in part on a desire to better addressed perceived gaps in the coverage of national and regional task forces so as to allow for us to cover military forces in areas that presently have no specific coverage. Additionally, as has been observed by others in the project, the task forces run by the Military history Project have at this point evolved into a means of organizing project pages as opposed to being dedicated sub-sections of the project where interested editors work exclusively. It is believed that reorganizing the project's national and regional task forces in this way will benefit the project in the long run by allowing us to retain the current national and regional task forces while placing a moratorium of sorts on the creation of additional national and regional task forces while simultaneously allowing us a safe haven to catch national or regional task forces that have failed or disbanded. Creation of the currently proposed continental task forces would be followed up by the creation of certain regional task forces as judged to be necessary for the project to operate efficiently.

Because the coordinators require community input on this matter in order to move forward we are placing this here for discussion and to solicit feedback from the community on this proposal. If you have any comments, questions, concerns, or suggestions feel free to raise them here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think, rather than placing a moratorium on the creation of new project-based national or regional task forces, it would be better to simply have them redirect to the continental task force. Additionally, if a particular task force is pretty active, I recommend letting that one continue as it is. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In the long term that is one of the possible outcomes of this process, however there was disagreement on directly disbanding the task forces because a number of them are thought to be active enough to warrant a national or regional specific task force. For that reason we decided to go with a moratorium as a middle ground approach in order to research the subject to best determine which task forces could be consolidated and which can still stand on there own. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Will the implementation of this proposal involve reactivating the task force talk pages? I'd be in favour of doing so, for the ANZSP task force at least, to provide a forum for topic-specific discussions and take a bit of traffic off this busy page. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of activating all the continental taskforce talkpages (at least initially), to see if there is merit in the terms Nick suggests. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We can give that a try. No harm is trying something new since we already contemplating a major overhaul here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to give this a go, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2015 now open!

Military historian of the year 2015

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 14 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2015. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations

• Anotherclown: has once again been a stalwart of the project's review processes, as well as finding the time to write several GA-class articles over the year, and pitching in as a co-ord in the current tranche. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67: has continued to be a prolific content contributor writing numerous GA, A, and FA-class articles over the year, as well as being one of our more active coordinators. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• TomStar81: for ongoing contributions as a co-ord, and ongoing op-ed work as part of the team working on The Bugle. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ian Rose: for a great year as lead coordinator, getting stuck in and leading by example in all the back-room work (like passing ACRs, handing out ACMs, checking the monthly contest and re-booting it etc), his ongoing work on The Bugle and still having time to gather three more ACMs with Diamonds with his content work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7: prolific contributor of high-quality content. He has also been a long-time servant of the project as a co-ord, where his technical contributions (e.g. MILHIST Bot) have also been significant. Anotherclown (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keith-264: for his tireless contributions to many of our more important, yet often neglected First World War battle articles (not to mention helping out in other areas as well). Anotherclown (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• I nominate the usual suspects, we know who you are. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert: part of the furniture here really, in addition to writing a number of GA, A, and FA articles this year, he has continued to review more articles than nearly anyone else, not to mention helping out as a co-ord, providing well-regarded advice to new and established editors alike, contributing to The Bugle, helping out with drives, and assessing articles (among other things). Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria: for contributions right across the Project via her diligent and highly clueful work reviewing images used in articles at FAC/FLC and ACR/ALR in particular. I've lost track of how many times I've asked her for a second opinion on an image licence, or to jump in with an image review of an ACR she hasn't got to yet, but she is always happy to help out. She is one of the reasons the wheels haven't fallen off our ACR process yet. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December 2015.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 15:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Anotherclown

1. Support. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Keith-264 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67

1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
6. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
7. Support--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• TomStar81

1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support, especially for his great efforts producing thought-provoking op-eds in every issue of the Bugle during the commemoration period of WWI. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ian Rose

1. Support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support as nominator. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7

1. Hamish59 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support, for his continuing work improving ACR (and FAC) automation, as well as of course content contributions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keith-264

1. Support'. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Hamish59 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• "the usual suspects"

1. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert

1. Keith-264 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
6. Hamish59 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
7. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Support Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
9. Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
10. SupportKges1901 (talk)

• Nikkimaria

1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support, particularly for her unfailing efforts reviewing sources and imagery, without which the process would be sorely lacking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support as nominator. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
6. Support for her work on reviewing. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2015 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2015

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 14 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2015. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations

• Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs): Tomandjerry211 (who is currently active as Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs)) registered in early November 2014, and started editing Milhist articles fairly soon thereafter. In the last year, Tomandjerry211 has contributed one FL (List of United States Army campaigns during World War II, one AL ORBAT American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front (World War I) order of battle, and four A-Class articles on US WWII fighting vehicles. He's also brought another half-a-dozen articles on ships and vehicles up to GA. He's been cluefully involved in general Milhist discussions and responds positively to constructive comments in reviews. I'd say that's a great effort for a first year! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Researcher1944 (talk · contribs): Researcher1944 became a registered user in June 2015 and in the past year has been quite prolific, editing articles focused mainly on the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. He has contributed many biographical articles in this area and has recently been working on the epic RAF Bomber Command aircrew of World War II. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), who first became active in September 2014, for his diligence and work on checking into unsourced claims and non-NPOV language of World War II and Waffen-SS related articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Kges1901 (talk · contribs), who has recently become much more active working primarily on the Soviet Airborne Forces. There's a lot of translation from Ruwiki to do, and Kges1901 has created a string of useful formation and biographical articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December 2015.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 15:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs)

1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support as nominator. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
6. Hamish59 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
7. Support. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Support Several good candidates this year, but I've appreciated the way he's learnt during the year. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Researcher1944 (talk · contribs)

1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support. Gavbadger (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman (talk · contribs)

1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Hamish59 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support, don't think we've interacted yet but I like the look of the contributions I've seen so far -- good nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Kges1901 (talk · contribs)

1. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of active Russian Navy ships#Messy

Idea was raised on whether or not to tidy up what looks to be a messy list. It was suggested we use a similar layout as List of current ships of the United States Navy. I personally agree, and believe it would be nice to hear other peoples opinion before a consensus/decision is made. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create an infobox for fictional conflicts

I am proposing that an infobox be created for fictional conflicts, as currently many articles on fictional conflicts, as well as a real-time virtual battle, use Template:Infobox military conflict. To centralize discussion, please reply, if interested, at the infobox talk page I've linked to here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

1st Cavalry

Are the 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) page and the 1st Cavalry Regiment (1855) page about the same unit?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. But while looking at this I noticed that the creator of 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) has been permanently blocked since 2009 for copyvio. And this particular article seems to have been mostly a copy and paste from a U.S. Army publication. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as it's attributed, that should be alright - a US Army work would be public domain. (A lot of U.S. Navy ship articles were 'seeded' from DANFS, for instance, being a PD source.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As confirmed by http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/armor-cav/004cv003sq.htm, the 1st Cavalry Regiment formed in 1855 became the 4th Cavalry Regiment (United States). The First and Second Dragoons became the present-day 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) and 2nd Cavalry Regiment. In accordance with MILUNIT, 1 Cav Regt (1855) should be merged into 1st Cav Regt. As The Bushranger (even varying in numbers of pings) says, there is no problem with us starting from a PD source and then adopting it to suit WP:ARTICLE etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't therefore 1st Cavalry Regiment (1855) be merged into 4th Cavalry Regiment (United States)? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

When the Army starts re-designating companies/troops/batteries as battalions, it makes my head hurt. I'll add this to my to-do list, but don't let that stop anyone else.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's more of a 1960s thing (think CARS). The renaming of cavalry units took place at the start of the Civil War. What drives me nuts is when they start inventing regiments for lineage purposes (which started with the creation of the brigade combat teams). Intothatdarkness 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree there. Anyway, I've put an "agree" on the merger. Is that a technical process? --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes. Intothatdarkness 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: - which regiments were invented for lineage purposes as the BCT conversion took place? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Regular Army cavalry regiments only went to 28 (the 26th Cavalry, formed from Philippine Scouts, was the last regiment to see actual combat as cavalry - the 27th and 28th Cavalry didn't form until 1943 and were quickly converted). If you look at the official lineage for any regiment numbered above 28, you start seeing National Guard units, state units (from the period before the National Guard), and so on. The 106th Cavalry Regiment is one example of this. http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/armor-cav/106cvrg.htm shows the unit's recognized lineage. It was either field artillery or ADA for the bulk of its actual existence. Intothatdarkness 22:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Intothatdarkness. Noted some 70-series and 90-series regiments organised to provided BCT cavalry squadrons. Now I intend to merge 1 Cav (1855) into 4th Cavalry Regiment within about 24 hours unless there are any valid objections. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The articles have been merged. There is a discussion section on the talkpage, Talk:4th Cavalry Regiment (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

HMS templates question

HMS Wolverine how is this formula arrived at? I tried copying the format but kept getting the last bit wrong. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Keith, not totally sure what you are asking here, but have you had a look at the tmeplate documentation page here? Hamish59 (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been polishing the Operation Pedestal page but couldn't work out how to choose the last digit in {{HMS|Wolverine|D78|6}} templates like this.

I have another question: how is it that some pages have italics in the title. How is this accomplished? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ship articles with a ship infobox automagically italicize titles, mostly appropriately. The magic happens in {{Infobox ship begin}} and Module:WPSHIPS utilities. If the magic doesn't work right, tell me.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And what a beautifully written module. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre RfC

Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō ; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Have dropped by as asked. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 18/12/15

See Draft:William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 05:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible problematic article

I recently declined a speedy at List of wars between democracies, where the argument was that it was something someone came up with one day. It doesn't really fit under that criteria since the concept itself isn't exactly new and I don't know of any other guidelines it'd fall under. I've recommended that the article should go through AfD if further deletion is wanted. I haven't really taken an in-depth look at the article, but offhand my biggest concern would be that it may be considered original research. I'm bringing this up here so that someone more familiar with the topic of wars and democracy can take a look at it and see if everything is ship shape. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Political scientists have endless debates about wars between democracies, so it's a major topic. 1) "Wars between democracies: rare, or nonexistent?" International Interactions , 1993 is cited by 160 scholars; 2) "Kant or cant: The myth of the democratic peace" by

C Layne - International security, 1994 - is cited by over 700 scholars. see opening page. Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What democracies? The last one was Weimar Germany and that was assassinated in 1930.Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Assassinated how and by whom? —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Jacob L. Devers needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Jacob L. Devers; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

John French, 1st Earl of Ypres

Article: John French, 1st Earl of Ypres

I found this article among the "B class" articles and it's comprehensive and well referenced. Unfortunately, it falls one reference short. It could be a "GA" Assessment if the reference is found by someone who is into these type of articles. Adamdaley (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2016

The FAC nominator on this one is long gone. How does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I added a couple of links and adjusted the licences on one of the images in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the "Japanese commander's progress report" quote probably needs to be checked as it doesn't seem clear where it is taken from. Does anyone have Paul Ham's Kokoda? If so, it would be good to add an inline citation that includes the page number. Same same for the other quotes which just seem to include the title of the work without a page number. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I've had this on my watchlist since its FAC days and I think it's remained in good shape (even better now with Rupert's and Nick's recent input). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A couple of the external links appear to be dead, and I haven't yet been able to find archiveurls: [1]. If possible, I think we should replace or update these links. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've done the dead links now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The description of the battles Kingsbury was involved in are pretty lacking. In particular, the article implies that the Battle of Isurava wad an Australian victory, when it was actually a defeat Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, I'll keep an eye on changes to the article and modify the TFA accordingly. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)