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 pleasecheck and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.
Che Guevara has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)17:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Amasa Walker has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)03:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
James Blunt has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)04:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheArticle Improvement Drive is a backlog reduction drive, which will run from 00:01 UTC on1 November through to 23:59 UTC on30 November 2025. The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project; however, only work on articles whose talk pages are tagged with with WikiProject Military History banner will be considered eligible. This year the drive is focused on eliminating four specific backlogs:
Articles tagged as citing no sources (around 1,100 articles)Category:Military history articles needing attention only to structure (around 300 articles)Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials (around 400 articles)Category:Military history articles needing attention only to grammar (around 50 articles)Points will also be awarded for improving articles to B-class, to further our long-term goal of having 15% of all articles at or above this level, and carrying out assessments of articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests.
I created the category for Operation Detachment, because there wasn't an existing list of ships that directly aided in the battle. Given how big of a role the navy had in the battle, it seemed reasonable to make a category for them. Apologies if you thought that was the wrong. I had already created the categories for Operation Torch, Husky, and Dragoon, (to go along with the already existing category for Operation Neptune), so I thought Iwo Jima would be the next logical choice.Machine Man77 (talk)16:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is where an order of battle article would be much more useful. Many warships of World War II took part in dozens of notable operations (and modern warships tend to have very long and very active careers, so the same will often apply to them), so it's non-defining.Nick-D (talk)07:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, is there currently a War of 1812 task force in this WikiProject, if not am I allowed to make one? I see there is the Napoleonic one but I am not sure if that covers it.History6042😊(Contact me)02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to reply earlier but got busy and didn't have a chance. I don't think this would be a good idea - I have been active with MILHIST for over 5 years now and there just hasn't been the sort of organized activity that would warrant a War of 1812 task force in that time. A task force needs more than just one or two active participants and I don't foresee a sufficient level of interest and activity long-term. This could be made a focus of the USA task force for a period, but not a separate task force. This is similar to the situation for the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War.Hog FarmTalk23:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not delete the page. I have deleted the contents and the link to it from the project page. I have added a note that the page was improperly established and should not be edited. It may be removed by an administrator soon, and can be re-established if approved. Otherwise, it will be deleted if not approved by the proper procedure, i.e. consensus on this page.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDonner60 (talk •contribs)00:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and deleted it as a G6 -- page created in error. If that's problematic for some reason, please let me know and I'll happily undelete and prod/AFD it instead; or if you want to retain the contents, I can undelete and draftify for you.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!00:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History6042 has created numerous task force assessment level categories for this task force (user contribution page November 2025). I assume these also will need to be deleted by an administrator if the task force remains deleted. The user has also added the category to 38 articles. These apparently can be rollbacked, which I can do for each one when the consensus is reached and this item is closed. It appears from the views already expressed that the task force will not be established. I note that if the user could only find c. 38 articles for which to add the task force, I think that is strong evidence supporting the comments that the task force should not be established. Thanks.Donner60 (talk)07:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, re-listing a question from a few weeks back that didn't get a substantive response: I recently posted a COI edit request atTalk:Kathleen Hicks asking whether a paragraph about her 2023 televised exchange withJon Stewart is warranted in her biography—given the article's short length, it suggests a larger role in her career than is the case—and also whether it may be more appropriate for Stewart's article instead. Because I am asking on behalf of the Hicks family, I won't edit directly, and I very much would appreciate input from editors familiar with defense topics. Thanks in advance,WWB Too (Talk ·COI)00:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SeeWikipedia:Primary sources. My interpretation is that Hicks's exchange with Stewart is a primary source which should not be added per se. However, take a careful look at the cited page because there is a little wiggle room for a limited careful use of primary sources. You or another experienced user may find a way to fit it into one of the articles. It would be better to include the information from a secondary source, of course. (I have not looked at it, if available, to see if I could discover if there is such a source.) I suggest this question and my reply be kept visible for at least a week in case you or anyone experienced in this project or in the use of primary sources has a contrary interpretation or a reason that would justify its inclusion in one of the articles. 23:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Donner60 (talk)23:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
