Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.

Coordinator tasks[edit]

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
  • Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
    • Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
    • Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
  • Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
Peer review
A-Class review
Featured content
  • For each new featured content candidacy or review:
    1. Add the candidacy or review to the {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} template.
  • For each concluded featured content candidacy or review:
    1. Remove the candidacy or review from the {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} template and the corresponding section in the review department.
    2. If the content was promoted to featured status (or demoted from it), add it to (or remove it from) the project showcase, and note the promotion in the monthly newsletter if needed.
Member affairs

How to...[edit]

Boilerplate and templates[edit]

Open tasks[edit]

Topics for future discussion[edit]

  • Collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, universities, and various other institutions (e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM)
  • Article improvement drives
  • Featured portal drives
  • Notability guideline for battles
  • Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks
  • Using the "Results" field in infoboxes
  • How far milhist's scope should include 'military fiction' (possible solution, see scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force)
  • Encouraging member participation in the various review processes (peer, GAN, ACR etc)
  • Recruiting new members (see User:The ed17/MILHIST, etc.)
  • Improving/maintaining popular pages
  • Motivating improvement from Stub to B-Class
  • Enabling editors to improve articles beyond B-Class (possibly utilising logistics dept, also see WP:FAT for related ideas)
  • Helping new members (possibly involving improving/deprecating welcome template; writing Academy course)
  • Recruiting copy-editors to help during ACR
  • Recruiting editors from external forums/groups/etc.
  • Simplifying ACR instructions (old discussion)

Missing academy articles[edit]

Open award nominations[edit]

Nominations for awards are made and voted on by coordinators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. An A-Class Medal nomination needs at least two coordinators' votes to succeed, and the Chevrons with Oak Leaves a majority of coordinators' votes. All coordinators are requested to review the following:

ACRs for closure[edit]

All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either the promotion or non-promotion of the article under review. Any A-Class review filed on or before 21 July may be closed by an uninvolved coordinator. A guide to closing A-Class reviews is available. Please wait 24 hours after a review is listed here before closing it to allow time for last-minute reviews.


A quick note about awards[edit]

Please remember to add an awarded ACM to the medals page - I went through and added a few missing ones just now, and Sturmvogel's most recent two are also missing, which leads me to believe there are probably others. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

HI, my bad on Sturm's, fixed now. I slavishly follow the guide, and don't remember it being a step. Will have a look to make sure, and add it if it's not there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Friendly reminder, my last ACM is not listed either MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Blast - I forgot one of these too. Added now. Think this is fixed now but pls let me know if its not. Apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm missing one from last year. USS Saratoga (CV-3), Conte di Cavour-class battleship and HMS Warrior (1860). I also updated the list with one that had been awarded and not noted there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A Class Cross (ACC)[edit]

G'day all, At the risk of being too ambitious, our last discussion on this issue resulted in a consensus that the ACM w/Diamonds should top out at 15 groups of three. I'd like to proceed on that basis to decide on the name and number of A-Class articles/lists needed to gain the A-Class Cross. My feeling from the previous discussion was that the ACC should be more difficult per level than the ACM. Perhaps five A-class articles (after you top out with the ACM w/Diamonds) to qualify for each ACC, and making it five ACCs before you go to ACC w/Oak Leaves (which would be six groups of three)? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I've got no dramas with this being implemented. Any other opinions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rupert. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: can we get some opinions one way or the other? We now have three editors working their way through the ACM w/Diamonds, and while that will take a while, one of them is Parsecboy, and he's not going to run out of ships anytime soon... MisterBee and Sturm are also approaching the Diamonds. I'd also like to start someone on a design. No rush, but I'm sure the Diamonds were put in place long before anyone got near them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Same as Rupert! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Gday - support. Seems a well out way of recognising the valued contributions of our more prolific members. Anotherclown (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Support from me as well. Do we have anyone who can actually draw the award, though? I vaguely recall that it took us some time to find someone for the original ACMs. Kirill [talk] 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we could start by talking to Roger Davies and Noclador, as they were involved with the original work and later versions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
In terms of design, I was think about replacing the blue Maltese cross with a straight armed, straight ended cross pattée of a different colour, avoiding green, bronze, silver or gold so as to create some contrast (perhaps maroon). Have a look at Cross of Valour (Canada) for what I was thinking in terms of the colour and shape of the cross, although with thinner arms so you can still see the other elements. Looking to retain the "A" on the bottom arm, the "Mil Hist" on the horizontal arms and not changing the elements behind the cross in any significant way? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Support the idea. Of course, putting it together is another matter entirely. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I took the original A-Class Medals and exchanged the blue crosses with red crosses for a start. Please let me know how to tweak them, what to change and also how you think a third class should of A-Class medals should look. cheers,noclador (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I think our general concept at this stage is that we will have the four ACC levels, and perhaps a Grand Cross series after that, but that would be a very long way off in terms of anyone actually qualifying for them. It might be worth agreeing on a design concept for the Grand Cross now while we have your help and you have the original files to work from. We haven't really talked about what a Grand Cross might look like. Regardless, I quite like the ACC series that you have designed, what do other Coords think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Righteous! That'll look sweet on any editor's page. Well done! :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. One idea for a Grand Cross would be to use the shape of the Military Order of Maria Theresa, perhaps in purple. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thank you very much, Noclador, for these designs. My suggestions are that:
  1. We don't change the name or design of the current ACMs, and so retain a similar naming standard for the new ACC; in other words Cross, Cross with Oak Leaves, Cross with Swords, and Cross with Diamonds.
  2. Further, we don't describe the ACC as 1st or 2nd Class, if we go to something beyond Cross (highly unlikely IMO anyway!) then we call it Grand Cross, as Peacemaker suggests.
  3. I suppose we kind of painted ourselves into a corner with the ACM design as it's a cross even though we call them medals, so the ACC just has to be a different style of cross. The design you've picked is fine by me as a contrast, I would just suggest a slightly more lively shade of red as the current shade seems a little dull compared to the brightness of the ACM blue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Noclador, as Ian said, we call the first set the "A-Class Medal" (with Oak Leaves, with Swords, with Diamonds), and we would call the new set "A-Class Cross" (with Oak Leaves, with Swords, with Diamonds). You might want to rename the files so there is no confusion? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
At one point was he was Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General Omar Bradley was presented with a proposal for revised enlisted ranks. These included the ranks of Sergeant (1st Class) and Sergeant (2nd Class). Bradley wrote on the proposal that he knew that there were a lot of second class sergeants in the Army, but at least we don't have to call them that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I did some updates of the Cross series now:

  1. I did change the red to a more lively red, please let me know if it is to your liking.
  2. I can't rename the file names as I am not an administrator on commons. Currently the files are names: WPMH ACR 2.png, WPMH ACR (Oakleaves) 2.png, WPMH ACR (Swords) 2, WPMH ACR (Diamonds) 2.png. In case this is a problem I will request and admin to make the necessary changes on commons.
  3. I did a grand cross design for you to review, but it just a start - lots needs to be done. Please make suggestions on how to improve it.
  4. In case a 3rd class will be introduced I could replace the cross with a star. Either a 5, 6, or 8 pointed star would be possible; or alternatively a design similar to the French Legion of Honour.

best regards, noclador (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the A-Class Cross series. The other coordinators might chip in with any further tweaks. So far as the Grand Cross is concerned, I like what you've done, but I would be interested in seeing what a purple cross looks like, and including the Mil Hist and A per the other two series. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I quickly did a suggestion for a purple Grand Cross. All other input I will add in future versions. cheers, noclador (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I like the proposed versions. They're sufficiently striking and distinct from the ACM for me, which is what I think we wanted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know if there are any changes desired for the new A-Class cross series and the Grand Cross. I have time this weekend and could create new versions for review. best, noclador (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: . I think we have a consensus to accept the ACC series above, the Grand Cross needs more consideration/design time, I think. Any objections? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No objections from me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the changes, Noclador, really appreciate your work -- I'm quite happy with the ACC designs now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No objections from me either; the designs look great! Kirill [talk] 12:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, no objections. Thank you for moving this forward. Anotherclown (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break I[edit]

A pleasure. I'm going to take it we have sufficient consensus, with TomStar81, Harry, Rupert, Ian, Kirill, Ac and I all expressing support for the ACC series designs, and Hawkeye and Ed supportive of the project generally prior to completion of the design. I'll put some words together for the Awards page so we can agree on how we express this next tier. Thanks everyone for expressing views and supporting, and especial thanks to @Noclador: for his excellent and timely design work. He has been a great supporter of MILHIST over the years, especially with graphics. I think we can put the Grand Cross to one side for a bit, in case some great new design idea pops up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: My draft insertion for the awards page is here. Could you have a look and check that it is consistent with your understanding of what we have agreed? Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes that wording looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, everything looks to be in order. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No objections from me. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Me too! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
+1. Thanks Peacemaker. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I've put it in place, feel free to fix any screw-ups with the syntax... Cheers everyone, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
And I have presented Noclador with a token of our thanks for his design work. Cheers! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Good on you, PM. As for Hawkeye, well, I'd hope you're pleased with it, mate -- I don't think we'd have bothered even thinking about this thing if it wasn't for your prodigious efforts... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Beautiful work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Probably need to update the awards page to clarify when the ACC is awarded vice the ACM w/Diamonds as I'm not sure that I understand it myself. Not really relevant for quite a while yet, but best to deal with it now, I'd think.

G'day Sturm, I think I've made the link, see what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania leaflet?[edit]

Hey all, any thoughts on a leaflet for this year's Wikimania? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me, and I've drafted a possible leaflet at User:Nick-D/Drafts12 (mainly drawing on material on the project's home page). What do others think? In the top field the norm for other projects appears to be to give the contact details of someone who's going to Wikimania - are any of the coords attending? (I was hoping to go, but work commitments rule it out). Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The draft leaflet looks good to me; thanks for putting it together! I'll be at Wikimania, and I would guess that at least any UK coordinators will probably be there as well. Perhaps we should organize a MILHIST meetup if there's enough interest/attendance? Kirill [talk] 00:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A MilHist meetup would be fantastic; there's plenty of space in the venue, and plenty of good pubs or other spaces nearby. We're very lucky in that respect because we're right in the heart of London. There should be plenty of dynamic space because the place is huge, but the details of which space is being used for what are still being worked out. I also like the idea of a leaflet; is the idea to put these in the goody bags or to give them out some other way? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
If there's a Milhist meetup, it better be in a pub. ;-) I'm on a waiting list for a scholarship at the moment, but if I get to go, I'll be at any Milhist meetup. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Are there any further comments on the draft leaflet? If not, I'll upload it on the Wikimania page; @Kirill Lokshin: @HJ Mitchell: is it OK if I list you both as the contacts for the Wikimania team? (they seem to prefer attendees to be listed, for obvious reasons). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm good with that. Kirill [talk] 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've posted this at (@HJ Mitchell: I've listed you as one of the contacts for the conference team - please feel free to take your name off the leaflet if you don't agree!). Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I shortened the link, but it otherwise it looks good! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Ed Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. I'm helping organise it, so I'll be there come hell or high water. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Guys, I've been fairly useless over the past six months. I'm sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused, but my professional life is a little busier than I expected it would be, and I'm finding that I am hardly on here at all anymore. For that reason, I will be offering my retirement. Thank you so much for your interactions with me - I have cherished and valued my time with Milhist, and Wikipedia, although I have been neglectful of late. Take care, and best of luck in the future! Cdtew (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. We won't forget that you did your bit, and you're welcome to drop back in anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
G'day Cdtew, thanks very much for all your contributions. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Very sorry to see you go Cdtew, it's been great working with you, and you can leave knowing you accomplished a good deal -- as Dan suggests, if you have a spare minute, don't be a stranger! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you also from me for your contributions Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also from me. Sorry to see you go. Cliftonian (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all you've done. Take care. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a shame to lose you, but of course real life gets the better of us all sometimes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll echo the thanks of the rest of the team above; you'll always be welcome back! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just left a note on your talk page, Cdtew. Best wishes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Gonna miss ya. I hope everything works out for the best though. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Milhist is like the bar car on Connecticut trains (minus the part where they just got rid of them)[edit]

Check out WT:MILHIST#Milhist is like the bar car on Connecticut trains (minus the part where they just got rid of them). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm (Finally) Back[edit]

Oh baby, what an ordeal that was. They have finally certified the elimination of the mold in the half of the house that housed my computer, so I've Jerry-rigged my computer back together and am now back online again. The tower should be back up and running for the time being, so hopefully I'll be in a position to remain active here (insofar as I do remain active anymore). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear, Tom. Sounds like it was an ordeal, my place was built in the 50's, so I perhaps have felt some of your pain... Welcome back, anyway. You'll see (above) that Cdtew has retired, so we're one down, although things seem to be ticking along ok. Any and all contributions greatly appreciated, mate. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Great, welcome back, Tom. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A Bot[edit]

When I originally saw the checklist for promoting an article to A class I found the number of steps daunting, and wrote a Bot to assist. Over time I have refined, tested and improved the Bot. Now I am proposing that it be made more widely available. My proposal is that the coordinator change the entry on the talk page to say "A-Class=pass" or "A-Class=fail" and the Bot will take it from there. Any thoughts? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that Hawk. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be great, Hawkeye. While we're at it I have just one tiny suggestion for improving it, which is that in the past I've seen it put the placeholders in the Bugle Article News underneath the page footer, rather than above. Like I said, tiny issue that I hadn't even bothered to mention before, easily corrected manually, but something for the bot code if it's not too difficult. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of this, and will fix it on the weekend. The other issue is what should be done if the page does not exist, which commonly happens at the start of the month. Would you object to the Bot creating it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I never even thought to have a bot do this work before. Now that you mention it though, it seems to be a fairly smart idea. Congrats for thinking about it, building it, and refining it, as this should help make our job much easier. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! Love your work. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This sounds excellent. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, this is an excellent idea. I assume that the bot knows who the coordinators are, and won't be triggered by someone else setting those parameters? Kirill [talk] 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That's the plan. There's still some issues with this. It works this way:
  1. The Bot needs to know who the coordinators are. At the moment, this is a hard-coded list. It would be much better if there were a category "Military History Project Coordinators"
  2. It sweeps through the list of A-class nominees
  3. It checks their talk pages looking for ones that have A-class=pass or A-class=fail
  4. If so, the Bot obtains the change history of the talk page.
  5. It looks backwards through the list to figure out who made the change
  6. If it was a coordinator, then it proceeds with promoting the article
  7. Otherwise it logs an error message. I'm open to suggestions here. Should it revert the change? Report it to the coordinators' notice board? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Aaargh. I created a category Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators. Then tagged everybody. It seemed okay until I got to User:TomStar81 who has a protected user page. Face-sad.svg. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added the category to Tom's user page. Are we missing it for anyone else? Kirill [talk] 22:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have mentioned that. I've had my userpage protected since I got into with a vandal a few years back and said vandal moved my userpage to "GayRetarded" or some such place. I fully protected it when I rebuilt it a few years back. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
So @Hawkeye7: are we live on the bot now? I'd like to try it out on the outstanding one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I've marked the outstanding ACR as "passed", does the bot run on a schedule or is it manual?
This is fantastic. We've needed something like for years really, but I'm too technically inept to do it myself and too lazy to suggest it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bot is now live. It runs every half hour. All you have to do is set A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail on the talk page. (I still have to incorporate the changes suggested by Ian.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The fixes for Ian are now in. Note that the Bot operates under my account. Perhaps I should create another account (MilHistBot) for it? Not sure about the rules on sock puppetry here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you need a separate account, and you need to get it approved. You're not using it in the mainspace, so approval should be fairly simple. WP:BOTPOL is the document to read. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A though occurs: We presently have an academy page dedicated to manually closing, promoting, and updating A-class articles, but if we are going to have a bot to do this now perhaps we should consider updating that page to note that the instructions are to be used in the event the bot is down and writing a new page to explain using the bot for the coordinators to come after us. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Once I have permission from BAG to make the bot fully operational, I will update the procedure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I put the bot on trial. Let's see. Sorry it took so long. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot completed day 1 of trial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bot promoted two articles. It objected to one of the other nominations being a redirect, so I corrected this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I am considering to approve the bot tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, so if there are spotted problems and/or concerns please report them asap. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot approved. The bot still needs a user page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I will be creating it as soon as I can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing from "support on prose" to "copyedited"[edit]

There's been a long, steady decline in the quality of my copyediting at A-class ... and that's not so much a bad thing as the inevitable result of working on copyediting software. When I'm reading quickly (and I don't usually have time to read slowly), I'm seeing things that interest me and missing some other things. So starting today, at A-class and FAC, I'm only claiming that I've copyedited articles, not that I'm supporting them ... unless an article is showing up that I've already supported before at either A-class or FAC, in which case I'll make an effort to support again, as long as the diff between the old and new versions isn't too obnoxious. Hopefully I can start sharing the software soon ... it's taking a while, but I hope it will be worth it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Btw, I don't think it's my call how much the copyediting "counts" for purposes of promotion, that's the call of the closer, but I'm hoping my copyediting will allow another reviewer to run through quickly and support (on prose, anyway) without much additional work. When Rupert stops reviewing (eek!), we may need to lean on the frequent nominators for more help reviewing, and checking behind someone else's copyediting work strikes me as the kind of lightweight (but important) job that we might be able to find someone to do. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi folks, I've been out of action for a while due to some rather unpleasant health issues. Normally, I manage to check in here at least every few days, but I ended up back in hospital at very sort notice. Anyway, I'm scheduled for an operation on 3 June, so the good news is that once I'm recovered (which should take a couple of weeks), there shouldn't be any more abrupt disappearances. Sorry if anyone felt left in the lurch. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope the operation sorts things out, and get well soon! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that Harry, let us know how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry mate, we'll cope -- just take care of yourself, we'd rather have you healthy and productive in the long term... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hope everything works out, Harry. See you back here when you're right. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Get well soon Harry. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Same from me (and don't even think about worrying that you're letting down people here! - your health always comes well ahead of Wikipedia). Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hope everything turns out alright. Get well soon!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible expansion into other WF entities?[edit]

Yeah, I personally really don't have much to do with this project, but I would like to ask for some input from the coordinators of maybe the best organized WikiProject out there, this one. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Might wikipedia WikiProjects expand a little into other WF entities? I've started a possible discussion about maybe getting some editors who work with WikiProjects here maybe spending a little time with some of the material relevant to their topics in the other WF entities. So, for instance, editors dealing with Military history might (but also might not, and I hope no one thinks I'm trying to boss anyone here) be among the better people to proofread texts related to military history at Wikisource, assemble books related to military history at Wikibooks and Wikiversity, get together news stories about current military issues at Wikinews, develop pieces about historical battle sites at Wikivoyage, etc. I figure any past or present coordinators here would know better than me how to arrange this if they think it is a good idea, although I guess one starter idea might be to have maybe a "MILHIST wiki(x) collaboration of the month" for some entities, like maybe choosing one page from one (or more) WF entities as a monthly point of collaboration. Maybe. Like I said, you all know this better than me, and I would very much welcome any input at the above about any particular specific ideas which might be thought by you all to be good ways to at least start. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

From the lack of response, I take it there's not much enthusiasm for investigating other WMF sites, which I can understand ... we're all busy, and maybe it sounds like more work with an unknown payoff. For my own work in copyediting, I'm perfectly happy to work with people on other English-language WMF sites, I'm just not sure what their interest is. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, John, I've always been impressed by your work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. Aside from Wikimedia Commons role in providing a database of images, there aren't many direct cross-overs between the scope of this project and other WMF projects. I've uploaded a lot of photos to Commons (though nowhere near as many as some members of this project) and have helped with categorisation of images there, but that's because Commons is a resource which directly supports article writing here and it's helpful to ensure that it has relevant images arranged in a way in which editors can easily find them. Commons can be a bit myopic at times (through focusing only on images and not how they will be used), and input from article writers pays off there. The other projects have always struck me as being time sinks, though I've had fun adding military history related sites to Wikivoyage entries. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists[edit]

If I remember right, this category used to include templates which lacked a checklist entirely. Is there any way of having these article included in this category again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I don't think so, I think you are referring to Category:Unassessed military history articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am referring to articles that already have a class tag but do not have a B-class checklist. (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
If they don't have a checklist at all, then they're not really "articles with incomplete B-Class checklists", no? The category was intended to collect articles with potentially incorrect tagging (i.e. someone had attempted to use the B-Class checklist but was unable to enter it completely or made a mistake in the formatting that caused one or more parameters to not be recognized). It was never intended as a catch-all for articles with no checklist at all; quite honestly, adding checklists to otherwise correctly assessed Start-Class articles is such a low-priority activity that I see no value in creating yet another category to track it. Kirill [talk] 21:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Should Newcomer of the Year be on the awards page?[edit]

G'day all, as I was the inaugural recipient, I am naturally reluctant to blow smoke up my own proverbial, but for the longer-term, perhaps we should place the record of Newcomer of the Year awards under the MH of the Year awards on the Awards page? Feel free to shoot me down here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Done, Kirill fixed my syntax gaffes. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Militarism, the article[edit]

The three definitions of militarism in the article are all poor.

The first: " ... belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests" does not allow differentiation between the use of military means for political ends, and the use of the military instrument as an end in itself.

The second: "It may also imply the glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" leaves completely undefined what the ideals of a professional military class are. For example, the ideals of the current professional military class in Britain are to do a professional job as dictated by Whitehall, which, as often as not in living memory, is peacekeeping. Amos Perlmutter in his The Military and Politics in Modern Times: On Professionals, Praetorians, and Revolutionary Soldiers (1977) shows how it is more likely that Praetorians will use the military instrument as a first resort, and that revolutionary soldiers are the most likely to, but that even they, when sober, subordinate military means to political ends.

The third: "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state". This completely confuses militarism with aspects of civilian-military relations in which the military are just another power elite just as are the bureaucracy, business owners, trades union leaders, the medical lobby, political parties, or any other group exerting pressure of political decision-making. There is now a huge body of work on civil-military relations, most of which stands a long way from the idea of violence as an end in itself.

Indeed, Volker Berghahn identifies these and other confusions surrounding this essentially-contested concept in his Militarism: The History of an International Debate 1861-1979 (1981).

Hi Charles, a lot of Wikipedia's articles on 'big picture' concepts are in poor shape. If you think that this article is flawed I'd encourage you to jump in and edit it to improve it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 14 review tallies[edit]

Username PR Apr–Jun 14 GAN Apr–Jun 14 ACR Apr–Jun 14 FAC Apr–Jun 14 Total Apr–Jun 14 Awarded
Dank 9 4 16 17 46 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Dudley Miles 0 1 2 1 4 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Anotherclown 0 5 7 0 12 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
ÄDA - DÄP 1 0 2 0 3 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 0 2 16 3 21 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 0 0 1 3 4 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hchc2009 2 3 5 3 13 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Keith-264 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell 0 0 2 2 4 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 0 0 1 18 19 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ian Rose 1 1 7 5 14 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 0 0 4 0 4 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nick-D 0 3 7 1 11 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Parsecboy 1 2 8 2 13 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 0 8 6 4 18 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 0 8 7 0 15 Anotherclown (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

G'day all, I've just initialised the table using the usual suspects from a previous quarter, haven't done any tallying yet, so names will need to be added and subtracted, no doubt. If someone can point me to the easiest way of tallying ACR reviews, I'd appreciate it. Unless we just do it manually... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

One new question ... I copyedited a few of the GANs promoted during the period, before or during someone else's review, do you guys want to count those for the tally? (I don't have a preference.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
My view is that you have made a contribution to bringing the article prose up to schmick, so I would be happy to include them. Others? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that seems fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough. Dan, did you happen to note your ce contributions on the relevant GA review pages? I think it'd be a no-brainer in that case because you'd have clearly left your mark on the review and not just the article... BTW, guys, I will make a start on the FAs today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and also in the "notes" parameter so that "Copyedited" showed up in the listing at GAN. They were Talk:Toluid Civil War/GA2, Talk:Oliver's Battery (Tresco)/GA1, Talk:4th Army (Yugoslavia)/GA1, and Talk:HMS Carnarvon/GA1. Thanks guys, I added them to the tally. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, totalled FA reviews for Apr-Jun, though no objections if someone wants to doublecheck. I have notes on everyone who commented but from memory you have to have reviewed at ACR to get a gig here. Assuming that's the case, I've only included figures for those listed above for the moment, but if more names pop up I will have their figures too and will add them in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)!
Thanks Ian, I'll do the ACRs this arv. I assume I have to do them manually? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
'Fraid I don't know any other way than manually. For the FAs I just went to the Article News section of Apr/May/Jun Bugle issues, then the talk page of each FA listed, then Article History for the FA nom and eyeballed the contributions. If anyone has a quicker and/or more foolproof way, I'm all ears...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean the May, June and July? I thought we had a one month time lag in the Bugle? ie Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians was promoted in May but was in the June issue? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh, indeed, I of all people should remember that. Yes, May/Jun/Jul issues -- I've double-checked my figures accordingly and there are a couple of tweaks. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I forget every month. Old age is coming... I've tallied the ACRs, and have removed those that didn't do an ACR. I'll have a look at the GANs in a bit. If anyone reckons I've fluffed the numbers, please repechage. I added a few editors that weren't on the original list, so might need a check, Ian. If someone could do the PRs that would help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, added FA figures as applicable for additions to the list -- of course if anyone thinks they've been missed, pls update. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
GAs done. Just PR's to do now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
PRs done, I think. Tallied too. Will wait a day or so to sign off in case of repechages. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In the PR's, looks like there are 6 May 15 plus 2 June 8 plus 3 April 1, all closed this quarter. I updated my PR count; the other PR counts look right. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks Dan. I think I'm right to go ahead with the awards now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the awards are now based on the chevrons for 15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3. I'll get on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I've awarded the last one now. Hopefully I got it right. Anotherclown (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Is it OK that I (A) lack a degree? (B) lack combat experience? (C) am not an expert? Erik L'Ensle :) (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Erik. I assume you mean to participate in this project? There are no qualifications req'd at all just an interest in military history and a willingness to contribute. If you have any questions about things you can do to help out pls let me know. Anotherclown (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, most certainly everyone is welcome here regardless of university qualifications or military experience. Our only requirements really are that our editors follow site policies such as the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Please let us know if you need any help getting started. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

MilHist meetup at Wikimania[edit]

Hi guys, I don't know if any of you are planning to come to Wikimania this year, but I'd like to organise a meetup for MilHist folks while people are in London. If you're interested, please sign up at wm2014:MilHist meetup (or email me at if you don't want to sign up publicly) so I know whether there's interest! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Kirill [talk] 01:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit help[edit]

When someone who can spell and gramarize gets a moment can they have another pass through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2014/Op-ed to make sure that all the sp&g issues have been covered? I'd appreciate it.

Some help please[edit]

I'm currently revising, updating and expanding Military production during World War II. There were a lot of "issues" with the data, imagery, written content and analysis. There was a very heavy spin to the US experience and data. To rectify the page and make something interesting of it I would like to ask for some advice and help. Am I at the right place? In short, I need help beating off random bot attacks on file uploads, protecting the editorial integrity and balance, and accessing source data in German and Cyrillic languages. I'm sure there is more. Anyone?

--Brukner (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

National Campaign boxes[edit]

There has been a recent spreading of national-specific "Campaign boxes" which aren't. Examples are Template:Campaignbox Free French and Template:Campaignbox Vichy France Military in World War II. My thought is that 1. They don't cover real campaigns, 2. If you have one of these in an article, then logically you should have one for every single national grouping involved in that subject (Syria Lebanon campaign you should also have one for Britain. Australia, India, Transjordan whatever...causing a huge impenetrable block of such boxes). 3. They are unnecessary in that by following the link to, say the Free French article, the info will be there (and indeed an infobox for navigation might be appropriate on the the Free French article).

So I thought I would remove them but decided to check with the project to see if there was a policy. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

NARA contest -- how to advertise it to the membership?[edit]

Hey all, I've been contacted by Dominic, who wants to run an informal contest. Basically, he'll list articles on User:Dominic/Challenge, and those who can write a C-class article or above will receive a poster. How can we get this out to the membership? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your posting here was a good start. I've already started a stub on General Order No. 143, and will see how fast I can raise the stub to c-class. Don't see a bunch of low-hanging reliable secondaries online, but I'll bet I can find a book or two to help me. BusterD (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BusterD. Any thoughts, @WP:MILHIST coordinators: ? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add something to The Bugle? Nick and Ian: would do you both think about this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Speedy work! Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your help is requested[edit]

I have been working to substantially update and improve Military production during World War II since June. Today Bender235 deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work and that of others, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this "editor". Can you please help me reverse all the deletions and keep this guy off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this -or point me in the right direction. --Brukner (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The matter was taken to ANI, and was quick closed due to it being essentially a content dispute. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A "help needed" section for the Bugle?[edit]

King and Country Need You.JPG

Hello all. As co-ordinators we are all fairly involved in the detail of this project and hence (hopefully) have a fairly good idea of some of the issues we face or the areas that need attention (not that many of us often have the time to actually do anything about it). In the past we have attempted to co-ordinate the efforts of our membership towards these areas via discussion on our central talk page or through drives, contests, awards etc. In recent times though my impression is that we have been fairly unsuccessful in obtaining the involvement of any more than the usual handful of helpful editors in many tasks (i.e. backlog drives, tag and assessment, reviews etc). The Bugle is sent out monthly direct to our members, but is possibly underutilised as a tool of mass communication (no criticism at all towards the various editors of the Bugle who do a fantastic job that I have never once ever helped with). What about including a regular section highlighting an area where we are trying to get more / new editors involved (e.g. GA and A class reviewing, b class checklists [boring I know], vital topics, etc)? In my mind I would see it being a small section, perhaps suitably illustrated in some way to capture attention (e.g. propaganda poster / interesting image), probably on the Project News page. For instance this month's segment on the NARA Challenge. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, also a great way to get more people contributing to the Bugle -- eh, AC? Squeaky wheel... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I would be prepared to volunteer for this if others were happy (that said I have commitments from Sep this year that will probably require me to reduce my involvement with the project for a while - my wife and I are expecting our first child, something I felt might never occur). Anyway I think we probably need to also discuss the mechanism for deciding what gets included though rather than me just plucking something from the proverbial. Perhaps just consensus from a regular discussion here among the co-ords? Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a discussion here, initiated by the editors a week beforehand would do the trick. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Did someone need a hand? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. @Nick-D: - can you pls confirm the timeframe for the release of the Bugle every month (I know I should know this) so I can mark it in my calendar? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There isn't a set date I'm afraid, but Ian and I aim for mid-month. By the way, congratulations! Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations also from me! Wonderful news. Cliftonian (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gents. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok so I guess its time to discuss the focus of this section for the next edition of the Bugle. My proposal would be on attempting to get more people involved in reviewing at GA and A class, as I think this is key to the success or otherwise of the project. Anyone with any counter suggestions? Anotherclown (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Gday @WP:MILHIST coordinators: - I've gone ahead and added a draft of this here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/August_2014/Project_news. Would welcome any comments or suggestions for improvements. Do you guys feel this is the right tone and the right location for this? Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might work better above awards/honours and contest results, which are regular sections, but I don't have a strong feeling about it. Content/presentation seems fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with Ian that it works better closer to the top, since I suspect many people may not read through all of the award listings and contest results. Otherwise, it looks good. Kirill [talk] 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Some pre-planning for the September/October drive[edit]

I recall we agreed on a September/October drive, September to mid-October. We were going to have a general drive, given we had a WWI-focussed one earlier in the year. Any repechages? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've plagiarised a backlog drive page here. Feel free to smarten it up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: & @Nick-D: can you chaps mention this in the August Bugle please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: How does this look? Feel free to make changes to it :) Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Gold. Thanks Nick. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone, especially Peacemaker for setting this up. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead Coordinator[edit]

This keeps coming up every year because we forget about it until election time. Currently, the lead coordinator is the one who receives the most votes, but often that person is reluctant to accept the role. I propose changing the rules so that the lead coordinator can be selected from the coordinators amongst themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd propose a combination of the two positions, so that the person with the most support becomes the lead coordinator, but if the person in question abdicates the position then coordinators may either offer the lead role to the next highest supported user or discuss the matter of the lead position amongst themselves until an agreement is reached as to who will hold the position. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tom. But is there any evidence that those receiving the most votes have been reluctant? I've only been with the project for a couple of years, and I haven't detected that. Have I missed something? In my limited experience over the last ten months or so I've felt that the coordinator team is very collegiate and no lead coord would feel they are carrying the weight of the project too heavily on their own. We haven't needed to co-opt anyone in the last few years, although we probably would have had to (or accepted the slowdown in reviewing and other administrative tasks) if Rupert had resigned as a coord when he announced his pending retirement. Just clarifying. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Back in 2011, Dank received the most votes, but was reluctant because he was uncertain that he would be able to devote the time required. Then in 2012 there was a three-way tie. The three coordinators shared the lead coordinator role among them. I would be quite happy with Tom's proposal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know about Dank (slightly before my time), but he did do the job, didn't he? In Dank's case, it would have gone to a three-way tie if he had abdicated, and we might have had a case of sharing the lead a year earlier. Sharing the lead seemed to work ok, or did I miss something about that? I think in the case of abdication, going to the next on the tally should be the first step, but after that the elected coords should come to a consensus on the lead coord. I am relaxed about it though, because I'm confident we have the depth of talent to handle whatever comes up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually our lead position has had three interesting user-related issues. Dank's decision to decline, the three way tie for the lead, and the third was me. Back when I was elected lead I accept the position yet was absent for most of the first four or five months since I had my last collage semester in the fall of 2009 and needed to focus on that. In each case the community has been generally accepting of the decisions made by the person(s) asked to hold the lead position, so I'd trust them to pick our lead and trust our leads to accept or decline the position based on whether they feel up to it. Unto my experience as the lead there really isn't any difference between a coordinator and the lead beyond receiving the six-star insignia after the iVote. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Picking up on Tom's last point, do we still need to have a lead coordinator? At the start of my period in the role I expected to need to do lots of extra stuff to prompt the other coordinators, respond to queries, etc, but it turned out to be almost no extra work given the expertise and experience the coordinator team now boasts. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
We still need the position if for no other reason than to make sure that there is a top position to the pyramid. Without a lead position the more senior coordinators may inadvertently turn what is currently a meritocracy into a despotism system, in which case we'd have community issues for not being open and transparent as these things are meant to be. If we were to do away with the lead position, then the lead such as it were would shift to the coordinators emeritus, which could adversely affect their retirement. Lastly, the lead position offers us all a reason to work on the administrative task since only the worthy inherit these high honors. In short, it gives us all something to aspire for, which is good for both the membership and the coordinators themselves. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Anybody else like to weigh in here? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that we currently operate with a hierarchy such as that (the lead coordinator has always been the first among equals), and it's certainly not desirable in my view. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Nick re. the nature of the lead coord's role/status but I hear what Tom says about the desirability of retaining it. I'm not hugely fussed either way but I always tend to leave well enough alone, so unless there's good reason to drop it... As far as the appointment method goes, I can see merit in selection from among the coords but I don't have a problem with our current most-votes scenario. What Hawkeye proposes is something along the lines of the way a party leader is chosen, wheres the current method is direct popular election, and I don't have a problem with the latter in this project -- I mean I wouldn't say it's failed us yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Nick that its not a hierarchy, but first among equals is a position earned on merit, hence the example. I also agree with Ian: what we have now works, but there is no reason we can't discuss the matter. Discussion is neither good nor bad, but does permit the free exchange of ideas, which is what we are partaking in here :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I say leave it as it is. The discussion has been worthwhile, and I'm sure we would handle a consensus appointment sensibly in case of abdication by a lead coord. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with either solution. However, I don't feel the current situation requires any change or that a change would bring additional benefits to the project, so I'm inclined to say there's no need for any such change. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Bataan Death March Survivor[edit]

Hi! There's a gentleman at the West Los Angeles VA, in the patient advocate office who is a survivor of the Bataan Death March, he escaped and then was later captured again at a different point. Do you think he's worthy of an article?

he's even got a file at the library of Congress :)

It's been quite some time since I poked around with article creation, so I'd appreciate any help!

Thank you! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

G'day. I would say not, due the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable published sources per WP:GNG. He certainly doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER (corporal, no awards of note). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points for the project coordinators to consider[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Since its the start of the month, I thought I'd pen a few things here since the next 6-8 weeks will likely be a little busy on sight.

  • Abot Our A-class bot needs its own userpage, if it doesn't already have one. If the page hasn't been created, then I'd be interested to know when that would happen, and if there would be any interest is perhaps having a contest to name the bot. I am aware that the rules for bots specify that the bot should be named something along the lines of its job so everyone knows what it does, but that doesn't mean we could call it Alphabot or Ottobot or something nifty along those lines. Understandably, as the creator, first refusal should go to Hawkeye, and in any event it seems like there won't be much to say for the name, but it could be fun to see what develops on that front.
    • Our Bot is called MilHistBot. I created its page but need to add docs on what it does. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Glad to hear it. I'd promote your bot to Warrant Officer if I could, but since I can't I'll have to settle for a congratulating you on this new tool to help us. (Which reminds me: we still need to put something about the bot in our current academy course when it does start running in full). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Backlog drive has anyone looked into getting the pages and awards system set up for the drive? And how many people are we looking to get - by which I mean do we want to limit this to milhist membership or carry an article or notice of some sort in the signpost to woo potential editors to help? WE can not afford to wait too long on this, if we do then the whole thing could end up postponed or delayed again, and I get the feeling that wouldn't be in our best interest.
  • See my post above for the backlog drive pages. It will be advertised in the upcoming Bugle. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • So we are going to officially run this one off the userspace then? That makes things rather easy for us then. All we have to worry about then is an award or recognition bit, unless that has already been worked out. Notification in the Bugle I had seen earlier (I think), so I guess that we were just looking for our project membership (unless of course its already been/being advertised elsewhere). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is all set-up, unless someone wants to suggest narrowing the focus? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Coordinator Elections We about a month out from the elections at the moment, but before we set up the election pages would it be in our interest to consider a reduction in the number elected and/or approaching members who we think may be good candidates and encouraging them to run? It seems that with the current activity level we could get by with fewer than 12 coordinators, and I think messages of encouragement to the community are a good idea since sooner or later we all have to pass the batan on to the next generation (such as it were), but a little discussion on the points never hurts.
    • It is perhaps always worth having a coordinator or two more than is actually needed as we never know when people are going to be forced off-Wiki for a while by real-life issues. On the other hand we can always co-opt if necessary, as we have in the past. Cliftonian (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, that I do not dispute, however as we've seen usually of the 12 e;ected work comes down to maybe half that who still do the heavy duty stuff. Heck I've hardly done anything this year (unless you count that RoslynSKP incident a few months back) yet I'm still in the inner circle so to speak. Reducing the number of coordinators in a given tranche could help prune out the unactive ones and give the tranche a more active appearance. Also, while not exclusively a point here, I'd note that our original group had only three coordinators - two assist, one lead - and they got by alright. The simple point is that we should adjest based on work and traffic flow, and while we are big as with most of the rest of Wikipedia our group has slowed down somewhat over the last few years, so there is at this point no harm in revisiting the idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll freely admit I've also done very little since being elected as a coordinator for the first time this year, and as you say the work still got done. So perhaps streamlining the team is a good idea from that angle. If I understand correctly, in the past the coordinator team had been intended both to do administration work and so on and to provide a ready group of viewpoints and backgrounds. But these could easily be retained without everybody remaining co-ords. Cliftonian (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
          • This is just a wild guess, but it looks like activity is going to stay down for good, and I support Tom's suggestion for 12 slots for coords instead of 15. This has nothing to do with "keeping the wrong people out" or limiting other people's advancement, and if the lower number were shown to have those effects, I would change my position. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I agree with Dan and Tom about a maximum limit of 12, I actually think we could get by with eight, so long as they all accepted that a nomination also comes with an obligation to do a certain amount of backroom work for the project. If we found we were struggling, we could always co-opt the willing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
              • For the sake of clarity, is that 8 with a lead or eight and the lead? In my 12 assumption I figure that to include the lead, but it never hurts to ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
                • Sure, I was thinking eight including the lead. I would add that Hawkeye's bot has removed a significant amount of work for coords around the ACR process. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • My sense is that activity hasn't dropped off so much that 8 would handle it. I wouldn't object to 10, 11 or 12. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So we seem to be in agreement that the projects reduced workload should correspond to a reduced number of coordinators. Given that we currently have 15 and the above discussion suggests a number between about 8-12 would more accurately reflect the estimated coordinator to workload ratio at the moment. I've suggest twelve, but I am not against going lower if that is what we think is best for the group, so what number should we officially aim for? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer 10, but 12 would probably be a better incremental approach. If it turns out the workload is fine with 12, we could look at a reduction in the future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree w. PM, let's go for 12 this time round and reconsider in future as necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I assume (in the absence of any repechages), that we are going for 12 coords. I'll have a crack at setting up the election guff over the next few days unless someone else is desperate to do it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WWI chronology Given that we are now at the centennial anniversary for World War I I'd be interested to know if anyone would have any objections in creating a special page at the bugle to track and follow the major WWI developments. I've penned to Op-Ed pieces in the Bugle for the last two months to mark the occasion, but I have a feeling that people aren't going to take kindly to another 96 weeks or so of WWI op-ed material, hence the suggestion.
    • I don't think that Ian or I would ever have any objection to an offer of good quality content for the Bugle such as this ;) I'm certainly for it. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm all for this too. A great idea. Cliftonian (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Glad to hear it. Now the next question would be do we want to have a general timeline, essays, or a blurb bit on the major highlights sich as we have for our recognized content at the moment? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I think a combination of the first and third option might work best—a chronological timeline for each month with a short blurb for more prominent events, and pictures as we do for recognised content. For the largest events (Gallipoli, Somme, Spring Offensive spring to mind?) a longer piece might be appropriate. Cliftonian (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
            • This is the Bugle we're talking about, not the Signpost. Nobody is going to mind WWI material every month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with running a few specials (possibly even a recurring monthly series, depending on the topic) on WWI material in the Signpost. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) I agree with Hawkeye. From an editor's perspective, the best content is whatever people what to submit ;) (am I right in reading your comments here Tom as being an offer to contribute this material? - if so, it's much appreciated!). Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Where do you guys stand on these matters, and have a missed anything else that we should take up in discussion as long as we are here? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tom, the backlog drive is ready to go (it will be in the Bugle, but I will do some advertising/reminders over the next couple of weeks), and I think we've settled on 12 coords for the election. I support the WWI chronology idea. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, latecomer to the discussion. Twelve seems a fair number to me also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


If it doesn't annoy anyone too much, I'm going to start expanding the Checklist. I haven't expanded it before now because I didn't want to burden anyone with a long list of to-dos, but machines are getting better at copyediting (as you'll see if you try the speech-to-text app on your smartphone), and I'm going to try to expand it in a way that machines will be able to help, at some point in the future. If anyone wants to help out, great. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

ACR nom of List of World War II puppet states[edit]

G'day all, List of World War II puppet states has been ACR nom'd, but is far below ACR standard. See Talk:List of World War II puppet states for a quick assessment of just a few of the (Yugoslav) issues. I've suggested it be withdrawn, not sure if the nominator will want to do that or not, just giving everyone the heads up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been withdrawn, but keep an eye out if it appears at WP:MHAR. Needs expert attention. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Risk of edit war[edit]

Could one of you with great social skills have a look at the brewing edit war over the Archie McKellar article please? This runs the risk of getting out of control. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On it. Cliftonian (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator Election Page[edit]

I've set up our election page, its at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2014. If I've missed or overlooked anything please feel free to fix it. We are settled on 12 for this election, so that should probably be noted somewhere in the election page. I've also set up the tally page, but I couldn't figure out the status page. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've created the status page. I've also changed the text to reflect a total of twelve coordinators to be elected, per our discussion above. Kirill [talk] 02:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of date stats[edit]

Gday. Anyone know why WP 1.0 bot hasn't updated User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history since 12 June 2014‎? This page is transcluded here Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality statistics and is quite out of date. Anotherclown (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Bot_not_updating_assessment_tables.3F, it's a general problem with the bot. Reading through the discussion over there, it seems some people have had luck running the tool manually ( so perhaps we should try doing that as well, at least as an interim measure until the underlying problems get fixed. Kirill [talk] 02:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Done - thanks Kirill. Always ask an expert! Anotherclown (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Somali Armed Forces etc RfC-U[edit]

You will have noted my frustrated plea for support regarding this and other articles a little while back. I am now in the final stages of preparing an RfC-U draft, with the aim of banning Middayexpress from all Somali pol/econ articles for a long enough period that the user might be able to appreciate, from watching others, what unbiased editing and colloboration really mean, though to be honest I am not hopeful. Would like comments on the draft RfC-U; please ask and I'll forward it.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WWI editing co-ordination[edit]

I'm following up here with a couple of questions following this post (now archived):

  • (i) I got a couple of responses (two people) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial#Welcoming new and current editors, but I want to follow this up by contacting more editors active in this topic area. I have a vague recollection that it is possible to get a reasonable overview of editing activity in an area by clicking a 'related changes' link based on a category - do I have that right (I can't find the link right now)?
  • (ii) When looking at the 'Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks' at WT:MILHIST, I noticed that a couple of items are WWI-related, such as the Good Article nomination for World War I Memorial (East Providence, Rhode Island). Is it possible to set up an automatically generated listing just for WWI topics similar to the one for the whole MILHIST project? I think something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force#Article alerts is what I'm looking for.
  • (iii) Would it be acceptable to do a one-off mass message to those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force to ask those interested if they want to join in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial? I'm thinking it might be best to tidy things up at that project and talk page first? But in principle would a one-off message like that be OK?
  • (iv) Would any of the co-ordinators here be willing to help out and/or suggest answers to some of the questions that didn't get answered in the now-archived post I made at WT:MILHIST? As I said there, there is a fair amount of editing activity going on around the WWI topics, but I'm not sure how much the individual editors are aware of each other's activities and it would be nice to co-ordinate it all a bit more, even if only to summarise at regular intervals what is being done.
  • (v) I'm hoping that if enough people start regularly putting pointers to WWI discussions at the Great War Centennial project talk page, that a mention could be added to the WWI taskforce page, along the lines of 'If you have any questions about articles or are generally seeking advice, you're encouraged to ask at the main military history talk page or at the Great War Centennial project talk page".
  • (vi) I noticed a proposal above for a mention in The Bugle of WWI articles as the centenaries occur. I'm guessing this is something along the lines of a small but regular '100 years ago' column? Would The Bugle editors also be interested in a regular summary of what people have been editing in the WWI topic area and what progress has been made?

One of the reasons I'm posting here is because I'm not going to have time over the next few weeks to follow up properly. Would be really great if anyone here can help out. Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)