Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom

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

Fiction?[edit]

Currently, book reviews focus on non-fictional works, which is entirely appropriate and what one wants at a project with this name. However, there are some newly and fairly recently works of fiction that contain military history information of a high quality. It would be interesting to read reviews or commentaries on some of these novels and how they pertain to various historical periods; to avoid opening the door to truckloads of low-quality fiction anyone writing such a review could be encouraged to choose a novel of either high quality or high prominence. The point wouldn't be to evaluate the novel but really to connect it to historical events and to offer project members/visitors a chance to look at some related fiction that is interesting and accurate. Would anyone be open to experimenting with this or moving forward a revised version of this idea? dci | TALK 22:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and I'd support including reviews of novels which are focused on military/war-related themes. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I see no problem with reviews of high-quality historical fiction, or even comparable science fiction (I'm thinking of novels similar to Ender's Game, not Star Wars). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, relevant science/alternative fiction would be fine. Connie Willis' two science fiction novels about time travelling historians stuck in the Blitz were probably be best military history books I read last year. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Given that we're not especially tight on publishing space, I don't see any problem with reviewing (sufficiently interesting and relevant) works of fiction. Kirill [talk] 01:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a problem with presenting fiction because you can't use a novel as a source for Wikipedia when there is a science book of the same theme and if there isn't one, you can not verify the facts in the novel. Second a novel normally does not name any of it's sources which is non-scientific. The big problem I see is that if novels are presented here, the people can think they are good sources to need for historical facts. And as a second there is the danger that not a single academic institute would take the project serious. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The point of this would not be to present fiction as a source or anything remotely like a source. A novel does not need to be scientific, but in this case should be related to a military history topic while providing reliable information, with indication of reliability offered by a non-fictional source (which doesn't have to be alluded to in the novel). Readers of the Bugle should definitely be able to distinguish fact from fiction, and we can even post a disclaimer above this section. As to your last point, I don't really think that academic institutes will really care if we do this, as we are in no way insinuating that this fiction is real, only relevant to the project's areas of focus. dci | TALK 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The academic impacts are part of separate discussions we have been having, DCI. We could set off the fiction reviews from the non-fiction, or even put them on a separate page. I wouldn't mind that ("fiction review"?). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I am aware that these discussions have been going on, but I've been working on some other things lately and haven't been around here much. A separate page would be fine. dci | TALK 12:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Page organization[edit]

Two questions regarding the organization of this page:

  1. At one point, we had discussed merging this talk page up to the main coordinators' talk page once the mechanism for embedding discussions in the table of upcoming articles was in place. Given the apparent success of the new mechanism, do we want to move forward with merging the talk pages?
  2. Is there a need to retain a full list of every op-ed on this page, given that anyone interested can simply go through the main archives to find them? Would it be more useful to have that section be a dedicated submission/suggestion space rather than primarily an archive listing?

Any comments or suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] 14:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. I like having a separate talk page, but I'm not wedded to it either.
  2. I also like having the list of op-eds, and I was planning on indexing what books we've reviewed too. It makes it easier to find the one I want to link too. We might do better with a linked subpage, though, rather than a full list here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really wedded to the idea of combining the talk pages; that suggestion was mainly based on the lack of traffic here. If you think that this talk page will see more discussion in the future, then I certainly have no objections to retaining it as a separate space.
I like the idea of an index, but perhaps that would be more useful as part of the Bugle archives (which are rather lacking in content at the moment) rather than within the newsroom? Kirill [talk] 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if it will see more discussion, but it's easier to direct people to the specific news talk page (eg [1]) then the general coordinator talk page, which doesn't obviously associate itself with the Bugle. :-) And you have a good point, the list would be much better in the archives with maybe only a link from here. I'll work on moving them over sometime in the near future! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've added a small header to this page to better explain its purpose; any comments or improvements would be much appreciated!
We should also decide whether we want specific suggestions for articles (e.g. op-ed submissions, book review requests, etc.) on this page or in dedicated places in the newsroom itself; I don't particularly have a preference, but having them in the newsroom might allow us to break them down by the applicable newsletter section, which might be difficult here. Kirill [talk] 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I like it!
The Signpost has them in the newsroom, and I don't see why we shouldn't follow that. The benefits. as you say, are pretty clear. Personally though, if someone accidentally comes to this talk page, I don't mind talking about it here either. It's on my watchlist anyway, right? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of non-english books[edit]

I asked myself should it be able to write a book review for The Bugle of a book which hasn't been in english language until now. Are there any opinions about that? I ask because I just finished reading an, in my eyes, excellent book which is only published in german. As en:Wiki is quite international this could be an interesting option for people that speak the language of the book reviewed. All others can look forward for a possible english edition. --Bomzibar (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting, but I'd recommend you work in more context about the author etc. than you would do normally, as it is less likely that a purely English reader may have the other works by them etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We're pretty open here – that sounds fine to me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I could tell something in the review about why the book was made (as a review of an international conference), the intention (gaps in the research history of Reichskommissariat Ostland) and the publishing organization (German Armed Forces Military History Research Office), would that be fine? Otherwise I could make an Op-ed out of it, handling with the in some cases special german kind of military historical research and it's combination of military history with other fields. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay to move forward?[edit]

Do you think it would be okay to move forward with a fiction review? dci | TALK 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it brings something relevant to real military history to the table (ie. what I meant by 'high quality' above). I'm trying to exclude things like Star Wars here, but at the same time, an article on that could be possible if done carefully and with a narrow focus. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Which book are you thinking of reviewing? Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken awhile; I had some trips scheduled that I did not take into account when planning this. I was thinking about possibly doing a less recent historical novel, perhaps one of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's series. This would be a decent introduction, and then I could move on to recent publications. dci | TALK 03:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe worth a brief mention in the Bugle?[edit]

It might be a good idea to draw a few editors' attention to this little competition, which was started to clean up some of the serious problems described here. Many hands make light work! bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The next issue of the Bugle won't be published until late July, and I'm not sure how beneficial an announcement will be at that stage; but I don't see any problems with including a mention if the contest is still running at that point. Kirill [talk] 01:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Competitions like that are the most important for Wikipedia, how about write a note about it in the Signpost? --Bomzibar (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
List it at the WikiProject desk and Mabeenot will put it in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dedicated Special Project Page?[edit]

Would it be worth putting a dedicated special project page into monthly bugle edition so that the special project's can independently added information related to their editorial areas? I know OMT is the most active, but we have three others, and perhaps a little extra sauce from our publications would help keep the other special projects afloat. In particular, such a page in the bugle could be used to broadcast ongoing discussions and proposals for special projects, which could be used to attract the attention of special project members who either do not have occasion to keep a project talk page watchlisted or who may have missed pertinent news do to RL or other reasons. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the same lines as Tom the other day, though my suggestion is to have a 'news in brief' type page to cover specialised activities and events which might be of interest to members of this project. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"I was thinking something along the same lines as Tom the other day..." Thus proving that great minds do in fact think alike :) TomStar81 (Talk) 12:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable enough, although I wonder if it might be better to start off with a section on an existing page (e.g. "Project news") rather than an entirely separate page, at least until we have a regular flow of material to sustain it. A page with only a few items on it would probably not be a very good way to encourage participation, since it would convey an impression of inactivity. Kirill [talk] 18:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed -- as ever, Kirill, I think you've distilled all the good ideas into the most practical solution. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Works for me too. Incidentally, this was the reason we all agreed to promote Kirill to Coordinator Emeritus of the Military history Project: between his tech skills and the good ideas the project goes rolling along smoothly :) Now the only big question left to answer is whether the reports should be written by Bugle staff or by a designated point of contact in the special projects. Either way would work, and in the case of OMT our editor in chief could probably handle this as well, but in fairness I feel the need to bring it up here so that when the time comes everyone knows whose on first. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Heh, the project reps please. I see Bugle editing as just that -- leaving the grunt work to everyone else as much as possible and then just making sure it's all in the right place and flows well...! In fact if project reps don't submit anything, I personally wouldn't chase them -- they just wouldn't have any news in that issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WWI editathon[edit]

Hi folks, can I put something in the next issue about WMUK's World War I editathon? And if so, where should I put it? It probably should have gone in the last issue, but I've been travelling a lot since then and Chris only mentioned the idea to me last weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Erm, didn't that already happen? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As an FYI[edit]

I know this isn't something most members concern themselves with, but at the moment there are two open requests on the Bounty Board for milhist related articles, and it might be nice to note that in the upcoming bugle publication so those interested in helping Wikipedia along can try their luck. Incidentally, If its not too much trouble, might I ask that future publications of the bugle include information relating to milhist articles at the Wikipedia:Bounty Board and Wikipedia:Reward Board? I am uncertain as to how much help it will be, but a little info on whats up on these boards and whats in it for the editors could help or pages move through these boards a little faster, and as an added bonus, may inspire our members to add their own requests up here as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair, I can add it to the Project News this issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Fiction review[edit]

I had no idea, when I began to discuss the fiction review, that I would be this busy in real life right now. I will have more time by the Labor Day weekend, which is when I can promise one by. I do have one question, however - should this be a new book, or would a fairly recent one do? dci | TALK 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think either one would be fine. Kirill [talk] 03:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, either option would be great. I'd suggest reviewing a book which is currently in print though. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure; I was unable to edit at all yesterday due to other commitments so I will try to get it up at some point either this afternoon or tomorrow. dci | TALK 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Including free available books and articles in The Bugle?[edit]

If you search for it, there are a lot of recent scientific books and articles abouth military history and related fields released in the internet. As it is said, you have to search for it and the possibility is high to miss something of high interest for Wikipedia work. So I thought about how it would be to include a section in the monthly Bugle in which new free contents can be gathered and presented to the subscribers? --Bomzibar (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure ... any newsworthy additions to freely available material could run as news in the Bugle, and they could get added to the Academy as well. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
How could it be presented? Three sections Books, Magazines and Articles would be good in my view. How about a short summary of the content and extra information about the possible series, source and file size? --Bomzibar (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Book review[edit]

G'day all, I have written up a book review. I see that there is already one for the September edition, so I would like to offer it for the October edition when that comes online. I have a couple of questions, though: (1) is there a word limit (it is about 660 words so far, including wiki mark up)? and (2) the book I've reviewed is a bit narrowly focused and old (published in 1986). Is that an issue? If so, no dramas, I will send my review to a professional journal that is interested in it. If it was to run, it would probably be best to run it alongside a review of a recent work that is a bit wider in its target audience. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to go for a two-fer, I'll be happy to help with developing two versions that are different enough that the journal isn't likely to be offended by the version that appears here. If you want to do that, email it to me. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks a lot! In response to your questions: 1) There's no set format or length for reviews - they can be of any length (and written in any style) 2) That's no problem at all. I generally aim at two reviews per edition and only have one so far, so if you'd like to submit it for the September edition, that would be great. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Dan, I appreciate that. I'm looking to submit the review for publication in the Autumn edition next year (March). I will need to rework it significantly, anyway, as so far it is currently very much tailored to Wikipedia users and the journal I'm looking to publish it in is very different in its requirements. I'm waiting for some guidance from the journal's editor about length etc. They may also say that the book is too old for their journal, but they have expressed interest in my writing and want to see anything, because I'm working on submitting an article on a battle to them for publication at the end of next year. I'm also working on a biography for another journal. Those will be my main efforts and I would certainly appreciate some notes/suggestions on those. (I promised my wife that I would pursue professional publication next year: she gave me an ultimatum about that and having a second child!). I've had a few things accepted for publishing before in not-for-profit journals, but each time they fell through due to budgetary constraints, which resulted in smaller publications, so my articles were flicked. Nick, thanks. I have put it in the September edition now. Please feel free to tweak as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible item on Fortifications...[edit]

I've had a go at a paragraph of news on the Fortifications progress; I've left it here. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks great; I've posted it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Project news. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

October edition[edit]

Hi Nick 'n' everyone, back and slowly easing into things... Was able to visit many war memorials on our trip to North America and Hawaii, so there's at least a review essay of my impressions in that, though I may not get round to it until next month. Am I right is assuming the only op-ed on the boil is Bomzibar's, mentioned under Submissions on the main Newsroom page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to write an op-ed on my time as an editor. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you did mention that -- pls do, sooner the better.... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Done - a bit more than my original scope. Hope you like it. It's not meant as a criticism of you, promise. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
My submission will be ready this week but I think Eds has the higher priority. ;-) --Bomzibar (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugle improvements[edit]

Very much support turning the Bugle into a general history newsletter, and an op-ed arguing for and against WP:MILHIST swallowing WP:HIST. Also, can we get the Signpost-style comments section at the bottom added, where people can leave thoughts? I had to page through multiple pages to get here and I'm still not sure I'm in the right place. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello! I've just closed the Kosta Pećanac ACR, but cannot figure exactly where to put the newsletter notice, since no pages exists for December, January or February (which is where the guide links to). Cheers, Constantine 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Pecanac goes in February as it was promoted in January. I've created the page now and added the entry: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2013/Articles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks for clearing this up. Constantine 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Op-ed?[edit]

Is there an op-ed ready for this month? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got one brewing, what's the deadline? - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't know about "ready" at this stage, but Bomzibar has also been working on one. No deadline per se, but we like to get our ducks in a row for issue content by mid-month at least... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Just back from a short break -- looks like we're still awaiting an op-ed for January's issue (don't think Bomzibar's is ready) so don't be shy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Mine won't be ready for January ... maybe February. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Absent Op-ed[edit]

To hazard an observation, if you are missing an op-ed for the month, you could consider taking a piece from the academy and publishing it as the op-ed. This would help draw attention to the academy, and could help us fill in some of the pothole we still have over there. Just some food for thought :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

First World War centenary[edit]

Hello there. Wikimedia UK is a part of a very broad partnership of organisations looking to commemorate the centenary of the First World War. We're hoping to recruit as many volunteers to participate as possible. We are also looking for volunteers to suggest, design and deliver projects relating to the commemoration. If you are interested in taking part in any of this (regardless of your location) please do get in touch! You can find more details on our blog here or get in touch via my talk page on the UK wiki. Thank you! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Book Review[edit]

Is there still time to contribute a review to the Bugle for this month? —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, though you'll need to submit it today. Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Signpost-like box[edit]

Hey all, what would you think of creating a Bugle template similar to Template:Signpost-subscription? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@The ed17: That would be nice, although I'm not sure it's necessary. I've transcluded Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News which essentially provides the same service. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey Chris, that box would be too large for my tastes. It can also conflict with other elements, which can be seen on your page. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I made it work. ;) I would support a new template like you're describing for the same purpose. I find talk page delivery of various WikiProject "periodicals" to be foolish as no one (typically) needs an old newspaper. I like the current version sitting on my desk, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to mock one up when I have time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle
Issue C – July 2014

Published by the Military history WikiProject

Here's a mockup, based off of Template:Signpost-subscription: Template:Bugle-subscription. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ed, that looks great Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

Are the archives no longer being updated? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't do it every month but usually catch them up every so often -- don't let me stop anyone helping out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
I'll make a point of updating this on a semi-regular basis. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. Ian, I didn't want to update them if they were no longer being actively used, that's all. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)