Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Welcome to the discussion area of the Military history WikiProject's coordination department! This page is mostly used by the project coordinators, but everyone is welcome to participate! If you have a question, concern, or suggestion for the coordinators, please feel free to leave us a note!

Handbook

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

Coordinator tasks

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.

Assessment

• 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.

A-Class review

• For each ongoing A-Class review:
  1. Determine whether the review needs to be closed and archived, per the criteria here.
  2. If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~
• If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, follow the procedure below for creating an A-Class review or reappraisal. This will make way for the normal A-Class review initiation process, so advise the nominator to initiate per the instructions.

Quarterly Reviewing Awards

Quarterly Reviewing Awards - manual process

At the end of each quarter, all editors that complete at least one A-Class review receive a Milhist reviewing award. Create a new thread on the Coordinators' talk page and paste the following boilerplate into the body, leaving the subject line empty:{{subst:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing Table}}. Save the thread, reopen it and change the months and year in the subject line and table, add a comment under the table, sign and save the thread again. Then tally the qualifying reviews: Tally A-Class Reviews. As only those editors who complete at least one Milhist A-Class review receive an award, start by tallying them. Go to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/201X]] (inserting the correct year) and click on the links to check all the A-Class articles that were promoted, failed, kept or demoted in the relevant quarter. Tally the number of articles reviewed by each editor. One suggested method is to use a simple pen-and-paper tally of usernames as you scroll through the relevant archive; another is to save the relevant reviews into a word processor and delete all content except the usernames of the reviewers, then tally from there. Regardless of which method is chosen, it can be time consuming so you may need to do it over several sessions. Once done, add each editor who completed an A-Class review to the User column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table, and add one point to the ACR column for each article that editor reviewed. Tally Good Article Reviews. Methods are to go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare revision history for the quarter and tally the articles added by each editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table or to use the Pages Created tool to isolate GA nomination pages created by a specific user. Add one point to the GA column for each MilHist article that those editors reviewed. Note that the accuracy of this method relies upon reviewers listing GAs per instructions. Tally Peer Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive and click on the links to open the archive pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the PR column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed. Tally Featured Article Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations, and click on the links to open the archive of review pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the FAC column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed. Tally the total number of points for each editor and add them to the Total column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table. Award all reviewers in accordance with the following schedule (the award templates are all available under "Military history awards" below): 15+ points – the WikiChevrons 8–14 points – the Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 4–7 points – the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) 1-3 points – the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) Sign the Awarded column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table for each editor to signify that the award has been presented.

Quarterly reviewing awards are posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards page by the MilHistBot. As with other awards, change the status from "nominated" to "approved" to approve the award.

Member affairs

• Invite editors to join the project, using the following boilerplate:{{subst:Wikipedia:MILHIST/MILHIST Invitation|signed=~~~~}}
• Welcome anybody who joins the project, using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}}

Miscellaneous

• Vote on any open proposals to award the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and approve any A-Class medal or A-Class cross nominations.
• Update the monthly newsletter with new developments within the project.
• Verify entries in the monthly article writing contest, hand out prizes, and update the monthly scoreboard and the newsletter accordingly.
• Fix the {{WPMILHIST}} invocation syntax on any articles in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging.

How to...

Create a new task force

N.B.: Creating a task force involves a great deal of work, and is very time-consuming to reverse if an inappropriate or misnamed group is created. It is generally inadvisable to create task forces without prior discussion—particularly regarding the name and scope—on the project's main talk page. Before a task force can be created, it is necessary to decide on a name for it. The process requires both a full name (e.g. "French military history" or "American Civil War") and a one- or two-word or acronym shorthand used for some template parameters (e.g. "French" or "ACW"). The instructions below use the "Fooish military history" task force (shortened to "Fooish") as an example; when creating an actual task force, remember to substitute the correct name, rather than actually creating the example pages. Create the task force page: Create the main task force page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Fooish military history task force) with {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Task force boilerplate|Fooish military history|Fooish}} as the content. Fill in descriptions of the task force scope where indicated on the new task force page. Add support for the task force to {{WPMILHIST}}: Select an image to use as the task force icon. The image should be recognizable at a small size and reasonably representative of the topic of the task force. Add the task force display code to the task force section of {{WPMILHIST}}, in correct position among the task force parameters, by copying one of the existing task force blocks and replacing the task force name and image where needed. If the name of the task force does not begin with a capitalized term—in other words, where the name would be lowercase if it were not a page title (e.g. "military aviation" or "maritime warfare")—an altname= parameter containing the lowercased version of the name must be passed to {{WPMILHIST/Task force categories}}. Add {{{Fooish-task-force|}}}{{{Fooish|}}} to the appropriate conditional statements in the template. Update the project banner instructions: Add "|Fooish=" to the example syntax, in correct position among the task force parameters. Add "* '''Fooish-task-force''' (or '''Fooish''') – "''yes''" if the article is supported by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Fooish military history task force|Fooish military history task force]]." to the instructions, in correct position among the task force parameters. Set up the task force assessment infrastructure: Create the main task force category (Category:Fooish military history task force articles) with {{WPMILHIST Task force category|Fooish military history}} as the content. Create the main task force assessment category (Category:Fooish military history articles by quality) with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment category|Fooish military history}} as the content. Create the assessment level sub-categories: Category:FA-Class Fooish military history articles with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category|Fooish military history|FA}} as the content. Category:FL-Class Fooish military history articles with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category|Fooish military history|FL}} as the content. Category:A-Class Fooish military history articles with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category|Fooish military history|A}} as the content. Category:GA-Class Fooish military history articles with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category|Fooish military history|GA}} as the content. Category:B-Class Fooish military history articles with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category|Fooish military history|B}} as the content. Category:C-Class Fooish military history articles with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category|Fooish military history|C}} as the content. Category:Start-Class Fooish military history articles with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category|Fooish military history|Start}} as the content. Category:Stub-Class Fooish military history articles with {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category|Fooish military history|Stub}} as the content. Create the main task force checklist category (Category:Fooish military history articles needing attention) with {{WPMILHIST Task force checklist category|Fooish military history}} as the content. Create the checklist item sub-categories: Category:Fooish military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation with {{WPMILHIST Task force checklist item category|Fooish military history|1}} as the content. Category:Fooish military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy with {{WPMILHIST Task force checklist item category|Fooish military history|2}} as the content. Category:Fooish military history articles needing attention to structure with {{WPMILHIST Task force checklist item category|Fooish military history|3}} as the content. Category:Fooish military history articles needing attention to grammar with {{WPMILHIST Task force checklist item category|Fooish military history|4}} as the content. Category:Fooish military history articles needing attention to supporting materials with {{WPMILHIST Task force checklist item category|Fooish military history|5}} as the content. Add the task force's statistics table ({{WPMILHIST Task force assessment|Fooish military history}}) to the task force statistics table in the assessment department. Set up the task force's open tasks listing: Create the task force's open task template ({{WPMILHIST Announcements/Fooish military history}}) using the syntax shown on {{WPMILHIST Announcements/Task force}} as the content. At a minimum, the name= parameter must be set to "Fooish military history"; optionally, some initial tasks should be located and added to the listing. Set up the task force's userboxes: Create the task force userbox (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/User WPMILHIST Fooish military history task force) with the following content, using the same image as was used in {{WPMILHIST}} above: <div style="float: left; border:solid #C0C090 1px; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #F8EABA;" |- | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: wheat; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: black;" | [[Image:Fooish_image.png|45x45px]] | style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #000000;" | This user is part of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Fooish military history task force|'''Fooish military history task force''']]. |}</div> Add the following to the userbox listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Banners, in proper order among the other task force userboxes: |- | <tt><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/User WPMILHIST Fooish military history task force]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></tt> | {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/User WPMILHIST Fooish military history task force}} Add the task force to the project's navigation system: Add a link to the task force to the main listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history (the task force listing is in a drop-down box at the bottom of the page). Add a link to the task force to the appropriate task force section of {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Navigation}}; the stripe colors may need adjusting to maintain the alternating-stripe pattern.

Creating an A-Class review or reappraisal

Creating a new A-Class review or reappraisal If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, a new version has to be created manually. Find the archive page Go to Special:WhatLinksHere Put the name of the old review page into the upper text box. It will look like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/<page name> eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of military logistics Set the namespace in the lower dropbox to "Wikipedia" One link should be found. It should look like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/<Year>/<Outcome> where <Outcome> will be Promoted, Kept, Failed or Demoted eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2023/Promoted Click on the link of that archive page, which transcludes the review. Find the last review On another tab or window, go to the talk page of the article and look in the {{article history}} template for any past reviews. They will have the form Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/<page name><number>. If there are any, we will be creating an archive with a number one greater than the last one. Otherwise, we will be creating archive1 Move the review page On another tab or window go to the review page Move the page from <review page> to <review page>/archive<number> without redirect eg. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of military logistics/archive1 * This requires page mover privileges (bundled if you are an admin). If you don't have page mover, you can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover. Update the talk page Go back to the talk page tab and edit the {{article history}} template and change <review page> to <review page>/archive<number> Update the archive Go back to the archive page tab and edit it to change <review page> to <review page>/archive<number> Create the new review The editor can now create a new review or reappraisal by following the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review#Instructions  Warning Do not create a new WAR article history entry. This will be created by the Bot when the review is closed.  Warning Do not remove the class=A from the banner shell or the project banner. This will be done by the Bot if the review determines that the article should be delisted.

Establish coordinator election pages

Under the current system used by the Military history Wikiproject, coordinators are tasked with handling certain project-specific operations such as closing A-Class reviews. Because coordinators are held accountable to the project an election is held once a year to determine who among the community's members will serve as a coordinator. While the election itself is a simple approval vote, creating the pages needed for the election can be tricky. Therefore, this Academy page will serve as a walk-through on how to correctly set up the election pages. Before the election Before any election pages are created, the matter of the coordinator election must be brought up with the current coordinator tranche. Ideally, this should be done sometime between mid-July and early August. The reason that the coordinators must first discuss the matter of the election is to settle on the finer details of the upcoming election. Three key aspects should be decided. The first detail relates to the project's activity level: as the activity level in the project rises or falls, the number of coordinators judged to be needed to effectively run the project increases or decreases. Accordingly, then, the coordinators need to establish how many slots should be opened to the project members. In general, the project currently operates efficiently with roughly 8–11 coordinators, although the exact number settled on for the upcoming tranche must understandably be decided based on the workload and the efficiency of the current coordinator tranche. The coordinators must also decide if the total number should include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, which can cause the total settled on to fluctuate by one. The second factor that needs to be discussed is the election format. Historically, when the system was introduced, the format was 14 days for nominations followed by 14 days of election, which worked well for the community but created an illusion that the process was "slow". As a result of this perception the community approved a change in the process that now sees the election format using a 10-day nomination period followed by a 10-day voting period. This process is marginally faster than the older two week system, which helps speed the process up. While the coordinators have used this option for several years, they also have the option of introducing or implementing a new nomination/voting scheme if one is judged to be needed. Accordingly then, the coordinators will need to settle on which of the three options they feel will work the best for the upcoming election. The final matter that must be discussed is the exact date of the election. Ideally, the entire election should take place in the month of September, but as there are 30 days in September the coordinators will need to officially designate a starting day for the nomination period. Once this day is decided, the format the coordinators have agreed upon can be used to determine when the nomination period will end, and by extension when the voting period will start and end. Collectively, these three points once settled will provide the information needed to establish the election pages. Creating the election pages Once the above three factors have been settled on an editor can move to create the election pages. The first page that should be created is the election page proper. (A completed example can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017.) This page should be created as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR) replacing the MONTH and YEAR with the month and year in question. Once you have the correct red link the following information should be added to the page verbatim: {{WPMILHIST Navigation|no-banner=yes}} {{/Tally}} {{TOC limit|3}} == Overview == This election is to appoint the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|project coordinator team]] for one year, from (ADD THE DATE OF THE INCOMING TRANCHE HERE USING DAY MONTH YEAR FORMAT) to (ADD THE ENDING DATE OF THE UPCOMING COORDINATOR TRANCHE HERE, USING DAY MONTH YEAR FORMAT). Coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. All of the coordinators, and especially the lead coordinator (or lead coordinators), serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and focus on specific areas requiring special attention. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers. === Responsibilities === From [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators]]: <blockquote>The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group. <br/><br/> The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.</blockquote> Practical information on coordinating may be found [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|here]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Being a coordinator|here]]. The current coordinators are: {| class="wikitable" |- ! Name ! Position ! Standing for re-election? |- | Add the name of the first current coordinator as shown on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinator's page]] | The current position the above named editor holds. By virtue of the currently used system, this slot will always be "Coordinator" with the exception of the editor who holds the position of lead coordinator, whose position box should be filled in as "Lead Coordinator" | This slot MUST be added to for each coordinator and should be left blank since only the listed coordinator can decide if he or she wants to stand for reelection. |} === Election process === * '''Nomination period''': (Add the day and month the nomination will begin and the UTC time, day, and month the nomination will end here. For example, "8 September to 23:59 UTC 18 September") * '''Voting period''': (Add the day and month the election phase will begin and the UTC time, day, and month the election period will end here. For example, "19 September to 23:59 UTC 29 September") * Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the [[#Candidates|"Candidates" section below]] by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used: <pre> === Name === {{user|Name}} : Statement goes here... ==== Comments and questions for Name ==== *''What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?'' ** *''What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?'' ** ==== Votes in support of Name ==== # </pre> * The election will be conducted using simple [[approval voting]]. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the lead coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); this position may be shared in the event that multiple candidates receive the highest number of endorsements. The remaining candidates with twenty or more endorsements will be appointed as coordinators to a maximum of eleven appointments (including the lead coordinator). The number of coordinators ''may'' be increased or reduced if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position. * Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments. == Candidates== {{/Status}} <!-- As per long standing consensus both new candidates and returning coordinators are listed alphabetically below, so add your user name accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation. --> }} Create the status template The second page that will need be created will be the status template. (A completed example can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017/Status). This template uses a set of established parameters to inform editors, readers, and other interested parties when the nominations will open, when the voting will open, and when the elections have concluded. The template itself resides at the top of the Candidates section, and will be present in the page you just created by virtue of the its presence in code copied from the preceding section. To access the template, add /Status to the current election page so that the election page looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)/Status It should give you a red link, click it and then add the following to the status page: ;{{#switch:{{CURRENTYEAR}} |2015={{#switch:{{CURRENTMONTH}} |8=<big>The election has not started yet. Please do not edit this page.</big> |9={{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} < 8|<big>The election has not started yet. Please do not edit this page.</big>|{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} < 19|<big>Please <big style="color: red;">DO NOT VOTE</big> yet; the voting phase of the election will open at 00:01 (UTC) on 19 September.<br>If you wish to run, please sign up by 23:59 (UTC) on 18 September.</big>|{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} <= 29|<big>Voting is now open; project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September.</big><br>(This is a [[approval voting|simple approval vote]]; only "support" votes should be made. All other votes will be discounted.)|<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>}}}}}} |#default=<big>Voting is now concluded.</big> }} |#default=<big>Voting is now concluded.</big> }} Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, [[{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}]] [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]''' (UTC) Once the above has been added take care the you change the year and the days to match the current election year and the days for the nomination and voting periods. Once the information has been updated save the page, this will result in the template on the election page being created and if done correctly should automatically switch messages to notify interested parties when the nomination and election phases open and when the election concludes. Tally Box The final page that must be created is the Tally Box. This table tracks the number of editors in the election and the number of votes that each has received, respectively. To create the Tally Box, add /Tally to the current coordinator election page so it looks like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)/Tally taking care to replace the MONTH and YEAR tabs with the current election month and year. Once you have the red link, add the following to the page verbatim, taking care to not that MONTH and YEAR in the example below will already reflect the current election month and year: {| class="plainlinks sortable" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="2" style="width: 200px; background: whitesmoke; margin-left: 15px; float: right; border: 1px black dotted; " |- |+ <big>'''Tally'''</big> <br/> <small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/MONTH YEAR/Tally|action=edit}} edit]</small> |- ! Candidate !! Votes |- |} After adding the section save the page, this will result in the Tally Box being created and added to the election page proper. With this done all three pages for the coordinator election should be created and no further action should be required on your part. With all three pages now live, the current coordinators and the editors of the Military history Wikiproject will be able to edit the pages to announce their candidacies or their decision not to seek reelection. Notify the project See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification for details on how to send a mass message. Suggested heading is: Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! Suggested message form is: Nominations for the upcoming [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]] coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator|here]]. If you are interested in running, please sign up '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2024|here]]''' by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|current coord team]]. ~~~~ After the election Close the voting {{archivetop|The election is now closed. ~~~~ }} to the top of the election page and {{archivebottom}} to the bottom of the page. Notify the winners For the newly elected coordinators, a suggested form is {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:US-O11 insignia.svg|100px]] |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{CURRENTYEAR}} |Coordinator stars]]'''''  |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! ~~~~ |} For the lead coordinator, a suggested form is: {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:US-O12 insignia.svg|100px]] |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{CURRENTYEAR}} |Lead Coordinator stars]]'''''  |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your re-election to the position of Lead Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Lead Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! ~~~~ |} For a coordinator emeritus, a suggested form is: {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg|100px]] |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{CURRENTYEAR}}#Nomination for Coordinator Emeritus (<editor>)|Coordinator Emeritus stars]]'''''  |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | It is with immense pleasure that I pass on the unanimous decision of the members of the WikiProject Military History that as a mark of the great esteem in which they hold you and your judgement you be appointed a Coordinator Emeritus of the Project for as long as you should choose to remain one. Congratulations and many thanks for all that you have done for the Project. ~~~~ |} Update the coordinators list Edit the lead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators to reflect the current list. Update the notification template Edit Template:@MILHIST to reflect the current list. Update the category Edit the coordinators' user pages to add Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators and remove it from coordinators who are no longer active. Update the Bugle Add the election results to The Bugle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2024/Project news

Establish military historian and newcomer of the year election voting

Under the current system used by the Military history Wikiproject, coordinators are tasked with handling certain project-specific operations. This Academy page will serve as a walk-through on how to correctly set up the election pages for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year elections. About These elections are conducted between 1 and 30 December each year. Before the election Create the election pages Substitute the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history page before 1 December: {{subst:WPMILHIST Nominations for military historian of the year}} ~~~~ {{subst:WPMILHIST Nominations for military history newcomer of the year}} ~~~~ Notify the project See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification for details on how to send a mass message. Suggested form is: Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military historian of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. {{subst:Currentuser}} via ~~~~ After the election Close the voting {{archivetop|Voting is now closed. ~~~~ }} to the top of the election page and {{archivebottom}} to the bottom of the page. Notify the winners on their talk pages For the winners of the Military History Newcomer of the Year, a suggested form is: {{tmbox | image = [[File:Goldenwiki 2.png|60px]] | style = background-color: #fdffe7; | text = '''{{font|text=The Golden Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected as the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the coveted '''Golden Wiki'''; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. ~~~~ }} For runners-up, a suggested form is: {{tmbox | image = [[File:WikiprojectBarnstar.png|60px]] | style = background-color: WhiteSmoke; | text = '''{{font|text=The WikiProject Barnstar|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} You have been selected as a runner-up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], please accept this token of gratitude and appreciation on behalf of the project; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. ~~~~ }} For winners of the Military Historian of the New Year: {{tmbox | image = [[File:Goldenwiki 2.png|60px]] | style = background-color: #fdffe7; | text = '''{{font|text=The Golden Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected as the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the coveted '''Golden Wiki'''. ~~~~ }} For second place: {{tmbox | image = [[File:Silverwiki 2.png|60px]] | style = background-color: WhiteSmoke; | text = '''{{font|text=The Silver Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected in second place for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the esteemed '''Silver Wiki'''. ~~~~ }} For third place: {{tmbox | image = [[File:Bronzewiki 2.png|60px]] | style = background-color: NavajoWhite ; | text = '''{{font|text=The Bronze Wiki|size=x-large|color=maroon}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected in third place for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the esteemed '''Bronze Wiki'''. ~~~~ }} Update the winners lists These are located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY Update the Bugle Add the election results to The Bugle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2025/Project news The suggested form is: The [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2024_are_open!|Military Historian of the Year]] awards have been distributed, the Golden Wiki going to {{u|gold}} for third year in a row. The Silver Wiki was awarded to {{u|silver}} and the Bronze wiki jointly to {{u|bronze}} and {{u|bronze}}. {{u|runner up}} and {{u|runner up}} were runners-up. The [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2024_are_open!|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] awards have also been handed out, with {{u|gold}} receiving the Golden Wiki and {{u|runner-up}} and {{u|runner-up}} the WikiProject Barnstar. Congratulations to all members of the project on your achievements last year, and best wishes for 2025!

Boilerplate and templates

Public boilerplate notices

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~ {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~ {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/FAC notice|Name of article}} ~~~~ {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Peer review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~ {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}}

Military history awards

{{subst:WPMILHIST A-Class medal|[CITATION per nomination] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST A-Class medal (Oakleaves)|[CITATION per nomination] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST A-Class medal (Swords)|[CITATION per nomination] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST A-Class medal (Diamonds)|[CITATION per nomination] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST Service 1 stripe|[TEXT] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST Service 2 stripes|[TEXT] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST Service 3 stripes|[TEXT] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST Service (review) 1 stripe|[TEXT] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST Service (review) 2 stripes|[TEXT] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST Service (review) 3 stripes|[TEXT] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST Service (review) Content Review Medal of Merit|[TEXT] ~~~~}} {{subst:The Writer's Barnstar|[TEXT] ~~~~|2=alt}} {{subst:WPMILHIST WikiChevrons|[TEXT] ~~~~}} {{subst:WPMILHIST WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves|[CITATION per nomination] ~~~~}}

Coordinator userboxes
Lead Coordinator: {{WPMILHIST Lead}} This user is the lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Coordinator: {{WPMILHIST Coordinator}} This user is a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Coordinator Emeritus: {{WPMILHIST Emeritus}} This user is a coordinator emeritus of the Military history WikiProject.

Open tasks

Topics for future discussion

• 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

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using different reference formats (partially written/needs expansion)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Image restoration (partially written)
• Using supporting materials (possibly not needed/covered by other topics)
• Image quality and accuracy (possibly not needed/covered by other topics)

Open award nominations

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

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 17 August may be closed by an uninvolved coordinator. A guide to manually closing A-Class reviews is available, but normally the closing coordinator just needs to change A-Class=current in the {{WPMILHIST}} banner to A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail. Please wait 24 hours after a review is listed here before closing it to allow time for last-minute reviews.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Hyūga -- open since 15 March and has three supports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Was there an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, if you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at this one? Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I think this one is ready to go, but I've pinged Nikki for clarification if her concerns are addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Neil Armstrong -- open since 1 March and has three supports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Have asked Nikkimaria to look at the images. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Glenn -- open since 27 January and has three supports and an image review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• This one has an outstanding image-related query re: NASA logo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seems to be outstanding point re. images so leaving open for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose, Peacemaker67, and AustralianRupert: Both Neil Armstrong and John Glenn image reviews are resolved. Kees08 (Talk) 19:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• G'day, unfortunately as I reviewed both, I will have to leave it to an uninvolved co-ord to close. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

A few things for consideration

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I wanted to bring up a few things here since its time we discuss them:

• First, our coordinator election is about 5 weeks out, so we need to start thinking about setting this up and getting the word out. I'd propose nominations from September 4-14, with the election from September 15-25, assuming we retain the 10 nom / 10 day election format. We should also consider putting a notice out in the bugle so people can start thinking about this.
• Since we are seeking community input anyway, did anyone (other than me, obviously) want to put the proposed edit notices for quality content up for community consensus? We discussed the matter ourselves some months back, people though the spirit of the idea was sound but the execution flawed, and I just want to make sure that we are still in agreement not to solicit community input for improvements in the idea and let it die (such as it were).

Aside from those two points at the moment is there anything else that we need/want to discuss ahead of the coordinator election, or anything else we need to seek community input on before moving forward with? I don't think there is, but I figure it never hurts to ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Tom, thanks for this. I don't have anything else to add, but am happy with your proposals above, including the edit notice above. (I am not personally particularly wedded to it, but am happy for it to be put to the community to test the waters so to speak). I probably won't be nominating for co-ord this year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It is also a good time to think about award noms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have started work on the election page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017. Can someone in the know please check that I set up the status sub page correctly (I suspect I might have mucked it up while copying it). Please be aware that I went for slightly different dates so that we conform with the 2016 page, which said that the co-ords hold their position until 29 September. This resulted in slightly longer nomination and voting periods, which is probably not a bad thing. Happy to go with different dates, though, if there are concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Everything looks right, but I confess I've never been able to put one of these pages together fully without help from Kirill Lokshin. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. @Kirill Lokshin: G'day, Kirill, would you mind checking the coding on the sub pages for me? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I've checked over the coding, and I think we're good to go. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day all, just a reminder that the nomination period for the co-ord election has commenced. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder AR. I'm taking a year off from coordship, but if there's anything I can do during the year, please ask. I'll still be copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we enable the project-wide banner and/or push out announcements? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've put up the banner. If someone could post a few announcements in the usual places, that would be great. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: we're still a few short and only a day till noms close, do we need to put out an all points bulletin to members or something? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll stand again FWIW, just been v. busy the last couple of weeks -- if I think of anyone to pester to stand, I'll do that too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Same here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be standing this time around. Life offwiki has limited my contributions as a co-ord much more than anticipated and I haven't achieved as much as I wanted to do. I don't see this changing in the near future. I still intend to be editing a bit though so will be around. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zawed: Just want to say thanks for your efforts as a co-ord this year. I have appreciated your efforts with closing reviews and doing assessments etc., and as always have enjoyed reading the articles you've worked on. All the best, mate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, Zawed! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Do we want to send out a mass message to project members inviting them to vote like we've done in previous years? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing, Harry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Given the limited participation to date, this seems a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Working on it now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding a "Needed" class

Hello all, I was wondering if there is any way to add a "Needed" class; to be applied to redirects that should be made into articles, that are only redirects because they have not been created, and are thus redirecting to a related article. This way it would be possible to sort the permanent redirects from the redirects that should be made into articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Protocal for naming military units

I am seeking information on the convention for naming military units. The former wikipedia page on this topic refers me to your group. I think, but am not sure, that the Center for Military History is the arbiter of this protocal. Can you offer any guidance on a source?

Specifically I am interested in Army Chemical Corps units, and the proper naming as "chemical" versus the new acronym CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological Nuclear, Explosive.) Some units are calling them selves "xxth CBRNE unit" and others "xxth Chemical unit (CBRNE)" and other variaataions.

My role is that of Historian working with the 48th Chemical Brigade at Fort Hoood.

Walter Eldredge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walt539 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I'm not totally sure what you mean. On Wikipedia, we name articles using the common name used by reliable sources, but in the case of military units, we usually disambiguate them by country, so 48th Chemical Brigade (United States) seems a sensible title for the article in the absence of reliable sources that use another name. But you may be concerned with what the proper official name of the unit is, a decision for which I'm sure the US Army has internal protocols. If it is anything like the Australian Army, any changes to the official name would be done by a message to the Army as a whole, but usually the Army website is quickly updated with the new name. I would have thought the US Army website would be a good place to go in the first instance, and it says "48th Chemical Brigade" and links to the brigade website. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:VilePig has the best guidance on this; CMH is the arbiter for the exact names, and at that talkpage is a e-mail address for a CMH staff person who should be able to assist. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Dated 2013, the relevant text is "[i]f you'd like to hear it directly from Ned, who speaks for DA, you may contact him at: Ned Bedessem, Force Structure and Unit History Branch, US Army Center of Military History, (202) 685-2732; DSN 325-2732 edward.bedessem@us.army.mil". Buckshot06 (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Recognition for User:WreckSmurfy

This editor has almost single-handedly created over 75 Soviet division articles and appears hell-bent on created all the articles required for World War II - hundreds of them!! Would Coordinators kindly advise me on any additional recognition possible beyond barnstars, or initiate consideration of upper echelons of WikiChevrons, with Diamonds & Swords etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Buckshot, nominations for Wikichevrons with Oak Leaves can be made here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Howdy comrades!

First of all, sorry to brag in a little off-topic! By a stunning coincidence I just hopped-on my wiki user page and watchlist today, exactly ten years after I was firstly elected Milhist project coordinator and a bit of nostalgia came by. I opened this discussion and I was glad to see you guys keep up this excellent work! I want to send my very best regards to my old-folks and colleagues Kirill, Roger, Nick, Ian Rose, Buckshot, Parsecboy, Tomstar, Sturmvogel, Hawkeye, as well as all the newer guys who I did not have the pleasure to work with, as unfortunately I'm too busy with real-life aviation to conitnue to contribute consistently here on wiki. Take care and all the very best! Yours, --Eurocopter (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Great to hear from you Eurocopter, glad you're well. We'd love to see you back here but if you're busy with RL aviation, well, that doesn't sound so bad -- good luck to you and please just drop in here when you can! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Eurocopter, thanks for checking in and glad to hear you are still poking around on Wikipedia. Most of the old breed are still around, although sadly I think Sturm is MIA (hopefully just focusing on bigger and better things in RL). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Eurocopter, and I'm glad to hear you're doing well! Sturm hasn't edited since April and I haven't heard anything from him off-wiki, but I think the rest of us old-timers are still around, in some capacity or another. Stop by any time you're free! Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello from one of the new guys! I can sympathise with the not having a lot of time, luckily(?) Hurricane Harvey has me stuck inside the house for a week or so, so I've got lots of time for now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Power out

Hello all, my power has gone out as a result of the hurricane, I don't know how long it will be gone. I won't be able to do much on Wikipedia while it's out. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck down there, hopefully it won't be long. It sounds like you're not in any imminent danger (I hope!), but we'll be thinking of you all the same! Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sending my best wishes! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in any imminent danger (I think). A friend of mine has offered me to crash at his place for now, so I should be able to edit from now on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• now that is a wikipedia addict! auntieruth (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

source review needed for Battle of Rossbach

here any takers? auntieruth (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A way to search by task forces

I don't believe there is currently any way to search by two task forces within the MILHIST assessment categories, i.e. stub class Maritime and German articles, or C class World War Two and British articles. Would this be possible to implement? It would be helpful for searching for articles. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be possible to do this already using Petscan. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gallipoli Campaign

I'm wondering what should be done with this nomination. The nominator doesn't seem to be in a position to address reviewers' comments (they've only made two edits since the nomination, neither of them to the article or the ACR, and judging by the FAC and PR they don't realise that reviews are interactive processes), which is probably why reviewers have been unwilling to invest their time in providing feedback. I notice Nick and AC have been involved in the ACR; do either of you have any thoughts? Unless someone else is wiling to take on the review, I suggest we close it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise (or references) on this campaign to respond to reviewers' comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I'm happy to attempt to address any issues that might be raised as part of the review process should it continue. That said I have no preference either way about this one. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly keen on this review, but have worked through the image issues nonetheless so as not to waste Nikki's time. I doubt I will have much energy to make any massive changes to the article due to pending parenting duties, but probably could be persuaded to help with small issues if they are identified. To be successful, though, Keith-264 would probably need to be on board, too, as he has played a big part in getting the article to where it is now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye open but I'm busy with another sandbox clear up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the (understandable) lack of enthusiasm and the premature nomination, I've closed this. If anyone wants to adopt it, feel free to renominate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Co-ord election results

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day all, the voting period has ended, so I have archived the election page now. In terms of results, we appear to have 13 candidates who achieved over the minimum of 15 votes. Our stated max on the election page was 11, including the lead, but I would like to propose that we (like last year), accept the extra two positions as supernumerary. I don't see any major harm in doing so, as there appears to be a good level of support for all candidates (so arguably it isn't going against broad community consensus) and doing so should actually help us grow a larger pool of co-ords for the future. I would argue this is only a good thing. Are there any concerns with this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I might be biased as I found reasons to vote for all candidates, but I see no harm in having the extra bodies if they're all over the agreed threshold. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree, good course of action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have updated the names in the relevant places. I think the only thing left would be a blurb in the upcoming edition of The Bugle. Otherwise, I think I've gotten everything, but if I did miss something vital, please let me know. To our new co-ords, @Biblioworm, Cinderella157, and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: welcome. While you are completing your march-in, if you have any queries about the role, please do not hesitate to ask. Additionally, if you have ideas for the project (e.g. ideas for the Academy pages, or plans for a drive, or revamping some other aspect), by all means please bring them forward. To our returning co-ords, thank you for stepping forward once again, and all the best for the coming year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the paperwork Rupert. And absolutely agree with bringing on the extra two. Many hands make light work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome, looking forward to serve the project and simultaneously learn from the capacity. I've a couple of plans rolling in my mind, the first is to audit the academy, for which I'll put forward a detailed plan shortly. And the second is to project our Military history project to a global scale i.e. to the Global Wikimedia community. For this, I'll initially create a draft roadmap before the end of October. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal as being is in the project's best interests. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I am very interested in your suggestion that we globalize this project. I look forward to your draft proposal. Biblio (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Jul to Sept 2017 reviewing tallies

Username	GAN	ACR	PR	FAC	Total	Entitlement	Awarded
Abraham, B.S.	1	4	0	0	5	Milhist 2 stripes	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Anotherclown	0	7	1	0	8	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Auntieruth	5	5	0	4	14	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
AustralianRupert	0	16	5	3	24	WikiChevrons	Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Dank	0	3	1	11	15	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
DarjeelingTea	0	2	0	0	2	Milhist 1 stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles	0	2	0	1	3	Milhist 1 stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
EyeTruth	0	1	0	0	1	Milhist 1 stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Finnusertop	0	1	0	0	1	Milhist 1 stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7	8	8	0	3	19	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009	2	4	0	3	9	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Ian Rose	0	3	0	3	6	Milhist 2 stripes	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Indy beetle	0	1	0	0	1	Milhist 1 stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Kees08	0	1	0	0	1	Milhist 1 stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga	4	2	0	0	6	Milhist 2 stripes	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Llammakey	0	4	0	0	4	Milhist 2 stripes	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz	0	5	0	1	6	Milhist 2 stripes	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Nick-D	0	4	0	2	6	Milhist 2 stripes	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria	0	9	2	18	29	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Parsecboy	5	3	0	3	11	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Peacemaker67	9	8	1	8	26	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The ed17	0	3	0	0	3	Milhist 1 stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Vami IV	0	1	0	0	1	Milhist 1 stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, as it is time to tally up the Project's quarterly reviews and hand out the awards, I've tallied up the Milhist ACR reviews (apologies if I missed any – this is my first tally – please let me know if there is any mistake). Can someone else have a look at the other categories for the listed editors? One thing that needs attention is, User:DarjeelingTea has done 2 two A-class reviews, but was indefinitely blocked for attempting sock-puppetry, we need to decide on this. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

GANs done. I think we award Darjeeling Tea, they did the work, they might be unblocked in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Added PRs. Thanks for starting this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Gimme a few ticks and I'll do FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Done now, and totalled. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Entitlements done, if everything is fine, we can give out the awards. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who chipped in to get this done promptly, that was a pretty painless team effort! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Banners for new articles

I have been looking at the NPP Browser and adding banners and have some questions as a newbie regarding bots and logs. The short question is, is there a bot to create a log to streamline/automate finding articles to "banner"? The NPP browser has searches/filters by categories but not a filter for those without a banner (that I can see). It also catches video games with this. Then there are the uncategorised articles. A keyword search would narrow the field while a creation date would limit going back over old ground. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, not sure, to be honest, but potentially AutoWikiBrowser might support this... I don't use it myself, though. Can anyone shed more light on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

New Featured Article target?

G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: . We've passed 1000 Featured Articles! I propose we set a new Featured Article target of 1200, and highlight this milestone in the next Bugle. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Tks PM, I was just thinking after reading your post on the MilHist talk page that it'd be worth a mention in the Bugle... ;-) As for a new target, I tend to prefer figures in wholes, halves or quarters so what do people think of 1250...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, just following the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FA, it says only 815 FAs within the project's scope, so there seems to be a disconnect somewhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If you go to [[Category:FA-Class military history articles]] is says 1,002, which is where I think it comes from. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that -- I thought MilHist Bot might have been updating the showcase page but evidently not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The MilHistBot is updating the A class showcase, adding them when they are promoted to A class, and the FACBot is removing them when they promoted to FA class; but the FACBot is not adding them to the FA class showcase. Give me a day or two. I will fix up the showcase page, and then enhance the FACBot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you want the good news or the bad news? The good news is that I have fixed up Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FA, and the Bots will soon start updating it. The bad news is that Category:FA-Class military history articles reports that there are "approximately 1,002" Featured MilHist articles, there appears to be 1,005. (Also: Richard Nixon is a FA, but is not tagged as MilHist) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Tks very much for that, Hawkeye -- you may have forced us to revise our estimate of the 1000th MilHist FA, but better to know the truth...! Re. Nixon, well yes, apart from him being C-in-C during a major war, he was in the Navy during WWII so he probably should get a MilHist tag at that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The face that we also have a fair few delisted FAs complicates things further... Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I reckon 1,250 is a good stretch, I'd support that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I will go with more experience on this as to what is "not too close" but not "too far away". What would be an attainable target for a year (at a good streach)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I would think about 5 a month (the Bugle boys will know this better than me), give or take. So 60 max, probably more like 50? So 250 would be a five year target. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that five-year plans were all that successful in the Soviet Union? :) Another 100 (1100 all up) would therefore take about 20 months at the current rate. It would be an achievable target in the mid-term. We could also try to bring this down closer to 12 months as a shorter-term target and monitor how close we are going. A "good" outcome would better than "split the difference" - reaching it in 16 months. Just a thought. Regards (and I will sign this time :) ) Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Historically, it appears that the FA milestone has been upgraded in increments of 250. See here and here. I don't see any good reason to change that. Biblio (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

250 articles for five years is a better choice, and adding to the above discussion, currently en Wikipedia has about 5,150 FAs and our share is 1,002, counts almost 20% of the total. This is a big figure, so we must also get it highlighted in Signpost as well. What do you say? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy with 250. I seem to recall something being included in Signpost a few years ago, but can't seem to locate it at the moment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll try out to Signpost Editor-in-chief, and we'll see how they can help us. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not opposed. They were just my thoughts. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've reset it to 1,250. Cheers all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: In case if anyone has missed this; the milestone has been mentioned in The Signpost's "New and notes section. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Dear coordinators, a blog post about our project has been published on the Wikimedia Foundation Blog. Please have a look at it here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

If possible please mention about this in the next issue of The Bugle. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Krishna, thanks for sharing this link. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that blog post, Krishna. I didn't realize that MilHist is responsible for such a large percentage of FAs. Biblio (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Louis-Antoine Gaultier

What do you suggest to do with a page [apparently] copied and pasted (without review or copy edited) from another Wiki language article? A review of the editor's talk page might provide some insight. A quick check suggests that the editor, if not a native English speaker has good english language skills, has been online since 2013, has over 21000 edits total and 2200 odd in the last year. I have probably answered my own question - a polite request to do some more work on the article and to spend some more time on future articles before migrating to the main-space. On the otherhand, some of you may have had some dealings with the editor previously and have some better insight ... I have/am making a couple of quick edits but it wikll need a fair bit of work. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Tanks merger

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Earlier this week, I approached WikiProject Tanks and suggested a merger with our Military land vehicles task force. In my view, the division of efforts is detrimental to article quality. Fortunately, the members of the project were very much open to a merger. I have proposed the following conditions:

• The Military land vehicles task force will keep its name. Some suggested that the task force should be renamed to "Armored vehicles," but as one editor rightly pointed out, not all military vehicles are armored.
• All the non-duplicate members of the Tanks project will have their membership automatically transferred to the MLV task force.
• The unique parts of the Tanks project (such as its discussion page, portal, templates, awards, guides, etc.) will be included in the task force.

Another editor also proposed the creation of a new special project, like Majestic Titan. I noted that Operation Tanks was started last year and never really gained much participation. However, I think it is possible that Operation Tanks could be revived and broadened into a general project for military vehicles. Of course, such a proposal will meet the same fate as Operation Tanks unless it has the general approval of the other coordinators and project members.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this merger. Biblio (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

G'work. This'll help us for better work, and also in the growth of the Project. As the merger is on tracks, if the majority are willing, there are a few things that we need to figure out. The first being how to deal with the project pages and subpages; here we can have four categories.

1. All project pages and subpages
2. Pages (including sub) that are to be merged
3. Pages (including sub) that are kept for historical reference
4. Pages (including sub) that can be deleted

Next thing is updating the categories for respective classes, however this can be done by adding MILHIS template to talk, and does anything needs to be changed in the scope of Military land vehicles task force, as defined currently. Looking forward for other's suggestions on the merger procedure. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

We suggested that right from the get go on account of the fact that so many projects have dies recently due to suffocating participation, but this apparently went forward anyway with little to none of the usual support. I do strongly support this proposal, and in my opinion the sooner its done the better. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it seems to be the most efficient way of doing things. If the members of the Tanks project are willing I see no reason to stand in the way as long as its viewed as an act of self determination. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Given declining participation in WikiProjects overall, I'd prefer that everyone interested in military history come under under our umbrella. Independent projects are far more likely to go dormant. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Project audit

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Greetings, my dear fellow coords the Military history is one of most celebrated projects on en Wikipedia, and is widely acclaimed for this structure and self-sustaining procedures. It's been more than a decade since the project's inception, and now at this point, I feel that a Project audit is advisable for enhanced working, and I have mentioned the same during coord elections. Here I propose a few things that needs to take care before we actually start the the audit.

1. Creation of 4–5 member team including one lead
2. List of sections/pages that are to be audited (Academy, assessment, MOS, taskforces etc.)
3. List of any project/policy pages to be created
4. Checklist while auditing a particular page
5. A template to mark that a page has been audited (on the talk page)

I request all the coords to give their inputs regarding the above mentioned points, so that I can create a cumulative workflow. I feel "XVII Tranche Audit" will good to title to this audit, comments are welcome. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate an intent but this brief statement gives insufficient depth to the intent. Can I suggest that you "fleshout" just what you perceive and intend by this proposition. It can see that this is not something that is simple or brief. Can I suggest a separate page that details your proposal in the first instance and, perhaps, is a place to discuss this in detail. If this is the case, I am sure that our fellow coordinators would undertake to watch such a page and contribute to a discussion there, as if it were conducted here. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm having nightmares of annual ISO 9001 audits already. ;-)

On a more serious note, I would echo Cinderella157's suggestion that we flesh out what this audit would actually entail, in practical terms, before we decide whether/how we want to proceed with the workflow. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well we waltzed through the academy a few years back so that shouldn't be too high a mountain to climb. As for the rest this, I agree that it should be fleshed out a little so we can see more of what you have in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd echo Tom's point about the Academy here, but it certainly doesn't hurt to see if they could be improved further. I'd be keen to see if we could finish off the final couple of Academy articles, too... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to see more detail. I echo Rupert's observation about the remaining Academy articles, and think it would be worth looking them over again to see if we need to add any. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Thank you all. I'll do the needful by the end of this week. Before I start, can anyone suggest be we can I start? In the sense, where to create a sub page; as a sub page of main project page or coordinators talk page etc. I would like to name the page as "XVIII Tranche Project Audit", your comments are welcome. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't object to taking a look at our project's overall strategy and whether our structure best supports it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably as a subpage of here would be my idea? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day Krishna, I'd suggest creating it at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to suggest is that we add a section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide for military biographies, linking to Wikiproject Biography guidance but adding specific things that apply to military biographies, like the infobox, and including dates of promotions, wounds, awards/citations etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. I'd also suggest updating that page a little, e.g. "Firearm" is pretty narrow, I'd suggest changing it to "Military weapons, equipment and vehicles" or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, thank you all for your inputs. I'll create the page with the required information within a couple of days. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple of us have started premptively but the details are still to be fully fleshed out. Should we make a preliminary announcement and if so, when? I have created a page for review of the Academy I have provide a guide to process and started to populate the page but I am working in a bit of a vacuum. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger completed

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: WikiProject Tanks has just been merged into our Military land vehicles task force. I invite everyone to review the TF's main page and provide their comments.

The only remaining task is to remove the WP:TANKS project template from hundreds of article talk pages. I do not have enough time to deal with that right now, so I would greatly appreciate it if someone could automate the removals. Biblio (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: Thanks for the merger. I'll complete the task of removing within 24 hrs. Is the job is to just remove {{WP Tanks}} from the talk page or anything else? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I wonder, though, if it makes sense for the task force to have its own notability guide: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force/Notability guide. I feel it would be better for it to just be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide, and then redirected. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Would there be any concerns with redirecting this page? I'm not aware of any other task force having its own notability guide. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. It would be better to retain this at project level rather than have notability guides at TF level. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert and Peacemaker67: I have no objection to your proposal. For the purpose of the merger itself, I was trying to retain more rather than less, but I always intended that some clean-up would take place in the aftermath. I will redirect the page shortly. And regarding your question, Krishna, I am not aware of anything else to remove. You may proceed with the template removal. Biblio (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Activating archival bot

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Hi everyone, I have been thinking that why don't we activate an archival bot on our coord's talk page. We can instruct it to archive threads older than two weeks or so. We can use the same lowercase sigmabot III that is used on the Project's talk page. Please voice your opinions. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to do so and not archive the standing items above the "Discussion" section? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be my concern too. If this can't be done (or easily) I can suggest a strategy that might be a workable solution. Migrate the standing topics to the coordinator project page. The detail at History of the coordinator system could be migrated to a sub-page. Do we have bots that target the open tasks? They would need to be re-targeted. That could be a hurdle. Just a thought. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There's not really any need. Some threads are worth keeping around, and it's not like the page is bursting at the seems. I tend to manually archive it a few times a year when it starts to get a bit unwieldy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Milhist Bot announcement

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: A little-known feature of the MilHistBot is that the ability to promote/demote A class articles is restricted to members of the category Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators. (This is security through obscurity, as anyone can add themself to the category - a better way would be to have a page listing the coordinators, which was locked so only admins can update it.) Anyway, there's a feature in Mediawiki whereby you can have a home page on Meta and it automatically appears in all Wikis. This can be useful for people who work in multiple languages. This affects two of you: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, and Kirill Lokshin, our coordinator emeritus. What has happened is that you two have been added to meta:Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators and the MilHistBot checks that too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hawkeye. That would be very helpful. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The A class articles you passed were promoted without problems. You have have noticed a two-hour delay while I double-checked that it was handling you correctly. Your promotions will be automatic from now on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Globalizing our presence

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day everyone, please study and comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Globalizing our presence. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone able to offer a third review at Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham?

G'day all. Just wondering if one of the co-ordinators would be willing to offer a third review for Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham please? Through no fault of the nominator this one has taken quite a while to get through ACR (its first review ended up being closed at the four month mark due in part to limited reviewers). It's current review has two supports and it would be good to finalise this one if possible so that the article can continue to move forward. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This has been on my to-do list for a while. I won't get to it today but hopefully will tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am looking at it too. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I wondered what the tagbombing was in aid of. I thought recommendations were reserved for the discussion page? — fortunavelut luna 13:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@fortuna, I wouldn't have called four tags over the whole article tag bombing. They were added with explanatory reasons. They were added where the solution was not evident. Where it was evident, I made a similar number of minor copy edits. The tags succinctly identify the issue and there is nothing that precludes their use. I will also be making comments. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that's fine. @AustralianRupert:, what say you? And all others of course. Harry, did you get a butcher's at any point? — fortunavelut luna 08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

G'day, the tags seem to have been dealt with, IMO. Overall, I think it important to remember that reviewers work in different ways. Some add comments to the review page, and some edit the article. Neither way is wrong, but sometimes one is preferred over the other. It is often hard to determine, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert, absolutely- no, this was sorted out ages ago, a minor misunderstanding merely. I meant the review itself, is all. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 09:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I did, but you were still working your way through Cinderella's comments so I thought I'd give you a bit longer. I'll try and get to it later tonight or tomorrow unless it's already closed by then, in which case I'll wait for the (presumably forthcoming) FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Harry, please feel free to do so. — fortunavelut luna 15:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Merchant Shipping

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Just by chance I happened to find Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ship_Index_pages_-_another_try. Is this something we should advertise to the membership? It would potentially effect MILHIST by means of military cargo ships or military merchant shipping, though these are not necessarily strictly within our purview. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there's already a note on the main talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of confirming my ignorance to everyone, in what way is an index different from a dab page? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:INDEXES: "Wikipedia indices are alphabetical list articles, consisting of lists of, in turn, the encyclopedic articles available on Wikipedia for any broad, general topic. Examples include: Index of Buddhism-related articles, Index of surfing articles, and Index of physics articles." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Pending awards of the A-Class Cross

G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've pinged Hawkeye about whether Milhistbot is currently setup to automatically nominate anyone for the A-Class Cross who has been awarded their fifteenth ACM with Diamonds. In the meantime, given Hawkeye is shortly going to be getting articles promoted that will qualify him for an ACC, I thought it was worth revisiting the criteria. ACMs are awarded for groups of three articles. When we put together the ACC arrangements three years ago, we decided to make it five articles for each ACC. I just wondered if we could get a consensus on whether that is still the preference of the coord team, or whether it should be three like the ACMs. If you could all state your preference, that would help us get this sorted asap. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems reasonable for multiples of 3 X 3. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. I can see the merit of doing it in threes for consistency with the ACMs, but I can also see the value in making it that bit more difficult to obtain and therefore more prestigious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I also haven't got a strong opinion on this. Groups of five is easier on my brain, and I like the idea of increasing the requirement to make them more prestigious. But I say that as someone who will never qualify for one, so happy with groups of three if everyone else wants this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with AustralianRupert; I think five is easier and more prestigious, but I'm not super opposed to dropping it down. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any convincing reason for an immediate change to the criteria. In my opinion, we should just leave it as is. Biblio (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: it looks like the consensus is to leave this as is. Please chime in if you have a different view, so Hawkeye knows what Milhistbot will need to do? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Leaving as is seems fine to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this. Anotherclown (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Hawkeye7 no change to this. Five articles per ACC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that this required about 20 lines of new code. Ping me if any problems are detected with awarding medals or crosses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Hawkeye! We all appreciate what you do with developing and maintaining Milhistbot! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Biblio (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Award eligibility issue

G'day all, there appears to be a hiccup with the Sturmvogel's tally on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM/Eligibility tracking. Per this diff, Sturm has three credits, but on two separate lines. Does anyone know why this might have happened? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the underscore is messing things up. The bot won't know the difference between "Sturmvogel 66" and "Sturmvogel_66". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 will be able to advise. Happy to handle this manually if needed, Hawkeye. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added a manual award nomination now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that there's still a problem as I'm missing an ACM for Talk:St Vincent-class battleship, Talk:German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass and Talk:HMS Neptune (1909).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Sturm, I think Krishna awarded it to you here, but it wasn't added to the the list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM. I've added it now, per: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Silly me, I was only checking the overall tally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

ROYAL NAVY COMMODORE - Correction to Epaulet

The page "Royal Navy officer rank insignia" shows the sleeve and epaulets for "Current Ranks and Insignia". Please be advised that the epaulet for Commodore has changed since the rank of Commodore became a substantive rank in about 2001. The reference of this is in the Royal Navy Uniform Regulations as amended to June 2016 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/documents/reference-library/br-3-vol-1/chapter-39.pdf) and a diagram is given nearly at the end of this chapter at Annex 39E (see Fig 39E-6e 1* Commodore) I have uploaded a version of how this should look at File:British Royal Navy OF-6-New.svg in the same form as the epaulets for Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral which I have created by taking your version of a Rear Admiral epaulet in .sgv format and amending it in Corel Photo-Paint and converting back to .sgv for ease of posting. I hope this helps.BarryALG (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@BarryALG: G'day, Barry, thanks for your efforts. This would probably better be posted on the article's talk page, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mlitary Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: As a reminder, next month we formally open the nominations for the Mlitary Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards. A notice should go out in the bugle this month, and we need to get the pages set up soon. We also need to discuss when the nomination and voting periods will begin and end. I'd propose a two week nomination/vote scheme since December is a slow month, with our nomination anchor day being December 4 (a Monday), but I'm open to other suggestions if anyone has any. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds great. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

From memory, we just do them as sections on the main project talk page, rather than dedicated subpages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Are you suggesting that there be a two-week nomination period followed by a two-week voting period? Biblio (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That's been the practice in the past. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, since as Peacemaker noted that is our standard operating procedure. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I reckon we could open noms on Saturday December 2, close on the 16th, voting finishes on the 30th? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That would work for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

i’m Fine with that as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Just a reminder, nominations for this are due to close in the next 11 hours or so. If anyone would like to nominate someone, please do so. I would be very keen to see a few more noms for the NOTY award if anyone has identified someone who deserves recognition. Happy for more noms for MHOTY also, of course. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I've archived the voting threads now and handed out the awards, and The Bugle has been updated. Overall, a pretty low turn out in terms of nominations and voting. I appreciate that it is the holidays, but I feel that we have let down a large number of editors whose work deserved some recognition. Anyway, in the new year I think we will need to work out whether we want to continue with this process, or if it needs modification in relation to timings, outcomes or methodology (or all of these). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk: Greenwich armour

Hello

Just getting in touch to flag an addition to the 'Greenwich armour' page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_armour

There is a surviving armour of this kind in Glasgow Museums collection http://collections.glasgowmuseums.com/starobject.html?oid=425268

It was made by the master armourer Erasmus Kirkener (also spelt Kyrkener/Kyrkenar) considered by some of the most influential arms & armour scholars to be ‘probably the most innovative in the life of the Greenwich workshops’ (Norman & Eaves, 2016, Blair, 1985).

BLAIR, C. 1985. Greenwich Armour. Transactions of the Greenwich & Lewisham Antiquarian Society 10, 6-11 NORMAN, A.V.B., & EAVES, I. 2016. Arms & Armour in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen. London: Royal Collection see https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/people/erasmus-kyrkenar-c-1495-1567#/type/creator

--Tracey Mac 44 (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tracey Mac 44: G'day, Tracey, thank you for this information. If you are not comfortable with editing the article directly, the best place to post this is the article's talk page: Talk:Greenwich armour. Someone working on that article will eventually be able to determine if the information you have provided warrants inclusion in the article. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Updating our active and inactive members' lists

G'day all, just looking at these two lists: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Inactive. Short of manually checking contributions, is there an easy way to work out whether someone on either list belongs there? (Is there a bot, or a script for instance?) For instance, one imagines that there might be some who are listed on the inactive list who may in fact be active, and of course, vice versa. I only ask, because I am considering sending out a mass message for the MHOTY nominations/voting and intend using the active list as the source for delivery purposes. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Back in 2012, I remember that we had this a long discussion about the members list and trying to make it more interactive and possible for a bot to update it, because there were no bots that could do it, so we were left to manually checking editors individually and moving them between the active/inactive lists. @Kirill Lokshin: was working on some ideas in 2011, but I don't know if he ever progressed beyond an alpha-level state of testing the ideas being offered. Given that Wikipedia's underlying code will have seen many updates and revisions in the past 5 or 6 years, such as switching to Lua programming, if might be possible to implement some of those ideas much easier now, as some were a bit too adventurous for Wikipedia to handle or render, but it depends if the project is still interested in making it easier to check active members for notifying them of project-wide events likes awards and coord elections, as well as a possible mail list to offer a better way of handling members' The Bugle delivery preferences. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_40#Members'_list_(Kirill's_revamp) (which I carried over from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Strategy/Archive_3#New_format_for_member_directory). Sorry this doesn't answer your question directly, but just thought I'd raise these Archive discussions incase anyone is interested in trying to get a new members list format going again, as it seems to have been shelved, but it might be a good chance to consider whether the list could be evolved to something better than plain lists. — Marcus^(talk) 10:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Marcus, thanks for the links. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've gone through recently to check for indeffed editors via a script and removed them, but that's about the only scripty thing I know how to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have Popups enabled, that'll tell you the date of their last edit when hovering over a username. I expect it's possible to do it with a bot or script, but I don't know how much work that would involve. Hawkeye7 does so much for us already that I'm reluctant to ask him for more, but perhaps he might be able to help or offer some advice? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry, interesting gadget. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor change to the ACR instructions

Just FYI, I've changed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review/Instructions to tell nominators to contact the coords if they want to nominate an article for its second ACR. This isn't something that happens very often and I've seen people struggle with it, so telling them to contact us seems like the best option, and we can move the existing review for them (those of us who are admins can do it without leaving a redirect, which should allow the "initiate nomination" link to work properly). IF anyone strongly disagrees with me, feel free to revert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No disagreement. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

New ACR for previous failure

I want to start a new ACR for HMS Vanguard (1909) which was failed about six months ago because I was on a wikibreak. I've followed the instructions for starting an ACR, but the resulting page is the old review, not a new one. What needs to be done to fix this? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the section immediately above, but it seem relevant ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: G'day, Sturm, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909) just needs to be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909)/Archive1, then you can start a new review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909). I can move this for you if you wish. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought that it was something like that. Thanks, but I can take care of it myself now that I have guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Renamed it but the talk page link still redirects to the old review. I'll let y'all figure it out, but shouldn't the new review page be ~/Archive2 in parallel with GA reviews?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: G'day, Sturm, I have deleted the redirect so that you can now raise the review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909). It is probably easier to click on the red "currently undergoing" link on the talkpage, though, as it will pre-load. Regarding your point about Archive2, it would indeed probably be more intuitive this way, I agree. There would probably be a few things that would need adjustment, though, to make this work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

MilHistBot

Due to scheduled NBN maintenance, the MilHistBot stopped running on 8 December, and although there's nothing really wrong, I cannot restart it from here. My internet access is a bit sporadic at the moment Something to do with a truck and low overhead wires, so until further notice, the MilHistBot will run daily. I regret any inconvenience this may cause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Too easy, thanks, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I manually updated the announcements page before reading this - hopefully it doesn't mess up the bot. Please revert me if it will or does! Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Audit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active

G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Rupert and I have just taken advantage of the quiet period between Xmas and NY to do an audit of our active list of members. They've basically been kept on the active list if they edited at any time in 2017, prior to that I moved them to inactive. There were a lot of editors who hadn't edited since 2013 and earlier, so the reduction has been pretty dramatic. We currently have 738 active members by that measure, down from 1100 before the audit. What struck me was the number of editors who I have never come across that are actively editing in the Milhist space. Which means they aren't really interacting with our main points of reference, like contests, GAN/ACR/FAC, the talk page etc. But they are still out there beavering away, getting the Bugle etc. Is there anything we can do to try to draw them into closer contact with the project? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If they're getting the Bugle, I'd be happy to include a reminder to readers of the points of reference you mention (although some like the contest and ACR/FAC are featured pretty prominently in the newsletter already)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian, does everyone on the active list get the Bugle, or is there a separate distribution list? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't get the Bugle, so I think it is a separate distribution list. It might be useful to send everybody (not already getting it) the Bugle with an opt out option. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle distribution list is here: User:The ed17/sandbox3, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a coord, but there are probably less than 738 active members given that the inactive list starts at three months without editing, and a quick glance reveals there are several editors who haven't edited for half a year, etc. Kges1901 (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ack, thanks for pointing this out. We went with a bit more of a liberal interpretation with this update of the active list. I'd suggest that we update both the active and inactive pages to read "edited in the past year" or something similar (or at least make it six or nine months). As the update process is totally manual, it is very laborious so I doubt that we could check it every three months. Regarding the distribution list for The Bugle v. the active list, I wonder if potentially we should just post a message on the main talk page, asking if there are any project members who wish to receive The Bugle who aren't, and inviting them to add their name to User:The ed17/sandbox3. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the list of members, I've sometimes wondered whether it could automatically updated by MilHistBot. Rick Bot already does this for the list of administrators. Pinging Hawkeye7. Biblio (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Bot could do this. It would be an entirely new task, so I would have to write it, test it and run it through WP:BRFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

that would be brilliant, Hawkeye. I’d suggest we still make it longer before we move to inactive though. I’ve always thought three months was too short. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: in order to give Hawkeye some guidance on the bot task, I propose we make the time period one year before moving to inactive. That allows for wikibreaks or longer absences. Any other views? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me. Would the bot also move names from the inactive list to active list, periodically, if members start editing again? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I've no issue with the 1 year proposal, seems reasonable to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Also agree. Biblio (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on what a bot might do. The OP started with a comment (in part) re "interacting with our main points of reference, like contests, GAN/ACR/FAC, the talk page etc." If the bot can also check for new members on the member list periodically, then it could address this. A message could be sent to new members per "interacting". The Bugle could also be sent with this and then the Bugle distribution list updated to add the new members. Receipt of the Bugle would then be on an "opt out" basis. The bot could be run immediately - ie following the distribution of each Bugle edition. I am not familiar with the specifics of programming a bot but in general, this is a fairly simple programming task. The interaction text would not be part of the bot but a text/data file that could be edited without editing the bot. Any thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, currently several coordinators monitor the active page and manually welcome new members using the standard boilerplate, but any further follow-up is pretty haphazard at best, at least by me... For info, the boilerplates for inviting and welcoming new members are on the coord handbook page. Right off the bat, I can see some scope for the welcome message to be tweaked to add an invitation to subscribe to the Bugle, and perhaps a few other things could be added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If a bot is able to identify the active but 'below the radar' members of the project (as defined as not having a subscription to the Bugle), I'd suggest that it also leave them a message tailored to experienced editors which invites them to subscribe and watchlist the main project talk page. The bot ideally would check to see that the editors haven't previously subscribed and opted out of the Bugle. Some kind of listing of who these people are would also be helpful - it could contribute to addressing the concerns recently raised about a relatively small number of editors getting the limelight. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the welcome to Milhist and invitation to join Milhist templates to include mention of signing up for The Bugle. These are my edits: [2] and [3]. This should hopefully increase awareness of The Bugle at least. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that so much time has passed it may behoove us to put forward to the signpost or other Wikipedia wide notice-based groups a short notice advising editors who edit to take a moment and list themselves as part of project if they have not done so already in order to get a more accurate picture of where the projects on Wikipedia stand as a whole. Not sure how we would do this if we wanted to put a notice up at the watchlist page, but it is something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The ed17 may be able to advise? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd have said no, it's too insular of a topic. ;-) However, the Signpost does operate a little differently these days. You might get away with writing up a WikiProject report on the project as a whole, and include that as a call to action? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Would 365 days do instead of a year? I don't think we get much out of a leap year calculation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mate, whatever is easier for you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bot Request for Approval is now filed at WP:BRFA#MilHistBot 2. The first run should move 26 members, one of whom has not been active since 2010. Once approved, it will run automatically each month. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing this, Hawkeye! Another laborious job automated! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Hawkeye. Will the bot also check the inactive list for members who have become active again? I know it is rare, but it has been known to happen. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't mentioned, but I can get it to do that too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you want the 365 day threshold to apply to them too? If so, there are 154 of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, maybe move them back if they've edited in the last 90 days? Or is that going to cause too much churn I wonder? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bot was approved for trial. It will run on the 16th of the month from now on. I get a report on what it has done. Being the first run, there was more to do than usual. The report read:

08:34:02 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Blockerd94 last active 2016-04-10T10:01:24Z (645 days ago)

08:34:45 Tue 16 Jan 2018 ChristiaandeWet last active 2014-12-08T15:45:17Z (1134 days ago)

08:35:31 Tue 16 Jan 2018 DiverScout last active 2015-08-04T07:03:52Z (895 days ago)

08:35:33 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Djembayz last active 2015-11-15T01:47:54Z (792 days ago)

08:35:53 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Elmasmelih last active 2014-10-07T17:47:33Z (1196 days ago)

08:36:53 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Haider67 last active 2017-01-03T09:39:07Z (377 days ago)

08:37:13 Tue 16 Jan 2018 HWClifton last active 2017-01-12T18:43:11Z (368 days ago)

08:37:20 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Inkbug last active 2017-01-04T08:24:17Z (376 days ago)

08:38:30 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Leifern last active 2017-01-12T19:08:46Z (368 days ago)

08:38:42 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Lostintherush last active 2013-06-15T04:33:28Z (1675 days ago)

08:38:53 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Magi Media last active 2016-11-28T01:56:49Z (413 days ago)

08:38:57 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Malke_2010 last active 2014-05-20T17:46:10Z (1336 days ago)

08:39:16 Tue 16 Jan 2018 MBK004 last active 2010-11-11T08:23:33Z (2622 days ago)

08:39:35 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Miskin last active 2016-11-11T21:33:02Z (430 days ago)

08:39:44 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Mongoose Army last active 2016-12-23T13:22:54Z (388 days ago)

08:39:52 Tue 16 Jan 2018 MrGRA last active 2016-08-21T20:14:51Z (512 days ago)

08:40:01 Tue 16 Jan 2018 NelsonLB last active 2016-12-08T07:55:33Z (403 days ago)

08:40:46 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Mournival last active 2015-10-13T02:02:46Z (825 days ago)

08:40:52 Tue 16 Jan 2018 parsa1993 last active 2017-01-03T11:54:51Z (377 days ago)

08:40:58 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Pen of bushido last active 2016-09-26T14:30:31Z (476 days ago)

08:41:14 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Police,Mad,Jack last active 2016-08-22T12:56:45Z (511 days ago)

08:41:32 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Reedmalloy last active 2016-11-25T14:03:04Z (416 days ago)

08:41:40 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Rin tin tin last active 2010-08-30T22:08:23Z (2695 days ago)

08:41:41 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Riotrocket8676 last active 2016-12-14T20:59:44Z (397 days ago)

08:41:58 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Sassf last active 2017-01-01T16:00:48Z (379 days ago)

08:42:29 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Snapper five last active 2016-11-22T19:02:34Z (419 days ago)

08:43:46 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Tristan benedict last active 2016-11-07T07:52:31Z (434 days ago)

08:44:33 Tue 16 Jan 2018 714 active members

08:44:33 Tue 16 Jan 2018 27 inactive members found

08:44:35 Tue 16 Jan 2018 updating inactive list

08:44:40 Tue 16 Jan 2018 updating active list

08:44:44 Tue 16 Jan 2018 finished okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up and getting it approved Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades Populating Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists

Hi everyone. The way Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists is populated, articles from the Crusades taskforce of WP:MA always fill the the backlog if they are rated Start/C. Examples Zengid dynasty and Zaraka Monastery. I checked to see if filling out a B-Class checklist would take it off the list (Venetian Crusade) but it didn't work. Do youse guys know you to fix this? --Molestash (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It turns out there was a bigger issue here: the WikiProject Middle Ages banner was using one of our automated assessment templates ({{WikiProject Military history/Task force categories}}) without actually passing through any of the A-Class/B-Class parameters that the template uses to determine the correct rating. In addition to the problem you were seeing with the missing checklist category, this also meant that a Crusades Task Force article would only ever show FA, Start, or Stub assessments—none of the other assessment classes could be activated from the template.

I've updated the WikiProject Middle Ages banner and our automated assessment templates to pass through the parent assessment directly if they're used in a banner that doesn't support B-Class checklists, so all of this should be fixed; please let me know if you spot anything broken as a result of the changes. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill, that problem was well beyond my ken. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guys. Going through more articles it appears this problem was mostly fixed but some articles are still populating the backlog when they should not be. Here are some examples: Talk:War of Saint Sabas, Talk:War of the Ass, Talk:War of the Lombards. --Molestash (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

October to December 2017 reviewing tallies

Username	GAN	ACR	PR	FAC	Total	Entitlement	Awarded
Anotherclown	3	4	0	0	7	2-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Auntieruth	0	5	0	0	5	2-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
AustralianRupert	4	27	4	3	38	Wikichevrons	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Carcharoth	0	2	0	0	2	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Cinderella157	0	3	1	0	4	2-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Dank	0	4	0	12	16	Wikichevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Diannaa	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Dudley Miles	0	2	0	3	5	2-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
EyeTruth	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Factotem	0	7	5	0	12	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Ham II	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Harrias	0	1	0	1	2	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye7	5	9	0	6	20	Wikichevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hchc2009	1	1	0	0	2	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell	0	9	0	3	12	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Ian Rose	1	1	0	4	6	2-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Iazyges	4	10	0	3	17	Wikichevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Indy beetle	0	4	0	2	6	2-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Keith-264	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga	10	2	0	0	12	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi	0	1	1	0	2	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz	0	7	0	1	8	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D	1	9	1	1	12	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria	0	14	5	19	38	Wikichevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Parsecboy	4	4	1	1	10	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Peacemaker67	12	13	2	8	35	Wikichevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Ranger Steve	0	2	0	3	5	2-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66	7	3	0	2	12	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The Bushranger	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The ed17	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to tally up the quarterly reviews. I have started with the ACRs. Can someone else please take a look at the other review types? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll do the GANs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And they are done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take PRs. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Grabbing the FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

FACs done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Krishna, did the PR totals actually get saved...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think they blew off in an edit conflict. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Totals added. I don't know what the entitlements are. And an incredible effort by Nikki, Rupert, and Peacemaker! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Added the entitlements. Templates can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That was pretty painless. Thanks to everyone for chipping in in getting this done promptly! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Annual drive

G'day ladies and gentlemen, last year we ran a multi-faceted drive in March: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2017. Just hoping to scope whether there is a desire to run another one this year. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to pitch in to a drive. What do we think the priority should be? Are we looking to focus more on quality over quantity, in which case a drive on bringing articles up to B-class status might be good. Or should we look elsewhere? I have been adding links to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Military redlink list with a view to encouraging creation of articles of women in the military. This list is up to around 700 red links so far with more to be added, and includes many interesting individuals. We could potentially look to join forces with the large pool of editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and run a joint-drive to help reduce gender bias on Wikipedia? - Dumelow (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I think the key to making these drives successful is to enable editors to participate in many different ways so it can appeal to the strengths/interests of as many people as possible. Last year's drive had elements of backlog rectification (i.e tagging, assessment, adding task forces etc), as well as maintenance/clean up (updating links and content in developed articles), and content creation (creating requested articles). I feel that it was relatively successful so would be keen to replicate the general idea. The content creation aspect this year could easily include the Women in Red military list, as one of those areas where interested editors can find red links to turn blue, along with many other areas that have missing articles (for instance, the lists of requested articles on our task force pages. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per AR's comment I'd support something similar to the last one (and have no issue with incorporating Dumelow's suggestion into such an activity if there is support for that amoung the rest of the co-ordinators. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, last year's drive was a little underwhelming. I support running one again this year (including Dumelow's suggestion), but it would be good to advertise it well in advance via coming issues of the Bugle as well as a mass message in the week prior to try to get maximum involvement. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, although we did use those two methods of advertising last year per this and this. The announcement in The Bugle probably came a bit too late (coming several days into the drive), though, so if we can firm up some dates early, we could try to get it out in the February edition instead, this year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I suggest we run it same as last year, 1-31 March. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy for those days. I've added a quick placeholder announcement here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2018/Project news. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Collaborating with WP:Women in red would be awesome. Weren't they working with a military museum over in Chicago on women in warfare or somesuch? cc Rosiestep Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out and glad you're interested in collaborating. What month were you thinking to do this? Would you be open to suggestions? (cc: @Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Ipigott:) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We usually do such things in March (1-31), we'd definitely be open to suggestions. We have an "Articles to be created" section on our Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks page, which doesn't look to have too many women on it at this point. Category:Female military personnel is where a lot of articles on military women reside. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert: I've referred to your suggestion on the WiR ideas page here. As March is Women's History Month, many of our editors may well prefer to concentrate on Art & Feminism or other more familiar areas. For focus on women in the military to be really effective, it might be better to devote specific focus to it in April, for example. That would not necessarily mean you could not hold you main drive in March. It would just mean that WiR could draw on your red lists, etc., to continue the effort in April. Any thoughts?--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I'd be happy to run our drive in April if it increases participation; however, I'd like to see what the other co-ords think. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

From a strictly personal point of view I am going to be very busy in March and early April so April would be better for me. Thinking more widely I feel that the potential for a significant increase in participation makes it worth delaying til April to run the drive in co-ordination with WP:WiR - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If it increases the output, I'm good with April. But in that case, we need to change the title. Also, I am sure that by April the proposed user group of Military historians will take good form, and I can help with cross-wiki collaboration to promote the drive and increase the participation. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Waiting until April seems fine to me too. On the other hand, might doing it in March, at the same time as Women's History Month, be a way to get MILHIST editors involved with WiR? Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of closer engagement with WiR during Women's History Month, but unfortunately from a personal participation perspective, I'm pretty busy with RW stuff in March and up to 25 April. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• On the basis of the above discussion, I am tentatively listing a WiR editathon on Military women in history for April 2018.--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive" sounds good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott, I support the WIR (military) but note my previous concerns that many WIR (military) will often not meet En Wp GNG even though they might be notable in their own WP language domains and will require some language skills to create an English article. You might note that I have contributed several articles. I am somewhat proud of Francien de Zeeuw but this is often going to be "as good as you can get". Perhaps the other language WPs are a better source for recruiting, though they need to be aware of GNG and referencing requirements in En WP and EN Milhist. Just a suggestion/observation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Responig to the original discussion - what works works, though the WIR issue is a modifying factor. An "ides to ides" (15th to 15th) might work. Just throwing a knife into the Caesar (spanner into the works). No strong views to the extent that I want to stamp my brand on any particular suggestion at this time. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella157: Thanks for expressing these concerns. I think relatively strict approach to notability on the English wiki is something we experience in most of our editathons. Fortunately quite a few of us are fluent in a number of languages or have experience in making good use of machine translation. I think we should be able to cope quite well. As for the timing, it's easier to arrange things month by month as the preparation of editathon pages, invitations, etc., require quite a lot of work.--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, when I first floated this idea it was my hope that it would eventually become a wikipedia-wide thing, since all projects everywhere on site really need the same basic tagging, assessing, etc work. All in all I consider this outreach to be a good indication of how well this idea is doing. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: and @WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day, all. I have started the infrastructure pages here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive/Worklists. I have also advertised it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2018/Project news and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2018/Project news. If there are any suggested adjustments, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: Looks as if we're all set for April. You might be able to enhance our own red links on the basis of some of these.--Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I added Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists to the list of articles to assess. I find it is useful to assess these articles to improve our knowledge of what areas we need to improve on (articles missing references, needing improvement to grammar etc.) and I have found quite a few in there that were already at B-class standard - Dumelow (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: totally. I'll take a look this week, maybe today. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: @Megalibrarygirl and Ipigott: G'day ladies and gentlemen, there is just over a week to go until the annual drive is due to start. Could I please ask that if you are keen to participate, you sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive? I will look to send out a mass message (to MILHIST members) shortly (probably tomorrow). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

AustralianRupert: Thanks for the reminder. I've added info about your drive to our Military History meetup page. I hope there will be strong participation by WiR members.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Take two A-Class nominations off hold

Hello all. Previously, after Sturm and I nominated all four of the Type 1934-class destroyer, two of them, German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz and German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen, were placed on hold in order to allow for us to fix problems which were in all four articles. I am unaware of how exactly the hold was put in place, so for whoever does know, can these two articles be taken off hold now that they are ready? Thanks. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I've added these back to the ACR list with this edit: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Modifying the A-class instructions

Would appreciate the opinion of coordinators here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Limiting A-class nominations and hopefully for one to determine if actionable consensus exists to modify the A-class instructions. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Per the link, I see something approaching a consensus with my closing comments and endorsement by @Ian Rose. Such a revision would not be prescriptive and allow for reasonable discretion on the part of nominators - particularly where they significantly contribute to the review process. That is, they give as much as they get (more or less). I think that this would accommodate the reasonable concerns of @Hawkeye7? Any modification should not discourage editors advancing articles but encourage them to participate in the process in a constructive and positive way. I hope that this is sufficiently clear. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I've added something now. Please feel free to adjust as desired. This is my edit: [5]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Good for me :) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

this discussion appears to be complete.

[6] with 5 supports, this appears to be complete, but I don't know how to close this discussion or to deal with the template, if it has been altered. auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Ruth, it might make sense to ask a non Milhist editor or admin to close this, to avoid the perception of a closed shop. Such closes can be requested here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing ACR

Hi, Just suggesting a change to our protocols. Presently, the closing procedure for A-class reviews states a 24 hr wait from proposing a close to closure. In reality, this doesn't occur. Initially, I got "caught out" because of this advice last year. Having reviewed articles for close, and waiting 24 hrs, another Ed closed the reviews. This resulted in an unnecessary duplication of effort. I suggest a number of changes.

1. A proposer for a close ensures that there are three clear supports and no outstanding issues/discussion before proposing a close.
2. A potential closer notifies their intent to close against the request for closure. This tells other Eds that the task is "in-hand". I have already done this as a matter of course.
3. Potential reviewers should notify on the review page that they are participating in the review process. The intent of this is to capture pending comments.
4. Nomination for close should be notified on the review page and the talk page 24 hrs prior to requesting close (one the other or both - this is a suggestion for discussion). This point may or may not be necessary. On the one hand, it shifts the obligation for the 24hr wait. On the otherhand, if there are no "incomplete" reviews and unanimous supports (x3), this is redundant. If there are unsupported reviews, it gives the non-supporter the opportunity to comment on why the article should not be promoted. I can think of more than one instance where this might have been appropriate. In one instance, this was a "missed" communication between myself and the nominator but the article had not been proposed for close. This was quickly remedied when I "eventually" asked the nominator to address the issue. Another case was when an article was proposed for close with "significant" unresolved inconsistencies. The Article was passed despite these. In short, if there are at least three unanimous support and no outstanding reviews or "non-supports" or unaddressed comments, the article should be promoted "automatically". If there are outstanding reviews or "unsupported" reviews, notification should be given before proposing a close. In such cases, the closer must then exercise due dilligence. This point is "key" in any discussion that follows from this post. I suggest, if there is "clear and unambiguous support" nomination does not require notification.
5. Many reviewers strike out "comments" and replace this with "support". This makes it easy for a closer to assess. Is it possible to create a template as part of the assessment/review page that provides guidance to reviewers? This might include some of the "issues" identified herein, such as making their support (or otherwise) explicit or pending per what is common practice.
6. Where a "significant error" in process has occurred, the "close" should be reversed until the matter is resolved. There may need to be a process for resolution. This may be a "tribunal" of three uninvolved co-ordinators? I could indicate an example of a significant error. There is also the issue of how the review can be reversed and how this interacts with the Bot and awards etc?
7. In consideration of the above, there is no reason to delay a close by 24hrs per the current advice. If there is a clear support for close, there is no reason for a 24hr wait.

Conclusion: In practice, the 24hr wait is not followed by closers (mia culpa now too). Our processes should reflect practice and provide appropriate "checks and balances". My points (above) suggest an improvement to our present processes. I see this to be part of our present audit. For discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The 24 hour thing is not consistently observed (me too), and if it is, is seems to be largely because no-one (who isn't a reviewer) has seen the post requesting the close. On occasion, someone jumps in on the review with some comments after it has three supports and an image review, and in that case, the closer just does their due diligence and makes a note on the post that there are new outstanding comments, delaying the close until the comments are addressed. I think there are enough checks and balances in the current practice. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for raising this, Cinderella. I believe the 24 hour clause was added by Dan a few years back when he was copy editing pretty much every article at A-class and wanted to take a look before they were closed. Although I sorely miss seeing him around (although I note he has popped in recently, which is great), as he has largely moved on to bigger and better things, I would suggest that we could probably soften the language of the instructions now to make it more of a suggestion, as in reality it doesn't get followed often anymore. Over the years the average length of time our reviews are open for has been steadily increasing. This is both a good thing and a bad thing, IMO. Good in so far as our reviews are trending towards being more robust which helps improve quality, bad in so much as longer reviews can make the process a bit off putting to reviewers and writers which impacts upon throughput and engagement. As such, I think we need to be careful not to make the process more involved than it needs to be, so that we aren't inadvertently slowly things down with red tape (although I agree there is room for revamping our instructions here a little). I personally think that if there is a co-ord online who is keen and free to close, and something is listed for closing, as long as they do their checks for outstanding comments etc, it should just be closed rather than waiting an arbitrary period of time for an extra review that may not come, and when they may in fact no longer be free to do the close. Of course, where the situation isn't clear cut, I would expect that a co-ord who intends to close should probably add a note to the review page with this intention to call for any saved rounds, or to confirm whether their interpretation of the situation is correct. Regarding errors in closing, that may be something that needs to be explored, but I think it is potentially a separate, albeit potentially related, issue. There would be a few options here, I think: re-open the review with consensus (difficult probably due to bot processes, award noms etc), start a re-appraisal review or resolve the issues on the talk page outside of the formal review process. I feel that the last of these would probably be the preferred method, but can see a situation where either of the first two might also be appropriate (albeit not ideal). Anyway, sorry for the long post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Distilling it down per numbered points above.

1. This already happens?
2. This is simply a case of typing "closing" or "closing all" (and signing) at ACR for closure. It is a simple thing to avoid duplicate effort. I have already started doing this. It is a simple instruction that can be stated at #ACRs for closure.
3. This is simply a case of typing Reviewing by edname (and signing) on the review page. It is simply to indicate that an Ed is undertaking a review, even if they haven't posted comments yet. The "reviewing" can then be struck out and replaced by "comments". It meets the intent of the 24hr wait but in a different way.
4. A notification on the review page (prior to requesting close) is only necessary if there is not unanimous support. This is done by the requester. This is a simple courtesy which is probably already done in "most cases" in one form or another.
5. This is already the usual practice. It makes it very easy to assess the closure.
6. As AR indicates, this could be problematic because of the Bot etc. The other points are not contingent on this.
7. This isn't really done in any case - so why have it?

• Points 3-5 can be achieved with a template or banner added when the review page is created. It largely makes explicit some of the things that already happen. As such, it should tend to smooth out the process rather than create hurdles. Hope this clarifies some things. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Hi, I have created a draft template at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6. You are welcome to play in my sandbox. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • G'day, to clarify, do you propose that this would be a Wikipedia:Editnotice, which would be automatically added to each review page when it is created? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It would be yes, to the second part, in that it would automatically become part of the review page when it is created and yes, if this is best done as a Wikipedia:Editnotice. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
      • No worries, I think that would be technically possible with an addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class review preload boilerplate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
        • @AustralianRupert, can you see benefits in what I am trying to achieve? Per your above particularly, can you see any difficulties or problems (except point 6)? In short, is it worthwhile? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
          • G'day, I don't think it can hurt, but I'm not sure that it will be followed by everyone all the time. Not everyone will want to pre-emptively state that they are reviewing something. I also think that it may be seen as being a bit prescriptive. If we look at some recent ACRs, there are many different formats for how reviewers add their comments. But you never know until you try something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
            • @AustralianRupert, not trying to be too prescriptive. If it isn't followed exactly, that doesn't matter too much and I know that different people work different ways - as I do sometimes. The draft is just that. It is up for discussion and improvement. It tries to avoid duplicating effort or missing effort. Good QA, documents what works without being too prescriptive and bureaucratic and allows for flexibility to achieve the "best solution" in a given case. There are only a couple of minor differences to how things "generally" happen already and what usually works. For example, if somebody doesn't want to say that they are reviewing an article and it gets closed: well, their bad luck if everybody else followed the advice given. I appreciate your reserved support. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I've made a couple of tweaks now to hopefully make it clearer that it is just a suggestion. Feel free to adjust as desired. Thinking about this a bit further, I wonder if maybe it should just be added to the "Commenting" section at WP:MHR (the instructions at the top of the ACR page), instead of as an edit notice. An edit notice will only be seen by an editor when they decide to edit the review page, which in reality probably reduces the notice's visibility. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, your edits have polished what I started. Yes, it could be added at WP:MHR. I thought this might be the case with an edit notice. What I intended is that it "appears" on the review page automatically after the nominators proposal. It is part of the boilerplate? User:Cinderella157/sandbox 7 is an example but it doesn't quite work because of the toolbox? Does this help? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I misunderstood. Not sure it is a good idea to replicate it like that for every review page, to be honest, as I think that would probably clutter WP:MHACR (when transcluded multiple times, for instance currently 20 odd times). I think it would be best in the instructions at the top of the page, i.e mentioned once, rather than repeated for every page, or maybe as a hidden comment in each review page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The quotebox text should only appear once on any review page - just like the toolbox, I think. Experienced editors will just ignore the banner but it is meant to capture the newbies. If the "dummy reviewing" is a problem, it could go but your comment isn't quite clear to me... Having said that, I just went to WP:MHR and saw that everything on the review pages is trancluded there. There should be a way to exclude the quotebox from being transcluded - not that I know what it is. On the otherhand, why are all reviews transcluded "in full" to WP:MHR? Why not have the individual reviews atWP:MHR contained as hidden boxes? I can now see your issue but there is probably a work-around, even if we don't know what it is. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The solution is <noinclude>...</noinclude>. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Cinderella, I have added the text you've developed to the instructions here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review/Instructions. Happy to revert if you disagree, and we can continue the discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Germanicus

I'd like to resubmit Germanicus for another A-class review. I know I disappeared from Wikipedia during the last one, but I should have the time to do it. I won't have to leave again for a while now (work made me move). SpartaN (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm mentioning it bc it says to request the coordinators for a second submission for A-class review. SpartaN (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day SpartaN. The original review page needs to be moved (it is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Germanicus/archive1), and the old page deleted to make way for a new one to be created. Both of those things have now been done, so you can just go ahead and change A-Class=fail to A-Class=current and create the nom. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

January contest

There's a small problem in the scoring of last month's contest. Kges1901's Talk:64th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Division (Soviet Union) wasn't assessed as B class until 1 Feb and should be moved over to this month's contest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 and Kges1901: D'oh, I missed this until now. Yes, that is my fault. Please accept my apologies. Not sure the best way to resolve this, though, as it changes the results of the month and the awards have already been handed out. However, I'm not a fan of giving and then taking back, at least without consent. If Kges is happy, I could simply swap the awards around, and adjust The Bugle'; however, I wonder if potentially we could try a creative solution and just upgrade Sturm's second place to co-winner and award the Wikichevrons twice. As the points carry over into the year it won't change that result. Could you please both let me know what you would prefer? Again, sorry for this. I'd been planning on taking a break from tallying the contest, so I will put myself in the sin bin for next month and leave it to someone with fresher eyes. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with adjusting the Bugle. The error is mine, I forgot that it is by UTC and not local time. This is really a small matter and upgrading Sturm's award sounds like a great solution.Kges1901 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, all. I have done this now. Here is my adjustment to The Bugle: [7]. Once again, apologies for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Citing "Op Eds" as further info

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2018/Op-ed#A thought. Per post, these "well written" articles should be shared more broadly. Also, suggest this is an opportunity for recruitment? Op ed pages linked to "Article" pages could have a recruitment message incorporated - "do you want to help improve this article?"; "This is how you can help"; "Would you like to become part of the MilHist Project?". For consideration. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible bot expansion

Would it be possible to have a bot that would automatically add a MILHIST project tag onto the talk page of any page tagged with a MILHIST subproject Biography Project tag, and vice versa? There's a large number of pages that only have one or the other, mostly concentrated amongst the more ancient people, who have only one tag. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's possible. The place you want to go is Wikipedia:Bot requests Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Award instructions

G'day all, please be advised that I have expanded the award instructions on the Awards page. These are my edits: [8]. Hopefully this will help any new co-ords understand the process more easily. Please feel free to tweak as you see fit, or offer concerns or thoughts here. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @,AustralianRupert I made this edit [9]. It puts the steps as numbered points. If this is an improvement, then it could also be applied to your edit for "Nominations for the Oak Leaves". The boilerplate text to be posted to the recipients talk page is located somewhere? This could be made explicit and the link given? I could see the potential for the bot to automate some of these steps and remove some of the potential for human error (@User:Hawkeye7)? As noted, there are omissions in the awards list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards#A-Class medal with Oak Leaves (and other classes). It may not be easy for the bot to update this list (the logical test being more hassle than it is worth) but it could post to a date order list on a separate page. This separate page could provide an auditable trail of potentially all awards conferred by the project. I have an algorithm in mind that is pretty simple. It could deal with everything except updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards and the Bugle but both of these steps could be reduced to a simple cut and paste. The dif of the award would not need to be recorded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards#A-Class medal with Oak Leaves (etc), since it could be placed by the bot on the date order list. Just my thoughts. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with getting the Bot to update that page. I will add code for it to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, As I understand it, the bot adds the nom to #Open award nominations. It might add a hidden template such as {{awardnomination|award=A Class medal(or other)|status=nominated}}. The bot would be released when the co-ord changes the status to awarded? Don't know your thoughts on keeping a separate log page (ie by date) that I indicated above. @AustralianRupert, we use a fairly standard message for awards but the templates don't have this message? The boilerplate for the standard message lives somewhere else? Or should we edit the templates to have the standard message? I can't, as I am not a template editor? I won't do the numbered points atm, pending whether the new heading interfers with the bot. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added a link to the templates for the awards now: [10]. @Cinderella: Happy if you want to put in numbered points. Also added a different heading level for the instructions and individual nominations. @Hawkeye7: sorry, will this affect the bot when it posts the award noms? Can revert if necessary as the heading levels are really just cosmetic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see Template:WPMILHIST A-Class medal (Diamonds)/sandbox and Template:WPMILHIST A-Class medal (Diamonds)/testcases. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have created a new template:

{{WPMILHIST Award nomination|nominee=MilHistBot|award=Service 3 stripes|citation=Services to artificial intelligence|status=nominated}}

which generates:

Service 3 stripes for: Services to artificial intelligence

The MilHistBot can use this when adding nominations for A class awards.

If |status= is changed to approved, the MilHistBot will:

1. Post the award template on the user's talk page
2. Change the nomination to indicated that the award was awarded, citing the oldid of the award
3. Add the award to the historical list
4. Add the award to next month's Bugle

After processing, the text will now read:

{{WPMILHIST Award nomination|nominee=MilHistBot|award=Service 3 stripes|citation=Services to artificial intelligence|status=awarded|oldid=781958147}}

which generates:

Service 3 stripes for: Services to artificial intelligence (awarded)

This will require a WP:BRFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, this sounds good. There is the matter of having the awards delivered with a suitable statement eg: "On behalf of ...". Is this to be added by the bot or do the award templates need to be modified? Re, the historical list: is this the "log" I referred to and/or lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards? Not all awards have a list on the latter page? Not important at this stage but documenting the list of "awards" you intend the bot/{{WPMILHIST Award nomination}} to work for. Thank you very much for your time in following up on the suggestion of the bot automating these steps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While the Bot could do it, my preference would be for an appropriate "On behalf of ..." message to be loaded into the templates. Adding new awards to the list will be fairly straightforward, but initially, the Bot will handle WikiChevrons, A-Class medals and A-Class crosses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have requested template editor rights so that I might contribute more fully rather than relying on others to do the work. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, just to clarify, not all templates are restricted to template editors so you probably can edit most of the award templates now. Personally, I'm a little reluctant to edit the template to include a standard message, as I think it might imply that it is mandatory. While most of us probably cut-and-paste our citations with slight variations, I feel that there should be some room for an individual (or personalised) message if editors want to use one. Is there a way potentially to provide an example of a citation, without implying it is the only option, perhaps? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, please see the sandbox and test cases (above) for the template. Per the these, the first part of the message is "standardised". There is scope to add a personalised message after this, as exists now. How this might interact with the bot is another thing. I think that there are virtues in the automation and accuracy that arises. Can I suggest an additional parameter to {{WPMILHIST Award nomination}}? - "Message=approved by Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)". "Approved by" would be the default but this could also be personalised. For consideration. Alternatively, a personalised message could be added after the bot does its thing. I have misunderstood the restrictions to template editing - always learning! I also note (if I have this right) that any change to the award templates will be retrospective. This will be an inconvenience but IMO, this would be outweighed by the process accuracy conferred by the process being automated (but it is a case for the bot to add the standardised part of the message). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I am a "template editor" but you don't need this permission to edit most templates, only high impact ones that are used by large numbers of pages.
2. Because the award templates are substituted, additional changes to them will not be retrospective
3. The award template already has a |citation=message parameter which can be loaded with whatever you like. This explains what the award is for. The ones for the A class medals and crosses will be pre-loaded by the MilHistBot with the names of the articles
4. I can add another parameter to override the "On behalf of" message. Templates allow for a parameters to be given default values.
5. Do we want an "approved by" parameter?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I have a clearer understanding of restrictions on template editing now and thank you for clarifying the effect of substitution wrt retrospectivity. We do not need an "approved by" parameter per se, I was just thinking of how to address ARs concern per your point 4. I just happened to give it a name and default content. My uncle would say, "children and fools should never see something half done ..." - or something like that (pointing to myself). So on that basis, I should leave it to you to finish. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It may be easier to follow the results of a test run, against the sandboxes. The Bot:

1. Posts the award template on the user's talk page (in this case, the Bot's own page) [11] (the typo has been corrected)
2. Changes the nomination page to indicate that the award was awarded. [12]
3. Added the award to the historical list [13]
4. Added the award to next month's Bugle [14]

Currently, only A-Class medals and crosses are handled. The Bugle step is the most complex. The Bot will create the page if required, adding headers if required (as it did here). Teaching the Bot to calculate what next month is took some thought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Those tests look pretty good to me, Hawkeye. Thanks for your efforts with this. My only suggestion at this stage would be to add the different possible parameters to the documentation page for {{WPMILHIST Award nomination}} particularly for the award param. It might also work to provide an example citation on the same documentation page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@User:Peacemaker67, Thanks for looking at the awards list issue for Parsecboy. The process was new to me. You can see that we are working to document and improve the process. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note that the MilHistBot is now using the new template, but the Awards run has not yet been cleared for trial by BRFA. If you ping me, I can run it manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  Scratch that. Bot awards run approved for trial, so it will run daily shortly after midnight zulu. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: G'day, Hawkeye, just wondering if the bot could be tweaked to use a level 4 subheading when it posts the nomination? For instance this edit – [15] – would become this: [16]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  Already done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: G'day, Hawkeye, I had a go at approving the award using the template with this edit: [17]. I think it has worked as advertised, but just wanted to check that I did it the right way. Can you please take a look and let me know? If that was the correct process, I will look to rework the instructions. Also, I notice that there is a slight typo in the citation here: [18]. Instead of "On behalf of the Military History I am..." it should say "On behalf of the Military History project I am...". Are you able to adjust the bot accordingly? Once again, thanks for setting this up. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

GAN second opinion requested

I would like a second opinion on a GAN from an editor who's experienced with military aviator biographies. The nominator and I have repeatedly clashed over various issues and I think that a fresh set of eyes is necessary. The nominator is very knowledgeable, so I'm reluctant to fail the article outright, but he is unwilling to adapt to Wikipedia's requirements. Many thanks in advance for anyone willing to help me out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Feb Contest problem

Discussion about adjusting contest instructions

Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) has misunderstood the instructions for the contest and has nominated articles that he only copyedited. He's abroad right now with poor connectivity and I think that we shouldn't review his articles and close last month's contest until he's had time to removed the articles that shouldn't be there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, it looks like this may have been resolved: [19] I am sitting this contest out from a tallying/awards perspective, but in terms of the wider issue, I wonder if the instructions are clear enough about what makes an article eligible to be claimed by an editor? I think potentially we could tweak the "How it works" section a little to hopefully make it clearer. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert:@Sturmvogel 66: I hope that it is resolved now. I have gone through my entries and removed a further 25 which on reflection I do not think I have put enough new content in to meet the criteria. That said, I have found it a little difficult judging just where the bar is, so possibly a tweak may be helpful.

Apologies to all for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

On a brighter note, this takes the number of articles which I have promoted to B class in February and not entered in the contest to 56. With those in the contest, 82. Quite a fruitful holiday. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I do think that we should be a bit more specific about what work on an article counts for the contest as Gog's mistake is perfectly understandable given the extant wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support same to avoid "good faith" mistakes. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I have had a look at this now and I would propose the following change. In the "How it works" subsection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest, I would suggest adding another numbered point. I propose something like: "To be eligible to claim points for an article, the claiming editor must have made a substantive change to an aspect of the article that leads directly to an increase in its assessment rating. Invariably this will mean that the claiming editor will be the main contributor (or co-contributor) to the article for the month. Such improvements can be focused on one or more aspects of the B-class criteria. For instance, adding references, improving structure or grammar, adding images, or expanding content; these changes should be significant and incidental changes should not be claimed." Are there any thoughts or concerns on this, or suggested amendments? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may comment, as the sort of editor new to the contest whom this is aimed at, that seems very clear to me. (And I am tempted to reinstate several of the entries I removed. But I won't.) I can't of course, comment on whether it says what you want it to say, but it does say what it says clearly. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggest: "To be eligible to claim points for an article, the claiming editor must have made a substantive change to an aspect of the article that leads directly to an increase in its assessment rating. Such improvements can be focused on one or more aspects of the B-class criteria. For instance, adding references, improving structure or grammar, adding images, or expanding content; these changes should be significant and incidental changes should not be claimed. The claiming editor will be the main contributor (or co-contributor) to the article for the month. " Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, I'd be happy with that. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: are there any other opinions on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy with Cinderella157's text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Just being pedantic but do we really mean "substantive" (i.e. real) or "substantial" (i.e. large). I guess "real" change might be valid but I suspect "large" change could be more what we have in mind... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, actually I was going for substantive as in "real" here, as I thought substantial could give the wrong impression that size of the change is what is relevant (as opposed to quality/outcome) but happy to change to "substantial" if you believe it an improvement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

An observation: a change may not need to be large (by way of absolute or relative volume of text) to be sufficient to create a significant (and thereby real) change in an article's "quality"? Improvement in article quality is the benchmark. If "large" is what we have in mind, then it is subjective and the object is to remove subjectivity. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, not suggesting we mean large simply in terms of lots of text or many references but large as in the improvement we make, so "substantive" is fair enough, but perhaps "significant" is simpler? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the particular part: To be eligible to claim points for an article, the claiming editor must have made a substantive [real A rel change leads to a change in rating. A large change doesn't seem to fit. A significant change does, except that it is again used. I am not intrinsically opposed to this repetition though. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What about "meaningful" instead of "substantive"? Would that be a fair compromise? That would resolve the repetition of "substantial". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, meaningful would be an acceptable synonym. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Are there any objections to updating the instructions along these lines (with "meaningful" instead of "substantive", per the above)? If not, I think we should implement this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Are we also in a position to to put up the revised scoring per my table 4? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per AR's proposal. I've no issues with this. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

February tallying and scoreboard update proposal

I have completed the checking of the February results (with some help) and, of course, most of this was Gog's. From this, I could make some observations. While the edits made were perhaps a bit more than incidental, they were not considerable. I suggest that this might be better than "meaningful" in that there should be a considerable improvement in the quality of the article, as opposed to size. Having said that, Gog has, overall, made a considerable improvement to the project, which should not be discouraged.

My next observation is that many of his articles were initially assessed as deficient in B3. The criterion requires: "It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content." many of the articles are quite small - perhaps five or so paras. A lead, body and Ref section satisfies the criterion and is not inappropriate for the size, even if a more detailed structure and lead might be an improvement. It appears that we might be assessing to a "perception" rather than the standard as stated. B class is not perfect, it is not a "Good" article. It is reasonable but still with scope for improvement even if the assessment page does say: "An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure ... it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic ...". What then, is the true distinction between B and higher levels? Perhaps "adequate" and "satisfactory" are better terms.

I would observe that our (WP) quality assessment scale probably does not serve us as well as it might. I would refer to a discussion at the Village Pump (proposals) for a better assessment process - but this appears to have died a natural death. I observe that size does not determine quality but it does determine the effort required to achieve quality. There is a perception that smaller articles are precluded from higher levels of assessment. This should not be the case (except perhaps for the smallest which are at their limit at two or three paras) and if it is to be the case, it should be made explicit.

More to the point of this discussion ... Firstly, there is the case where an article has already evolved to to a higher class than what it was originally assessed as but has not been reassessed. This should not qualify for points. Perhaps we might review the competition scoring to be more accommodating of the situation that has arisen with "minor" and a "major" scores that are related to the size of the article and quantum of effort to achieve the improvement - perhaps doubling the scores for a major effort? (I could expand on this idea) This might also permit sharing of points for a collaborative effort? Finally, there is the matter of timing. The effort to improve an article spans across two calendar months. This may well be the case for A class (&c), in which we take the points (with some limited discretion) to apply when the article passes the assessment and not when the effort occurred. We should address this to some degree. The other concern is the matter of "main contributor". We should distinguish the "main contributor leading to the revised assessment" v the "main contributor in the month". I give a scenario: An editor improves an article over a period that spans the start of the month (or at the start of the month) the article is assessed as improved in the early part of the month; however, further edits are made by others over the course of the month such that the editor that improved the assessment of the article is not clearly the main contributor for the month.

Clear as mud? Apologies for the long comment. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Another observation is that a simple checklist without the benefit of comments does not necessarily make it apparent why an assessor has not passed an article to B class and therefore, what is required to elivate an article to B class. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I appreciate you taking a look at this. I think we need to be careful, though, to keep the process simple and easy to understand with as few rules as possible. I am concerned that we are potentially going to scare editors away from participating if we don't achieve this. Equally, I am a little concerned that potentially we are penalising an editor from claiming points because the old assessment was out of date and the article they worked on was actually (but not formally) a higher grade prior to them getting there. How are they to know this? Even if they do know this, do we want them to not work on the article because of this as the article will be ruled out of contention on a technicality? I don't think we do. The rationale of the contest is to motivate editors so that articles get improved. If the opportunity of a quick kill (by selecting a mature article to work on) motivates article improvement, that is surely a good thing. Equally, do we not run the risk of discouraging editors from participating in the contest if we add too many caveats about what is eligible, while also making the job of verification too onerous for any co-ord to be interested in doing it? Regarding multiple editors working on an article: if two or more editors work on an article in a scoring period and bring it to a higher class, with one working on one aspect (say for instance structure) and the other on a different aspect (say referencing) we haven't split the points in the past. Both editors have usually been entitled to claim full points equal to the end assessment. If we did split the points, it would make verification a nightmare (it would also probably require a change in scoring schedule as it is currently based on end assessment, not individual criteria), and would likely confuse new editors to the point that they probably won't want to participate. WRT the checklist not providing enough information to aid article improvement, I agree, but I don't think there is a solution short of site-wide change (which I doubt there is an appetite for). This is why edit summaries should be used, or comments posted on the talk page or at WP:MHA when assessing up to B-class to provide suggestions about what is necessary IMO to promote an article to the next level. (Comments written directly on the talk page are probably best where the assessment hasn't been requested at WP:MHA and when there isn't a currently active main editor working on an article, as this allows someone coming to the article potentially years later to understand what is required to fix an issue, e.g. the recent issue with lack of tribal casualty details on the Pink's War article, which was raised on the talk page years ago, and fixed yesterday). Anyway, just a few thoughts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Short comments (hidden) along with the assessment template is one way to address this. It just requires an "effort" to get this happening. A simple doubling of all scores and creating a two tier structure for each step could be simple and easy to implement Start to B class would be 10 points for a substantial effort or 5 points for a lesser effort (such as just putting in a few headings. To some extent, this could be self regulating and would not create an additional burden. It would be easy to implement given that we are early in this years cycle. There is the element of fairness, considering the degree of effort from say Lazeges compared with most of Gog's articles. We want to encourage both and a fair awarding of points is the only way to do this. I do not suggest that Gog has acted in anything but good faith, I don't think he has understood the spirit of the comp. Defining the spirit of the comp is an easy task (though perhaps more subjective) than writing a set of rules and caveats. Another possible consideration is a reviewers comp? I agree with all of the principles you have indicated.

Having done the checks, I don't see that this doubling would be a greater burden (though I don't know how other co-ords have approached the task). For formal reviews, it is easy. For B class and lower, it is more difficult. I have checked the Talk edit history for the current and past assessments (and previous deficiencies in the article). I have then checked the article edit history to confirm edits made by the claimant and that these have been responsible for an increase in the article's assessment (ie addressing the deficiency identified in the previous assessment).

At present, we tie the comp to a rise in assessment. This is fine for independent assessments. However, a significant improvement in article quality may not result in a change of assessment. The current criterion is simple to objectify but clearly not without problems - it might reward a nominal effort that is temporally associated with a in a change in assessment (even if it is not responsible for that change) but does not reward a significant improvement in quality that does not result in a change of assessment. I might point to the Kokoda Track campaign. I think that this was a significant change in quality that has not resulted in a change in assessment - just saying. One solution is for changes to be nominated by a third party for edits to B class and less - regardless of whether the edits result in a change of assessment.

In the first instance, I believe that doubling point and two tiers is a simple solution combined with defining the spirit of the comp. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, can you please clarify this point a bit more: "One solution is for changes to be nominated by a third party for edits to B class and less"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, editors put their own name on the competition board. There is no issue with GA A and FA, since these are formal reviews. B class reviews can result in an outcome of Start C or B. They are individual reviews and, by convention, usually done by a third party. The reviewer might be asked to place the result on the competition board (nominating it for the comp) their nomination is based on the spirit of the comp. I was actually suggesting this outside a review process though. This would capture something like Kokoda and the First and Second Battles of Eora Creek – Templeton's Crossing that I worked on. You might have put these in the comp for me (or I might have asked you to). The only possible glitch is if these were subsequently elevated (GA A or FA) in the same comp year. There shouldn't be double dipping. But individual integrity and casual oversight should avoid same. I am just throwing around ideas. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I think self nominating would still be fine for these instances (claiming points for improvements that don't lead to changes in assessment), as the third party input would come with verification. Third party nominating would seem to me to potentially be a bit hit-and-miss, and possibly open to claims of selection bias. Regarding double-dipping, I think we would want to limit claims to one non-assessment increasing improvement per article per editor per year, but I think it would be ok for subsequent claims for an article where there was an increase in assessment rating. We already do this, for instance in one month an increase from Start to B with a claim for 5 points, and then next month for B to GA with a claim for another 5 points etc. In this regard, if we were keen to expand the scope of the contest, I would suggest that we would probably keep the points awarded for a non-assessment increasing improvement claim relatively low (say 1 point for minor work, and 3 points for major work such as a full rewrite). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That would work. It would also go a way to resolving our present issue in that many of Gog's edits were not consequential in raising the assessment. The doubling the score idea is also to distinguish major and minor work that does lead to an increase in assessment. Minor work that does or does not result in a change of assessment might be of similar value. I see this might (largely) resolve the problem we face. I could try drafting up a scoring matrix in my sandbox. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be fantastic, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Modified scoring table

Please see User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6. I have produced two tables. Both include points for minor and major edits that don't result in a promotion of an article. The points I allocated for these are open for discussion. The first is a simple doubling of points for minor and major efforts (except at the lower end of the spectrum), where no distinction is made between minor and major. I have placed the original matrix between my two draft tables for ease of comparison. The second draft table assumes that any promotion to GA A or FA is a major effort. As such, it simplifies the matrix. The tables retain the quite clever relationship of scoring from the original matrix. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I made a suggestion for a slight tweak with this edit: [20]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the third option, which assumes any promotion to GA, A or FA is a major effort as the claimant would be a co-nom on the review, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the third option too. Your edits didn't come out right so I reverted and constructed a third table to capture your intent? I wasn't certain what scores to use so I just made them up. I think a middle ground between two and three might be better. With table two at the low end of the spectrum, my rationale was that any edits not sufficient to raise the assessment were probably not sufficient to score and any that were sufficient to raise the assessment were likely to be more than minor. I could suggest a middle ground on this. See table four. Basically if you don't get a stub to at last Start, there are no points? I also tweaked the minor no change scores. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your revert, to be honest. My change wasn't directed at adjusting the formatting. I was addressing the issue of awarding points for non-assessment increasing contributions at the Start and C-Class level, which had been omitted: [21]. In the new tables, I think only Table 4 achieves this and there is now also a formatting and scoring issue with Table 1 in the GA, A and FA columns on the first row: [22]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And I probably didn't understand your edit either. Table 3 is what I thought you were trying to do and the revert was just to put back table 1 to original. How is table 4 (given it has no points for a non-assessment increasing contribution per my rationale above)? How about the points in table 4 for non-assessment increasing contributions/ Perhaps, if you want to tweak these, you could edit by creating further examples, as I have? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for sticking with this. Looking at the table now, I wonder if it is a bit confusing. For instance, reference the new Table 4. On the first line, shouldn't each column increase (at least slightly) at every increment as it progresses to the right? It seems there are no points increase for a minor contribution claim for an article progressing from C to B, unless I'm missing something? think this might be a product of the fact that we are trying to do too much with the table, perhaps. As such, I think there might be an easier way to express this; if we removed the "min" and "maj" columns and just have a single score like before, we could then simply have a note stating that a "minor contribution claim equals half of a full contribution at the relevant increment". The nominator could then still record the start and end classes on the entries page, but we could include another column that says "full claim" or "half claim" (with the nominator stating what they are claiming for). Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I won't argue against a simplification. As I said before, the original table was quite clever in maintaining a relationships in points both horizontally and vertically. Apart from titivating the fringes, table 4 maintains this by a simple doubling/halving. The table gives an "at a glance" scoring and removes arithmetic error. making a verbal statement v the table does not change the result. I see no issue with a major contribution not changing assessment being equivalent to a minor one that does. The "problem" you see on the first row does not appear on the second row but does on the third. I think that you are "missing something" in that table 4 just maintains the initial clever relativity, save halving for a minor contribution. We could apply another scaling factor but it would lack simplicity per Occam's razor (besides, I run out of fingers and toes adding large numbers). Your suggestion of adding a column for minor or major claims has merit, since it makes the claim explicit and avoids ambiguity if the points claimed are incorrect (as I observed doing this month's check). I appreciate your thanks. This is the sort of thing I said I could bring to the project. If you sensed some frustration, it is only that this is not something we can do alone and I sense a degree of urgency. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed table 4

This is the proposed Table 4 as at this time, per the discussion above. If you wish to propose edits, please use User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6 and follow the instructions there. I ask this, because, in my experience, editing the table can be a little tricky. Can we also refer to any future versions alphabetically, to distinguish them from the earlier discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Points awarded

	Ending class
Beginning class		Start/ List		C/ CL		B/ BL		GA		A/ AL		FA/ FL
		Min	Maj	Min	Maj	Min	Maj	Min	Maj	Min	Maj	Min	Maj
	None/Stub	+1	+2	+3	+6	+6	+12	+22		+42		+52
	Start/List			+2	+4	+5	+10	+20		+40		+50
	C/CL			+1	+2	+3	+6	+16		+36		+46
	B/BL					+2	+4	+10		+30		+40
	GA							+2	+6	+20		+30
	A/AL									+2	+6	+10
	FA/FL											+2	+6

Further discussion of table

G'day, thanks for putting this together. Works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• This looks fine, but I am left wondering how much extra effort we are requiring of the coords who check each entry, needing them to drill down to see what edits have been made and whether they agree with the minor/major points claimed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I described how I went about checking this months nominations. You can also see that I closed each nomination individually. It didn't take long to get a good feel for whether it was a minor or major change, so on that point, I don't think it will take much, if any, more time if one is doing a modestly diligent check in the first instance. The only issue is that it is intended to attract more participation - which should be seen as a good thing, I think? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, while I appreciate the effort that's gone into this I don't think adding further complication to the scoring table is a good thing at all. Not only does it make more work for those checking scores, it leaves room for argument over just what those scores should be based on peoples' interpretations of minor or major work. I think the discussion of how clear our instructions are has been a good thing (I'm sorry I didn't have time to participate in it) and I applaud Cinderella's efforts in finalising the Feb results, but I think things should stop there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ian Rose, this whole thread started with the observation that Gog had nominated [many] articles which he had only copy-edited. B4 requires that an article be free from major grammatical errors. In truth, a quick copy edit of a small article may be all that is required to elevate an article on the assessment scale. Similarly, for B3, a heading and a brief lead (one, two or three sentences) may be all that is required to address this criterion and claim points. As AR observed, it is quite reasonable for a contestant to make a "quick kill". In each case, these are meaningful changes but certainly not major contributions. I am sure that I could quite easily game the new rules to produce a similar situation to that which started all this. There is no reason that another editor might not do the same in good faith (and absolutely no reflection on Gog). I can only see that a differentiation between a minor and major contribution will address this. Sure, minor and major has a degree of subjectivity. It is not a perfect solution. However, at the suggestion of AR, contestants are asked to identify which class their nomination falls too. I suggest that this "check" will limit many potential concerns. As a "balance", the comp checker can always call upon a third opinion. I see this to be the exception rather than the norm but only time will tell. Finally, the table encourages more participation. This must be a good thing - even if it means that there are more nominations to check. Per my above though, I do not believe that the time to make each check will be (meaningfully) more. It also allows awarding of lesser points where a nomination has not been judged as leading to a promotion in assessment. It provides more flexibility to the comp checker without having to ask the nominator to withdraw their nomination. Be clear, that was an onerous task. I believe that the table (and its implications) has more benefits (in many respects) than detractions. I am all for simplicity but sometimes, it does not produce the required/desired outcome. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks sharing your concerns, Ian. Are there any more comments from any other co-ords, or non co-ords who may be watching this page? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can see this point is strongly felt but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. I would say that a more complicated scoring system could just as easily drive people away as encourage them. Also I find this suspicion that people are out to game the rules to be pretty pessimistic based on my experience with the contest and the contestants. Sometimes the effort that elevates an article an assessment level will be minor, and sometimes it will be major; I find it tends to come out in the wash. For instance I usually go all out when improving a Stub or Start-class article, with the view that it might one day get to A-class or FA. That means I've put in a much greater effort than necessary to get the article to B-class, and more than enough to get it to GA as well. The ultimate reward for that extra effort comes later, and I don't begrudge another contestant their points for doing the requisite amount to get an article to B-class and no more, because it all helps the project. The contest has been running at least a decade, and the Gog episode is the first serious issue that might have arisen from a failure to comprehend the instructions that I can recall. As I said above, I think that justifies another look at the instructions (in fact they probably needed a look anyway, lest we get complacent about them) but I don't think it justifies a more elaborate scoring system, and would be interested to see other opinions beyond the few we've heard so far. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose, I was not suggesting that anybody was (or will) game the comp (willfully). Rather, that I could and that the comp was still subject to good faith misinterpretation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Because this affects current contestants in the comp, I intend opening this discussion to those affected (about 24 hrs from now). I think it is important to gauge their response to this proposal, given that they are directly affected by any decision here. I note that many may be following this discussion but some are not? By this, we might gauge the fairness of what I propose. Timeliness is a matter of natural justice. It is an element in which we have failed in to this point (overall). If the amendments to the rules and the table both get up, I propose a simple doubling of scores with effect of the Feb comp and that the changes become effective for the March comp. I think that steps to notify intent (to ensure fairness in these respects) have been put in place as best as possible. please speak up if there is any objection. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging stakeholders

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: and @User:Kees08, @User:Kges1901, @User:Randomness74, @User:Catlemur, @User:Djmaschek, @User:Lord Ics, @User:The Bushranger, @User:Gog the Mild and @User:Zawed. I am pinging you because of foreshadowed changes to the MilHist comp. This includes an adjustment to the "rules", by way of clarification, and an adjustment to the scoring table (per above). These (in my view) are closely tied. The changes to the rules are:

To be eligible to claim points for an article, the claiming editor must have made a substantive change to an aspect of the article that leads directly to an increase in its assessment rating. Such improvements can be focused on one or more aspects of the B-class criteria. For instance, adding references, improving structure or grammar, adding images, or expanding content; these changes should be significant and incidental changes should not be claimed. The claiming editor will be the main contributor (or co-contributor) to the article for the month.

Changes to the scoring table

Changes to the scoring table can be summarised as follows:

1. Scores in the table are essentially doubled. This allows for differentiation of minor and major contributions to an article on the basis of a full or half score. The table essentially retains the "clever" relationship (horizontally and vertically) of the original table.
2. The table opens the comp to changes to an article that do not lead to an increase in assessment.
3. The table assumes that an increase in assessment of an article above B class is a major contribution.
4. Competitors would nominate whether their nominations are either major or minor.

The benefits are:

1. A tie to the revised rules that provide greater flexibility for a competition closer to award points for what is assessed as being less than what is claimed. The present alternative is largely to disqualify a nomination.
2. A fairer recognition of effort with respect to a nomination.
3. The competition is broadened (hopefully) in a way tat increases participation.

Detractions raised are:

1. Subjectivity of what is a minor or major contribution.
2. Greater effort to close.
3. Greater complexity of the table which will detract rather than encourage participation.

Comments in rebuttal are:

1. It is somewhat subjective. However, any edits to a small article will generally be minor. Significant changes to a large article (or making an article much larger) will be major. A "check" is self nomination, by which, a nominator must assess whether their claim is major or minor. A "balance"is that a closer may call upon a "third opinion". The proposal may not be perfect but (IMO) it is better than what we have.
2. The effort to close is not likely to be significantly greater to a closer applying reasonable diligence. There may be more articles to close but I do not think this is a bad thing as it represents greater participation.
3. I don't think the changes are that complicated since it is essentially a doubling of the existing table with two grades. I don't think that is all too complicated. However, any clarification would be appreciated.

Implementation

It is intended that the changes take effect from the Mach competition. Previous points would be simply doubled. A notification on the contest page of pending changes have already been made. While it would be ideal to make changes as of the start of the annual comp, we are, nonetheless, quite early in this years comp to the extent that it should have a minimal impact on the final result.

Conclusion

Comments (support or opposition) are requested below. Thank you for your input. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but question on Competitors would nominate whether their nominations are ether major or minor. does this mean the nom should indicate which it is? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges, The nomination table would have a column for Min/Maj in which they would place Min or Maj. Instructions would clarify this. This would make explicit whether the claim (for the nomination) is either min or maj. This is intrinsic to the "check" (and balance) in the process as I have explained it. The "rules" have not yet been fully integrated with the table. While the proposals are close to final form, they are still works in progress. Hope this answers your question. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a good solution to the issue. Kges1901 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support It seems a sensible, relatively pain free solution, and has, IMO, a chance of modestly increasing participation. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral While it is generally a good idea, I am a little skeptical of the extra work load that it will create.--Catlemur (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - oppose because the only reason I decided to start submitting to the contest is because it was really easy and I did not have to think about it; weak because I am not a big contributor to the contest, as I focus on spaceflight and only join when there is overlap between spaceflight and milhist. Kees08 (Talk) 04:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose scoring change/support rules change per my comments elsewhere, I believe that tweaking of the rules should be given time to work before considering changing the scoring system, which is nice and simple as it stands. IMHO this is more about getting new participants to better understand what they can claim, than a systemic issue with the contest as a whole. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: and @User:Kees08, @User:Randomness74, @User:Catlemur, @User:Djmaschek, @User:Lord Ics, @User:The Bushranger and @User:Zawed. Pinging stakeholders that have not responded. This is a matter that requires a quorum (IMO) - whether it is a decision to implement or not. The proposition has two arms, of which the first is a rewording of the rules and the second, is to revise the scoring table. Opposition to the scoring table has been essentially to see how the rewording pans out as a solution alone. This is a point in time where both changes can be implemented with minimal disruption. This may not be the case further in time if the rewording alone is not found to be sufficient. In respect to the situation giving rise to these changes, the table provides a resolution not available by just changing the wording of the rules. The revised scoring permits awarding of lesser points by the competition closer where the nominator's edits are not assessed as being consequential in elevating the assessment of the article. The alternative, without the revised scoring, is to disqualify the nomination. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see how the rules change goes and only complicate the scoring if and when the rules change signally fails to work. In fact, I would go further and say that if anyone is regularly having articles disqualified, they clearly are not playing by the rules, and should be banned from the contest, rather than changing the scoring arrangements in the first instance. Simple scoring arrangements are part of the attraction of the contest, IMHO. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate your response @Peacemaker67. My chagrin is at the lack of response (and quorum) throughout this "episode" from those that have accepted a duty to the project. It is not too hard to express an opinion one way or another - even it is ambivalence. I acknowledge and appreciate your opinion, even if I disagree in that this is not a significant increase in complexity. Regards and thanks, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, based on Ian's concerns, and AC's comments below, as well as PM's above, I think we probably need to see how the new instructions go for a while to see if further change is required. I had a bit of a play around today in my sandbox, to look at a potential compromise solution, which expands eligibility for an editor to claim points for making contributions to an article that doesn't result in an assessment change (please see Tables 2 and 3 on User:AustralianRupert/sandbox for a couple of mock-ups). Not sure if that is an improvement or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be that some don't consider this as big an issue as others, and would therefore rather leave things as they are. The reality is that unless there is a consensus for change, things should stay as they have been for years. I know that isn't considered ideal by some, but there it is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, I appreciate your thoughts and input. I would observe that the original "complaint" was one of relative effort even though more than "incidental". It was only on closer inspection that a number of the nominations were assessed as not being meaningful to the change of assessment. Of those I determined to be "meaningful", most were still minor in extent. I acknowledge that there appears to be no consensus for change at this time. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your time with this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-reading my comment, I may have come off as dismissive, Cinderella157. That wasn't my intention. Thanks for the thought and effort you have put into with this, I just think we shouldn't make things more complex than they are without a really good reason. Coords should be focussing on making sure new contestants are entering into the spirit of the contest rather than just racking up points. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I don't have an issue with a conscious decision not to implement this part of of the solution. Your input has been appreciated. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Here because of the ping. For what its worth, I agree that I would prefer to see the impact of the instructions before implementing a change in scoring. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Responding to the ping; I need to reread this again so I can re-familiarize myself with what I've missed before I pencil in an S/O/N count above. Should be back to it sometime later this week or early next week. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

February contest verification and results

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day, all, as per the above I am having a break from tallying and handing out awards for the contest this month. As such, can I please ask that a couple of other co-ords take care of this task this month? The Bugle can't go out until this is done, so it would be great if this could be taken care of in the next couple of days. This is probably a good opportunity for someone who hasn't done it before, to learn the ropes so that we gain some redundancy. If you have any questions about the process, please feel free to ping me. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

All of the entries have been verified, it seems, but I'm not quite sure what to do about those of Gog's that Cinderella commented on - does anyone feel strongly about excluding some or all of those? I haven't looked at most of them, but these edits don't seem all that substantive to me (especially when the structure of the article as it was was perfectly fine to meet B3). Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: , I think that there are a couple which might be removed. Regarding my comments on the contest page, I have been conscious of potential subconscious bias and believe that my comments can be objectively substantiated. I have applied the same process to similar article by other editors (though not with the same results). I have foreshadowed (immediately above) a possible change to scoring (simplistically, a doubling of scores to introduce two tiers that reflect whether the changes were considerable (wrt quality and effort) or not. Can I suggest that (with some reflection on the above discussion) we ask Gog to do a self reassessment with respect to both the number of articles claimed and the number of points claimed, comparing his articles with other similar claimants (such as Iazyges) and the spirit of the comp. This could be a global assessment, rather than a case-by-case basis. Without prejudice to what Gog might decide, I might suggest a simple halving (just off the top of my head). Having said this, I do not suggest in any way that Gog has acted in other than good faith. I am just trying to find a solution which is both fair and seen to be fair wrt to both Gog and other contributors. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , I have the tallies all done. It is a matter of having a consensus on what we do. I will post these a little later today. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Scoreboard updated subject to consensus/confirmation. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , I could say that I am sorry for being insistent but I am not. This, and the above discussion, are things that really need to be addressed sooner rather than later, as it is holding up the Bugle. It is also a matter that needs needs something approaching a quorum. AR and I have been holding up our end of the stick but this really needs more input and soon. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As the Bugle was a few days over-due, Ian and I have sent it out. We'll include the February contest results alongside the March ones next month. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries, Nick, probably the best course of action here while we sort this out. For my part, unless Gog wants to withdraw the entries Cinderella has highlighted, I think it would probably be best to honour the points claimed until the instructions are made clearer (per the proposal above). Would like to get some more opinions, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe we have to treat Gog's entries as submitted in good faith, as it wouldn't be right to retroactively apply a different standard. We could, however, ask Gog to withdraw any articles identified by Cinderella, and see what Gog does. I'd support such a request. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: this needs to be resolved, and the suggested course of action (to formally approach Gog and ask for them to withdraw any articles identified by Cinderella) needs a few more coordinators to achieve a consensus before Rupert, Cinderella or I approach Gog about it. Could you all please chime in and let us know your views asap? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your solution seems fine to me, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

My observation per my above is that Gog should be approached with the option of a reassessment on either a case by case basis or globally. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, yes I think it would be a good idea to ping Gog and see what their thoughts are so that we can resolve this. My internet is playing up this morning (and I may be recalled to work shortly) due to the cyclone here, but if I am still online later today or tomorrow, I will ping Gog if there are no objections, or if someone hasn't beaten me to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to do this but I think it would be better coming from you as lead Coord (in the first instance) I am happy if you make me the POC though, for Gog to discuss this. I strongly suggest there be the proposition of making a global reassessment as this might simplify "arguing" over semantics for each individual case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Cinderella, spent the morning clearing trees with a chainsaw, which I hadn't touched in quite some time. Was good to get back on the tools for a change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Message to Gog

Dear @User:Gog the Mild,

I have taken on this duty on behalf of our Lead Coordinator, AustralianRupert, to contact you in regard to the February contest. AR is otherwise indisposed at the moment, being in the midst of a natural disaster. I apologise on his behalf for not attending to this matter personally. You are aware that your entries in February's competition has caused some consternation among the coordinators (as evidenced by the recent discussions on the Coord talk page, immediately above. As a matter of disclosure as to my part, I have also messaged AR on his talk page. The "issue" is that you have interpreted the rules and spirit of the competition in a way quite different from the intention and which has not happened previously (to my knowledge). Having said that, there is no suggestion or implication that you have not acted in anything other than "good faith". Consequently though, we have (attempted) to clarify the spirit and intent of the comp - that an entry addresses deficiencies in an article in a way that directly leads to it being promoted on the assessment scale.

You will note that, with some help from my fellow Coords, I have been responsible for checking and posting February's comp results. Among others, I have checked all of your submissions. For many of these, I have left comments. In most of these cases, the articles a quite short - consisting of a lead and up to, say, five paragraphs. They have generally been assessed as C class and deficient in B3 (structure). The minimum requirement for B3 is a lead and at least one (main) section. This is quite appropriate for such a small article, even if the lead might be improved or further sections added. The disparity between the prior assessment and the article's state may have occurred for two reasons: either the article has been subsequently improved or the assessor did not apply the minimum and appropriate requirement in such a case (to which, the assessment may have been incorrect). While your edits to articles submitted into the comp have invariably improved these articles, my concern (and that of others) is that these have not directly led to addressing the deficiency in the article such that it was promoted - even though it was promoted subsequent to your edits. I am more than willing to discuss any of my comments.

The problem that we, as Coords, face is to achieve an outcome that is both fair and is seen to be fair, in respect to both yourself and other competitors. You will note that I do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this as I am not nor have ever been a contestant (not by my nomination at least).

It is potentially within your power to resolve our dilemma. On behalf of the Coords, may I ask you to reconsider your entries to the comp. I would ask you to do so in light of the most recent discussions on the Coord talk page and other similar claims for points in the comp. This is, without prejudice to your initial claims. This may be made on a case-by-case basis but I suggest you might also consider a global assessment of both the number of points claimed and the number of articles claimed, as this may simplify matters.

I also note, the foreshadowed changes to the scoring table. I am reasonably confident that this will be implemented in something close to the proposed form. It would certainly simplify matters for us if this could be implemented with effect of the February comp. Your decision may be contingent upon this and/or without prejudice to how this may ultimately be implemented.

Thankyou for considering this somewhat long post and request. Please ping me on your talk page, my talk page, the Coord talk page or at my comments on the February contest with your response and/or any questions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Also posted to Gog's talk page.

G'day @Cinderella157: as AR would say. This seems the most appropriate page to reply on. Thank you for opening up communications. I have several times been close to taking action myself, but have felt that my motives may be misconstrued. Thank you for the opportunity to extricate myself from this situation with at least a semblance of grace.

What should be some light hearted fun seems to have involved a lot of editors in a lot of effort which they could have expended more usefully, and for this I am sorry. I would be grateful if you could withdraw all of my February entries from the contest. It is possible that I may wish to re-enter some of them in future months if and when I understand more fully both the rules and the ineffable spirit of the contest.

Apologies again for the inadvertent misunderstanding [redundancy intended]. Can I end with a comment on the cordiality and helpfulness I have encountered at MilHist since I became more active a few weeks ago; the project has created a good atmosphere in which to work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting this advice with good grace, Gog. I think you have chosen a good course of action. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Gog the Mild, can I thank you sincerely for your response. I would also express my disappointment that you were not contacted earlier. As to the effort expended, a good deal of this has gone to a proposal (per the table above) to expand and revise the comp in a positive way. That your entries prompted this review is a positive outcome. I have withdrawn those entries against which there were comments. This leaves some 14 articles for a total of 62 points under the present scoring - significantly exceeding the next competitor. I would encourage you to retain the nominations for those article; however, I will strike these too if you still wish me to. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I find myself in something of a bind. I have a competitive spirit and am fond of Wiki-bling. But I also dislike being awarded anything under false pretences. I am not competent to judge if the latter applies to this position, and feel that my judgement is being swayed by an unseemly longing for barnstars. I would be grateful if you personally could make the decision on my behalf. You have given my entries a fairly good scrutiny. If you feel that they meet the requirements for a certain number of points, or that they don't, then you are in a better position to judge than I am. Or toss a coin. Whichever way you decide I would prefer it if there were no explanation nor reasons, just a decision.

If you prefer not to, then obviously bat the decision back to me. Either way, many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Gog the Mild, the decision is made. The points stand per my immediate above. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing

Hi, I have finalised the contest results, made the awards and posted the results to the scoreboard. I have also copied Feb's log to the archive. Is there anything else to do at this time? Can I suggest a sub-page of the contest that records the steps in closing both the monthly and annual comps - as a record of our corporate knowledge. This can then be linked on the contest page as a ready reference. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Cinderella. Thanks for finalising this. The results should also be added to The Bugle. February's results would usually go in the March edition, but this time they will need to be added to April: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2018/Project news. A past example can be found here: [23]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, Added results to Bugle. Thank you for watching over my shoulder. I hate getting things wrong. If you can take up my suggestion (for want of another), I will cast my eye over it and add my suggestions from my novice experience. Ping me (here I guess) with a link. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, I have drafted something in my sandbox here: User:AustralianRupert/sandbox. Essentially I feel that some of this is already covered in the "How it works" section of the contest page, but in the draft I have split it into "instructions for contestants" and "instructions for co-ordinators" and expanded it a bit to hopefully make it clearer. I have tried to incorporate the change in the instructions we have already talked about earlier. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've not had much to do with the contest (ever) but I'd say adjusting the instructions is a good idea and ARs changes seem ok to me. I wonder if maybe we should update the instructions and then wait a while to see if changes to the scoreboard really are needed? Anotherclown (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good idea, IMO, AC. By way of an update, I have adjusted User:AustralianRupert/sandbox and also created User:AustralianRupert/sandbox2 (using templates developed by Cinderella). My intent is that the first sandbox would be used to update the contestant instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest, while sandbox2 would become Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Coordinator instructions (which would be linked from the contestant instructions). Please note that these edits are not intended to change the scoring or the design of the contest (as that part of the issue hasn't achieved consensus yet, IMO). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with AC on amending the contest instructions and giving them a go before making the scoring arrangements more complex. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I have updated the instructions per the above now, without any changes to the scoring system. If there are any concerns, please let me know. Thank you all for sharing your opinions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Participating regiments in 1883 Anglo-Egyption War

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this - I am a complete virgin regarding both Wikipedia and military history

My G-Grandfather, William Hills, served in the 4th Hussars. His regimental number was 1123 and his records are available on Find My Past. The 'Military History Page of these shows that he was in Egypt from 4 Aug 1882 (but no 'to' date) and that he was awarded the Egyptian Campaign Medal and Khedive Star. My difficulty is that the 4th Hussars do not appear on the list of regiments engaged in the campaign and I cannot find and record of such participation elsewhere. By way of background there is a family story that he somehow became involved in a minor fracas in company with Francis Duke of Teck and was subsequently awarded some sort of medal by the Teck family. My inclination would be to dismiss this as fantasy but it seems likely that he did truly have a 'special' medal of some kind. All of his medals were stolen from one of his sons and there is no way to verify this.

It would be most interesting to learn the facts regarding the regiment's involvement in the campaign so that I could check any possible sources for the medal story

Hopefully by ticking 'watch this page' below I will be notified of any response but in case it's helpful my email is jlr4346@outlook.com. Many thanks for any help you are able to give — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polar500 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably best asking over at Wikipedia:Reference desk but I can fill in a bit of info for you. The 4th Hussars did not serve in Egypt in 1882. However both the Egypt Medal and Khedive's Star were awarded for actions in the country up to 1889 and 1891 (respectively). Two officers and 43 men of the 4th Hussars formed part of the Light Camel Regiment (part of the Camel Corps) for the 1884/85 Nile Expedition to relieve Gordon of Khartoum (source). Is it possible that the date is wrong in your source and he was part of this later force? This source states that no men of the 4th Hussars were eligible for a campaign medal in 1882 (indeed the 1855 Siege of Sevastopol was the last prior campaign the regiment fought in). Though of course this would not tie in with the Teck connection as Francis seems to have returned from Egypt in 1882 - Dumelow (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Could Hills have been attached as a supernumerary with another unit, such as Churchill? [24] As per Dumelow, this source also mentions the 4th as part of the Light Camel Regiment for the 1884/85 conflict: [25] (p. 518). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it would have been quite unusual for a private to have been detached from his regiment, though he may have been a batman to a supernumerary 4th Hussars officer or similar. Is it possible he served in Egypt with a different corps? Judging from his regimental service number I suspect he would have enlisted shortly after the 1870 Cardwell Reforms on an eight-year enlistment. A lot of men would re-enlist with a different regiment or corps at the end of their original enlistment. Some corps such as the Commissariat and Transport Corps drew heavily from re-enlisted veterans and would have served in every British conflict - Dumelow (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Help on creating a page

Hello, I am working on a page for the Russian intelligence during the French invasion of Russia in 1812. Do you have any good sources or anyone I can speak with who can offer good research?

Thank you, TeresaZidek (talk) TeresaZidek —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Russian, Soviet, and CIS Milhist TF reaches 200 GAs

I'd just like to inform the coords that the Russian, Soviet, and CIS Military History Task Force has reached 200 GAs, per Category:GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles, so that the appropriate announcement can be made in the Bugle. Kges1901 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Great milestone! Well done to everyone who has contributed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Kges. Great work. I have added a mention of this to the next edition of The Bugle. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on Task Forces Scope

Hi everyone, there is a redundancy in the task force coverages that I don't think is necessary. The North-American task force according to it's page covers "Military activity regarding Central American and Caribbean countries fall under this task force." while South-American task force covers "Central and South America and the smaller but closely-related Commonwealth Caribbean" Since these task forces were broken into geographical locations, am I ok to begin the process of reorganizing the articles into a more geographical based task forcing? I think it is a hold-over from when the South-American task force was titled "Latin-American" task for so articles such as Mexcan Navy still now appear in the South-American Task force which is humorous. --Molestash (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

When we created the continental taskforces, we decided that because the UN geoscheme has Central America and the Caribbean as subregions of North America, we would organise them that way. It mustn't have been fixed at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Molestash: Thank you for highlighting this. Agreed per PM. The wording on the South American task for should be adjusted, and relevant articles moved across to the North American task force. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 reviewing tallies

Username	GAN	ACR	PR	FAC	Total	Entitlement	Awarded
Abraham, B.S.	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Anotherclown	0	3	0	0	3	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
AustralianRupert	1	33	3	2	39	WikiChevrons	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Biblioworm	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Carcharoth	0	1	0	2	3	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Chetsford	1	5	0	1	7	2-stripe	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Cinderella157	1	3	1	0	5	2-stripe	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
CPA-5	0	3	0	3	6	2-stripe	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Dank	0	3	0	6	9	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Dipa1965	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Dudley Miles	0	2	0	2	4	2-stripe	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Euryalus	1	1	0	0	2	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Factotem	0	7	0	0	7	2-stripe	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Gog the Mild	7	1	0	0	8	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye7	3	13	1	3	20	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hchc2009	0	5	0	1	6	2-stripe	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Ian Rose	0	6	0	2	8	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Iazyges	21	6	0	4	31	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Indy beetle	2	10	0	1	13	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
JennyOz	0	1	0	1	2	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Kees08	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi	0	12	1	3	16	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz	0	1	0	0	1	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D	2	9	1	0	12	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria	0	22	2	20	44	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Parsecboy	18	6	0	2	26	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Peacemaker67	7	17	0	5	29	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Robinvp11	1	1	0	0	2	1-stripe	Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66	12	12	0	3	27	WikiChevrons	AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The ed17	0	1	0	2	3	1-stripe	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Vami_IV	0	2	0	1	3	1-stripe	AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Zawed	8	3	0	0	11	Content Review Medal	AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to tally up the quarterly reviews. I have started with the ACRs. Can someone else please take a look at the other review types? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this started, I've done the GA reviews. For the record, I included these comments in Hawkeye's total - he wasn't the reviewer of record, but I felt like that was worthy of credit. I also excluded a few reviews for Sturmvogel - he started two on 31 March (but hasn't actually reviewed yet), so I figured they ought to be included in the next quarter's tally. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I have done an image review at ACR of Qubec Agreement: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Quebec Agreement. Is that missed, or any issue? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: G'day, Krishna, as that review was closed in early April, it is not included in this tally. It will be included in the Apr-May-June tally. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Ah! yes, you're right. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day ladies and gentlemen, I have tallied the peer reviews now. Apologies if I missed any. Would someone mind tallying the FAs? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

FAC/FLC done, and tallied. An amazing number of editors contribute to our Featured processes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks, PM. Were there any FA/FLC reviews for Dudley? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry mate. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Awarded the rest. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Two articles for ACR?

I want to put Territorial Force up for ACR, but already have Yeomanry Cavalry there. The latter has two good reviews, but is otherwise not attracting much interest. I think that the Territorial article will fare better, but don't want to abandon the Yeomanry article because I think it may get there one day. May I submit the TF article for concurrent review? Alternatively, could we suspend the ACR for Yeomanry Cavalry, let the Territorial Force ACR run its course, then afterwards resume the ACR for Yeomanry Cavalry from where it left off? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Factotem, please feel free to nominate the second article while the first is still under review -- naturally we all need to exercise common sense and not inundate the ACR system but two noms at the same time, particularly when they're staggered as it were, like this, is okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Eyes and hands are needed

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: As a result of the 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs many weapon and weapon system articles are seeing a flurry of editing activity, and not all of it useful. There's a report on ANI concerning disruptive editing at the Tomahawk (missile) page, and i'm certain other articles on missiles, planes, and ships have likewise seen some fallout-related editing. We need to check the articles and make sure that the material thats been added meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Account hacks

Hey all, there appears to be a significant attempt to hack accounts, which may or may not be related to our project. See here for a few editors who appear to have been targeted (and one who seems to have been compromised). Someone just unsuccessfully tried to log into my mobile account. Keep your eyes out for any accounts that begin to behave oddly. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)