Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom

Editorial?

Hey guys, we don't have an editorial for this month. I want to do one on the history of the project, given that this month marked the fifth year since WP:BATTLES and WP:WARS merged to become WP:MILHIST, but I'm open to ideas (even if we only do them in the future). I probably won't be able to write it with my schedule coming up, but if it's not done by Friday, I'll whip something together. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like we have anything else lined up; so if you're up for it, I think something on the history would be a good approach, and hopefully won't hold up the publication too long. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be gone all day and (possibly) most of the night tonight. Can anyone else start it and I'll finish it? And Kirill, would you be willing to provide a few quotable quotes, seeing as you were the lead coordinator for so many of the early years? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a go at getting things started for you. Any and all assistance (especially from our old lags) is most welcome! EyeSerene^talk 10:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've got something down that can hopefully serve as the basis for improvement. EyeSerene^talk 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's very good, actually. Not too long (so it'll keep a readers' attention) yet still comprehensive! Thanks EyeSerene, and sorry for not getting back online until now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) You don't think it's too self-congratulatory? EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine; we've always been somewhat self-congratulatory in the Bugle—it is an internal newsletter, after all—and we do have a great deal to be proud of, in my opinion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mine too :-) I felt slightly uncomfortable as a coord writing about how great the coord team is, but as a general observation over the lifespan of the project I think it's not an unreasonable point to mention. I'm reassured you think the tone is ok though. EyeSerene^talk 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So what do we still have left to do on this issue? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The front page and expand the "From the coordinators" -- I'm going offline again, but I should be able to tackle this tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten to everything except the "Discussions and proposals" -- what do we have going on right now? I've also boldly changed "From the coordinators" to "From the editors" because it seemed more appropriate, but I could be wrong. :) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's the C-Class discussion going on, but I think that's probably the only thing we need. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

New newsletter format?

Hey guys, I've been playing around and thought this looked less cluttered for delivery to talk pages. The third-level header would be level two if this is adopted. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill! What do you think of this for a new header? Template:WPMILHIST Newsletter header 2 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a good layout. I've changed the underlying structure to make the four articles align correctly regardless of title length; we'll probably want to use the same formatting for the delivered version as well. Do we want to add link to the newsroom and the archives somewhere?

Given the small size of the delivered version, we'll probably want to change the posted variant (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News) to actually display all the articles. I think we should be able to have a header template that can use section links rather than subpage links, but I'll need to play around with it some more. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I stole all the code from the old version and the Signpost. ;-) Links would probably be good. Perhaps in small font at the bottom?

I'm not sure having header section links would be useful? Unless we're planning on using different links between every comma? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

By header links, I meant that when the entire content was transcluded on the /News page, the links would scroll down on that page rather than taking readers to the individual subpages themselves. It's a rather specialized case, and probably not relevant to the overall layout of the newsletter itself. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see -- good idea. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the new compact design. Good job :) EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ES, do we want to use this format when sending it out to everyone? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue {{{1}}} ({{{2}}})

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom.

Version for front page

An attempt at a new front page. I can't figure out how to center the actual articles... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Which direction are we trying to center them in: horizontal or vertical? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Volume LVI, October 2010

Project News WikiProject Military history/News/October 2010/Project news Members WikiProject Military history/News/October 2010/Members Articles WikiProject Military history/News/October 2010/Articles Editorial WikiProject Military history/News/October 2010/Editorials

I'm a fan of the centred layout; it's similar to that of WP:Signpost, though I'd spread the four headings out a little bit more vertically to make it look slightly less cluttered. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the table structure to space the headings out more; does that look any better? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does though it's getting a bit sprawling. An alternative might be to have them in two lines, centred on a central bullet. I've no idea how to set this up in HTML. Basically the central bullet (or dingbat) is centred. The text before it is ranged right and the text after ranged left. The same exercise is repeated for the next line, with once again the bullet being precisely centred. It produces a visually interesting shape and would occupy less depth.  Roger ^talk 06:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this:

Your military history newsletter Volume LVI, October 2010

Project news ⁂ Member news Article news Editorial

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes almost, but with the stuff in the left column ranged right and the right column ranged left ;) I am wondering though why we need full links piped.  Roger ^talk 07:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Better? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, and thank you very much for doing it ;) I'm afraid though <COI alert on>veering towards my version</COI alert off> below for its simplicity.  Roger ^talk 07:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Front page: v2

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVI, October 2010 Project news • Member news • Article news • This month's editorial

Here's another option, perhaps cleaner and less visually cluttered  Roger ^talk 07:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused at this point :) Are we redesigning the front page or the sub-page page header banner? If it's the front page (which currently also doubles as our talk page delivery notice), I think it's good to have the full-sentence teaser links to the sub-pages. If it's the sub-page header generic links are fine, but do they need to be prominent?

Alternatively, are we proposing a redesign for all three (the front page, the sub-page headers and a new, custom-designed talk-page delivery notice)? I like the clean, uncluttered look of all the centred versions for a new front page, but I think Ed's original proposal would be good for talk-page delivery if we go the route of having a separate notice (mainly due to its compactness). EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of this one. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene, I was hoping to redesign both separately. The first one [ie mine] is great simply for its size, but the front page needs something more! Thanks to Kirill and Roger for the redesigns / Cam and ES for the comments. I'm fine with this one or the one above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, why don't we use this for the article headers, an expanded version with mini-blurbs for the front page, and my first idea for the talk page notice? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That would work for me :) EyeSerene^talk 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, is the code in these alright and okay to copy into articles? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clean enough for use, although we'll probably continue polishing it over the first few issues. Are we going to use templates (e.g. {{WPMILHIST Newsletter header 2}}) for these, or is it easier to just copy the code into each issue and not worry about maintaining a template set? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Templates would be easier, I think, and would only require us to add {{{1}}} and {{{2}}}, right? I don't think there would be much overhead in maintaining them. The only concern would be if we want to redesign or tweak it a few months from now – it would change all the old issues as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Delivery notice: v2

I've tried to pull the styles of the front page and the delivery notice together. And produced this:

Your military history newsletter Volume LVI, October 2010 In this month's issue • Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive • The month's featured and A-class Milhist content • Contest results, A-class medal recipients • EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"'

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom.

Now the code for this really does need looking at to create a proper two-column layout, with a gutter between the columns, because I've used colons to create the gutter for this dummy. Thoughts?  Roger ^talk 06:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't like it as much as the top-down approaches above. I think having two styles wouldn't kill us – the Signpost does it that way, after all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

October issue

Are we ready to release this, or are we planning to wait until we can use the new format with it? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The new format seems to be coming along quickly – perhaps we should wait a few days and see if we can get it together by the 14th, and if not send it with the old format one last time? Or we could send it with the old format and ask people to comment here on the proposed designs. Either way works for me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We might as well try out the new format if we have it ready in time; if nothing else, the wider exposure will draw in more comments than simply asking people to wander over here and discuss it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added the new front page and article headers. Can someone make Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Section header 2 with a better color than the old section header? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've created a newsletter-specific section header for us to use. Do we have the boilerplate that's going to be delivered to user talk pages yet? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill - I really appreciate it. I was thinking we could use the concise version. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That one will work well for a talk page notice, in my opinion. I think we're ready to go with it, if you can let Cbrown know about the new format?

At some point, we should probably update the delivery instructions to reflect what actually takes place, but that's a secondary issue at the moment. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've asked him to deliver it.[1] Where are the delivery instructions located? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Strategy_think_tank/News_and_editorials#Delivery_instructions EyeSerene^talk 10:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to update everyone, I email Cbrown and he will be getting it out either tomorrow or Friday. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

November issue

Other than converting all the pages to use the new format, what do we still have outstanding for the November issue? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got to finish off the From the Coordinators section, which I'll do tonight and tomorrow afternoon. Other than that, we're good to go. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

When we get the december edition up, we will need to add this to theis to the award page:

Jim Sweeney: In recognition of your contributions to high quality content, outstanding GAN backlog work, and assistance to project members. (Awarded December 2010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

These two also need to be added to December's issue when it comes on line:

• Constantine: For prolific work on Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria, Battle of Kalavrye and Sack of Amorium, all promoted to A-Class between October and December 2010. (Awarded December 2010)
• Socrates2008: For prolific work on 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash, Siege of Kimberley, and Battle of Magersfontein, promoted to A-Class between May 2009 and December 2010. (Awarded December 2010). AustralianRupert (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added these three to the newsletter, but the entries might need to be checked as I don't know what I'm doing. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your additions look perfect; for someone who doesn't know what they're doing, you're doing great! ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

December issue

So, what are we still missing for the December issue? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"From the editors" and a "Military Historian of the Year" writeups. If someone can do the latter, Cam or I should be able to do the former tomorrow. At the least I can get it Wednesday afternoon Eastern (US) time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the material, I assume we're ready to go? Or is there something that still needs some work? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. We're good. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we were missing the description for one of the FAs. I've added this now, but you might want to check it. It might be a tad too long, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Should be okay, actually – thanks! I'll ping Cbrown right now. Sorry for forgetting to do this earlier. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

January issue

So, what's the plan for the January issue? We're mainly missing the news page and an editorial, I think; the former should be easily doable, but I'm not sure what we should do about the latter at this point. Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So, any thoughts on how we should proceed? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Shoot, I saw your first post, then forgot about it. I may be able to throw something together tomorrow for a news page, but we might be forced to reuse an old editorial this month. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kirill and Ed, I can help with the last of the descriptions on the Articles page, but I've got no ideas for an editorial. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert, don't worry about it. :-) If I get time Wednesday or Thursday night, I'll try to write something up on primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary sources because we have been talking about that in one of my classes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've think I've completed all the article descriptions now. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Editorial-wise I've kind of got something in the works here, which should hopefully be finished in a day or two. If that's too late though it's not a problem (I wasn't originally working to any sort of deadline!) EyeSerene^talk 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't imagine that it would be a problem; I suspect it will take that long to sort out the other sections in any case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your suspicion is probably right. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh :) Added a link to the submissions table EyeSerene^talk 11:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New location for main newsletter display

In case anyone misses it, the newsletter is now displayed at the top of WP:MHOT rather than on a separate page. I've played around with the formatting; in my opinion, the borderless version looks neater than the bordered one, since there's no clash between the section header boxes and the newsletter border, but I'd appreciate any comments on that point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it was linked from the main page before, so I added it to Open tasks. Thanks for tweaking it, Kirill – borderless is much better. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured that was why you added it; I think we used to have a separate tab for it, but it seems to have gotten lost during one of our shuffles. :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it was removed because the tabs were getting too crowded... I'm too lazy to confirm that, though. ;-) Either way, that's why I added it to Open tasks rather than adding a new tab. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

February issue

I assume we can put together the project news and the other regular sections within the next few days, but do we have any leads on an editorial? Perhaps we could try to get something GLAM-themed, given the current discussions? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started one here -- does any one want to go through it and polish/expand/give it a clear direction and voice? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And as a further thought, if we expand/polish this enough, should we put it in a Signpost dispatch? It'd have to be ready in under two days, but if we all get together and slam it out, it'd be a good piece to run there too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Signpost dispatches have to be run through WP:FCDW; there was a huge fight the last time someone tried to bypass that process and run an "unapproved" dispatch.

(Or do you mean just a regular article? They've run ones on various aspects of the Ambassador program and such, so I'm not sure they'd be interested in a simple recap. If we do manage to get a new collaboration going, of course, that would be a different story.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

February

Anyone see anything we're missing? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just the SMS Marksgraf entry under the Article News. I'll do that later today once I hit the halfway point on Global Governance research. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of empty headings that need to be removed, but otherwise everything looks good. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter is ready to go. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

March issue

What do we still need (other than summaries for the remaining FAs, etc.)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the descriptions for the last FAs, but I'm not sure how to go about writing the description for the last A class article. Its a ship list article. Can someone else take a look please? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the last article description and added the ACMs to the Members section. From what I can tell the Member news and Article news sections are now complete, but we still need content for the Editorial, Project news and Front page sections. Can anyone help with this? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done the project news page and the front page. Do we need an editorial or shall we just publish last months without it? We are already half way into April. Woody (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for that Woody. Regarding the editorial - perhaps we could re-use a previous one? I think this was muted as a solution a few months ago when we were in a similar situation (but ultimately someone wrote a new editorial). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an idea, though perhaps we can try and persuade Dank to write about reviewing FACs or other content in general. It is sorely needed at the moment. Woody (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

<tongue in cheek> Idea for editorial: why dashes and hyphens drive editors to insanity (see AN/AN3/ANI/Mexico/America for reference material) </tongue cheek> Woody (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay everyone. I believe Dank is going to try and put something together for an editorial, so we'll hold off for a couple more days. Thanks very much, Aussie. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, sounds like a plan. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So, did we ever hear back from our bot operator? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He emailed me yesterday, and he should get to it today or tomorrow. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

April Project News

If anyone can't think of anything, maybe try mentioning bin Laden's death or the fact that the 150th anniversary of Fort Sumter was this April, which marks the start of Operation:Brothers at War, one of our special projects. Buggie111 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest going with the 150th anniversary, since it would give us an opportunity to do some advertising for OBW. (Plus, the Signpost has already published a section on the bin Laden article updates/reader surge/etc., so most of our readers would probably already have seen the material in question.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got some free time tommorrow, so I could write it. Buggie111 (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill, we should really run something on OBW. Feel free to write something up! You might consider linking to Disunion, which editors can use as a source as the NYT comes out with new articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've written it up. Should we start delivering? Buggie111 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Same, I'll let Cbrown know. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Project vs. member news

Both of these sections are pretty short and have been recently. Should we consider combining them into a single page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the point of the project news was to allow some sort of message "from the coordinators" to go out with each issue. I suppose the benefit of retaining it as a section depends primarily on whether we're going to keep publishing such messages. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'd keep that and the awards -- they'd just be on a single page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that would work. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing anything?

I'm going to finish the project news page tonight or tomorrow with the C-class/FL additions and the possible reorganization of our departments. Is there anything else missing? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We're missing summaries for a few of the FAs; everything else looks ready to go. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I got myself wrapped up in a new article and completely forgot about this. I'll get to it later today or early 2 June (UTC). Apologies :/ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

All done now. I've asked Cbrown to send it out. Thanks Kirill Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a book review section

Would there be any interest in adding a book review section to future issues of the Bugle? I could probably contribute a review of a military history book each month (with the review being focused on the quality of the book, especially in relation to its use in Wikipedia articles) and other editors might also be interested in contributing reviews. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reading something like that. Even if we miss a month or two because someone forgets to write one, I feel like that could be a very useful addition. Also, we can list the past reviews on WP:MHNEWS, like the editorials, and editors will be able to browse all of them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; this sounds like a good idea, especially in the context of our discussions about creating a project-wide reference library of some sort. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, excellent. I should have at least one review for you (university work permitting!) within the next week or so. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started on the reviews at User:Nick-D/reviews - I've done one, and intend to do another one or two. What's the cut off date for submissions? Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In principle, it would probably be the end of each month; but I'm sure you know how variable our real schedule is. It really depends on whether you'd prefer to space them out (and thus make sure we have something to run even if you don't write a new one every month) or collect everything that's ready at press time for each release. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to manage one or two reviews a month without any problems. I've just added a second review, and this is now probably good to go - I'll try to review non-WW2 books next month! Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

June newsletter

We're mostly done. I'm going to try to go through the Signpost from the last four weeks to find the Milhist FAs/FLs tomorrow night, but we'll see if that happens... I have 23 hours of work in the next 48 hours, followed by a flight to Boston. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just check the history of the showcase subpages for the past month? Or is the idea to get the pre-written blurbs as well? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yes it would. That's a much better idea. Thanks Kirill! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be getting to this ASAP, but I'm in Boston for the Higher Education Summit with intermittent internet access (the hotel the WMF is putting us up in only has free wifi on the first and second floors...). We also need to wait for WSC to complete the op-ed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we ready to go at this point, or are we still waiting on something? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WSC still hasn't finished, even after two pokes... I may go with a backup and writeup Fifelfoo's plagiarism review. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I replaced it with Fifelfoo's review and have poked Cbrown; it should go out soon. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

July newsletter

Is there anything major that we're missing for the upcoming issue? Or is it just a matter of wrapping up the article descriptions and so forth?

On another note, The Land has asked whether we could mention the National Maritime Museum GLAM collaboration in this issue; I assume there would be no objections to that? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That's on my plate for tonight after a wedding. I've been busy + a rather large DRV/MfD has been sucking my on-wiki time away, sorry. I'll be happy to add something about the NMM collaboration. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've filled in everything that's needed. I'm going to give WSC a day or two to reply to my post on his talk page, and then I'll get it out to the project. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Cbrown's computer is having issues. He emailed me through his IPhone and told me it should be fixed soon. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

September newsletter

So, what do we still need for the upcoming issue? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A decision on whether to sue my editorial or write one about baha. Buggie111 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to write one about bahamut fairly quickly, I think we should probably use the one you've already put together. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How are we doing on the September issue? I see that we still need a few article summaries; is there anything else beyond those that we're missing? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? ;-)

On a somewhat tangential note, I wonder if it might make more sense for us to label each issue with the month of publication rather than the month it covers; for example, the upcoming issue would cover September, but be labeled as the "October 2011" newsletter. Given that we generally publish partway through the subsequent month, this would help make the newsletter seem more timely, rather than giving the perception of being perpetually late. Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that Kirill (and everyone watching this), I've been busy with school and a Signpost interview (that sounds like I'm tootin' my own horn... sorry). Anyway, my only class tomorrow was just canceled, so I'll get to finishing the newsletter then.

I was going to suggest that after this newsletter, actually... It always seemed weird to me that we were (seemingly) a month behind, and that hit home when I showed last month's edition to a real-life friend. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the newsletter's finally out thanks to Ian Rose. Kirill, how would you feel about waiting for the new year to re-month the editions? (i.e. make the December 2011 issue into the January 2012 edition) That seems like a logical place to make a fundamental change like that, and we're pretty close to the end of the year anyway. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Next February I am going to be travelling to Micronesia on an outreach project for Wikimedia Australia. We will be visiting Chuuk, Majuro and Kosrae, and possibly other islands. If there is any material that someone would like like gathered, I can try to obtain it while I am there. Would it be possible to add an note to this effect to the newsletter? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I can add it in the "From the editors" section, or if you have enough information, we can have a separate section for it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:LauraHale wrote one in User:LauraHale/Oceania and MilHist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)