Page semi-protected

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

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


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

Coordinator tasks

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
  • Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
    • Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
    • Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
  • Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
Peer review
A-Class review
Featured content
  • For each new featured content candidacy or review:
    1. Add the candidacy or review to the {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} template.
  • For each concluded featured content candidacy or review:
    1. Remove the candidacy or review from the {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} template and the corresponding section in the review department.
    2. If the content was promoted to featured status (or demoted from it), add it to (or remove it from) the project showcase, and note the promotion in the monthly newsletter if needed.
Quarterly Reviewing Awards
  • 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:
    1. 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.
    2. Tally Good Article Reviews. One method is 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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):
    1. 15+ points – the WikiChevrons
    2. 8–14 points – the Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
    3. 4–7 points – the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes)
    4. 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.
Member affairs

How to...

Boilerplate and templates

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

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:

  • There are a couple of awards outstanding (awaiting handing out). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've taken care of them both - thanks for the reminder. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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 29 January 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/List of frigates of India - open since 23 Oct 16, has a couple of supports but hasn't been able to get a third, while there is also an outstanding oppose. As above, realistically this also needs to be closed as "no consensus". Anotherclown (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • There still seems to be some activity here but it's becoming difficult to tell what has been addressed and what hasn't. I'd suggest asking Sturm to outline his remaining concerns in a new section, and if they're not addressed within (say) a week, we close it. I'm loathe to close it if the third support is within reach. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month

Hi, I'm Addis Wang, one of the organizer of Wikipedia Asian Month, which will happen this November. I would like to invite WikiProject Military history to collaborate with us in hosting Asian Military History Month in November, to encourage editors to help build Wikipedia's coverage of Asian-related Military history articles. This collaboration may also lead to more editors knowing and joining WikiProject Military history as well. On your end, there is not much to do besides encouraging the participants of WikiProject Military history to take part in the Wikipedia Asian Month. The Asian Military History Month will just observe the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month, and have a guide page on the WAM event page. As an example, we currently have an "Asian Women's Month", which is a similar collaboration with Wiki Women in Red. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions regarding the proposal.--AddisWang (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I suppose it wouldn't kill us to make mention of this in The Bugle. Anyone have any questions/comments/suggestions regarding this? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds appropriate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - unfortunately, the Open Tasks section of the Asian Military History Task Force is of no help at the moment for those who might want to participate. Might we want to try to put together more of a list of missing articles to give a bit of guidance? I'm sure there's a lot of opportunities even in relatively heavily-covered topics like the Vietnam and Korean wars, let alone earlier conflicts. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Cool! I just created the guile page here, please feel free to improve it or add anything from the WikiPorject.--AddisWang (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Close request

Would somebody close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/William L. Uanna/1? It was withdrawn by the initiator in June, but needs to be formally closed per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd do it but I commented on the review. Is anybody else free to do this please? Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Mmm, the nominator certainly seems happier but I couldn't see an outright withdrawal on the GAR page, and not sure how much that would count for anyway when some other reviewers have also recommended delisting. Not having closed a GAR before, I'll have to familiarise myself with things before proceeding, so no objections if another uninvolved editor wants to jump in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

MilHistBot and Devon County War Memorial

I was idly browsing when I noticed that MilHistBot seems to have missed a few steps in closing the ACR for Devon County War Memorial. It made eight edits closing the ACR before, but only six for that one. Courtesy ping for @Hawkeye7: so he can look into the technical stuff. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bot was having troubling figuring out who the nominator was. Normally, the nominator card looks like this:
:<small>''Nominator(s): [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|talk]])''</small>
but this one looked like this:
<small>''Nominator(s):'' [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]]</small>
The misplaced pair of quotes was all it took for the Bot to throw its hands up in the air. I have enhanced the bot's error reporting, made its parsing of the nominator card more permissive, and run the script to complete closing the nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Contact Ian Rose, Military Co-ordinator

I'm trying to get a message to Ian Rose, one of the Military Co-ordinators. His Wikipedia entry says 'contact me if you have a question' but I am unable to find anywhere on the site where I can contact him. The Military Co-ordinators page says 'to contact us, leave us a note' and directs to this page. Is this the right place? It seems like I'm editing a talk page, not contacting someone. When I visit the 'User Talk: Ian Rose' page, I get the same problem - it says at the top 'to contact me, please add a new comment' but there's nowhere on the page to add a new comment'. I apologise to Wikipedia for my stupidity. Can anyone help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


Tony Goodman — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Tony, to contact Ian, click on his talk page and then click on the "edit this page" tab on the top of the page. That will allow you to type a message onto Ian's talk page. When you are done, click on the save button at the bottom. Ian's talk page can be found here: User talk:Ian Rose. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Graduation of Indian military history group from incubator

As the founder of the Indian military history group in incubator, I request the project coordinators to have look at the group, graduate it from the incubator with necessary amendments and technical stuff to be done. The group was initiated in June this year, from then to till date the participants count to 14. There are considerable number of good and featured works from the group. I think the group is now ready to sustain as an independent task force. I specifically ping Kirill Lokshin and Hawkeye7 for help into the technical work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I can see you've put in a great deal of effort, but is it really necessary? A number of years ago we had an Indian military task force, but had to merge it into the larger South Asian military history task force. I'm not really sure splitting it out again makes much sense. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me there is some ambiguity that needs to be dealt with, inherent in the statements about the group: (1) It is about the military of the Republic of India (2) The Indian military has a 200 year history. Looking at the limited membership of the South Asian military history task force, most members seem come from or specialize in countries that formed the British Raj, including Sri Lanka and Pakistan. The size of membership of the SEA TF indicates to me that it need'nt be split at this point. Limitation to the current republic's military would seem to exclude military history articles associated with the East India Company (and weren't many of its units Bengali, which would be split between Bangla Desh and India?) or the Mughal Empire, (not to mention British military who spent substantial time in India). --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Lineagegeek and AustralianRupert: Thanks for your opinion. So what would you finally suggest? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that limitation to the Republic of India is too narrow. I see that in the incubator project already includes an article about British/Nepalese VC recipients. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Ex-coordinator comment. I think that this should be retained within the South Asia TF for now. These things wax and wane, if it still has legs in twelve months, I'd re-consider. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Category and Redirect tagging drive

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: other coordinators, how would you feel if we were to make a drive about tagging categories and redirects? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day, the last few years we haven't had many drives, and the limited number we have undertaken have mainly focused on content creation. Is there a particularly pressing concern that would be addressed by focusing our efforts in this regard? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I had proposed a 2017 "march madness" drive with the goal of reducing some our backlogs, redirects, templates with missing B-class info, etc. If you want we can roll that in with this if we decide to move forward with the March Madness drive. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: perhaps this is just because I mainly focus on roman articles, but I come across a lot of untagged categories and redirects, the main problem with this being Cfds or Rfds. I generally think its good to have redirects be tagged, but I'm not sure if others agree with me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Its useful, but by nature boring, maintenance work that doesn't often get much attention. I'd certainly have no issues with including it in "march madness" per Tom's cmt above. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No dramas, then, I'm sure we can find a way to include it in the March 2017 drive (maybe in a similar way to how points have been awarded for task force allocation?). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Sounds good. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert:, I'm good with it too. We had a massive drive last year some time to bring some of the assessment backlogs/task force backlogs up to date. I'm stymied at the task force backlog right now because of the inclusion of the talk pages (mentioned elsewhere), or I'd be on top of it better. auntieruth (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

MILHIST's guideline for notability

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: , ive made a post on the policy page of the village pump about wether MILHISTS guideline should be made official, given that the notability for people page links to it in lieu of its own words. do you think we should seek to establish it as a guideline? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to the MILMOS we have ratified that so its part of the official MOS on Wikipedia. If not then I am unsure what you are talking about, could you leave a link to the post in question? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@TomStar81: G'day, Tom, I believe Iazyges is referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. @Iazyges: Is that correct? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
In that cause its been an official Wikipedia level stylguide for years, per the template you can see [[1]]. I'm not sure when or who decided that this was only an "essay", but we had a big RFC on the matter and it was cleared by the community to be considered part of the style guidelines here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
TomStar81, the style guide and the notability guide are two separate pages; if I recall correctly, the RFC concerned the status of the former, not the latter. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, just so you are aware the style guide is actually currently being discussed elsewhere, which I only stumbled on now. Please see the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#An MoS talk page has been redirected to a wikiproject. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: yes that's what I'm referring to. As our style MOS is a guideline, the notability guide (arguably) should be easier to get it established right? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to get the notability guide accepted before, without success. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: did you do a full RFC and or Village pump policy proposal? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

New Special project?

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Perhaps "Operation Riverine" for the improvement of ships that mostly fought/served in rivers, or else littoral zones. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Since most of the recent US Navy operations in this area have been in boats (which are unlikely to be notable in themselves), shouldn't this include boat units as well? (Full disclosure, my son commanded riverine squadrons and a deployed riverine Joint Task Element). Perhaps, "Operation Brown Water"? --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Lineagegeek: that sound awesome, and much more like an actual operation name. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It's US Navy slang. Brown Water=riverine, Green Water=harbor and coastal, Blue Water=Traditional Seapower. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Are there are group of editors currently working on this topic, or seriously intending to do so? It's generally best for new projects to respond to editing activity, rather than the other way around. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Well I am, I don't know how many others are. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I have the following phases planned

  • I: Ships
The ships and their classes
  • II: Equipment
Any weapon or piece of equipment on it.
  • III: Campaigns (Name suggestions welcome)
Any battle, war, or any event in which two enemies, with at least one being brown water ship, fired on each other.
  • IV:Major Events
Development of them.
  • V:Biographies
Important engineers and admirals/commanding officers
  • VI:Miscellaneous
Anything obviously brown water related that doesn't fit in anything else.

That all looks good, but do we have the people for it? I'm unsure if anyone has done anything meaningful with a brown water fleet on Wikipedia, and therefore I'd be a little gun shy about moving forward with this unless I knew for a fact that there would be people working on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I'll make a post about it on the main talkpage asking if anyones willing to join. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There's the work I've done on Austro-Hungarian/Yugoslav river monitors, but my interest really isn't any wider than that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I hate to be a dampener on such an initiative, but such things have often burnt out very quickly without half-a-dozen or more editors working on them. Without such a support, I wouldn't back it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A-class review boilerplate and MilHistBot

Recently cases of MilHistBot have been observed cases of skipping some steps in closing an A-Class review. This is due to the variance in different signatures by the users. Fortunately, these cases have been detected. But the problem, even in future there may be a sort of this. Because we cannot feed all the types of signatures into the bot'script. So I request the coordinators to change the A-class review boilerplate to a uniform format. I mean, I suggest to change the Nominator(s): field with a standard code that will produce the same for all the users. For example, presently ~~<includeonly></includeonly>~ is used, instead of that {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} may be used, which produces the same format for every nomination and this can loaded to the bot's script. Please share your opinion regarding this. I specially ping the bot operator Hawkeye7 in this context. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a very good idea. It will be a simple change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: So can I make the change? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. I was hoping a coordinator would jump in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this seems like a good idea to me, too. I'd make the change myself, but I have the tech skills of a caveman. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 and AustralianRupert: Done, changed the boilerplate. Before the change, the Nominator(s): field consisted of ~~<includeonly></includeonly>~. I changed this to {{User0|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>REVISIONUSER}}}}, that produces the output before the nomination page for the first time as this: {{User0|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}, so that produces an output Example (talk) when saved for the first time i.e. while creating the nomination page. I've checked the new code, and it is working successfully. Hawkeye, I also request you to have look at the boilerplate and make changes to the bot accordingly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I changed the Bot to recognise this form. It appears to be working okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this seems like a sensible idea to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Didn't have a clue what this meant, so I didn't chime in. The ignorant should stay silent and learn, I believe. auntieruth (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll be keeping an eye on his contribs and rollbacking them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week as those posts are disruptive in my opinion. There are better ways to resolve disputes than hounding people and pasting the same comment everywhere. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Irish Territorials in Peru in early 1950s

I have a friend who was in the Irish territorials who apparently volunteered to go to Peru, he thinks in 1952) to assist the government in the fight against the drug cartels. Does anyone know anythink about this? Cheers ejmcf2407:7000:8505:FB40:98CD:BC26:A864:C1B (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing the image of current A-class

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Right now the image for the "Article currently undergoing A-class review" is [in my opinion] ugly. Henceforth I propose it be changed from Purple question mark.svg to A candidate.svg. It makes more sense, as the "separate slice" part fits in quite nicely with the seperate slice GA and FA symbol (I believe all were made by same person but I may be mistaken.) What do you guys think? 23:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

G'day, this change seems sensible to me. I'd be happy to support so long as there is a consensus. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
An altogether "a"propitiate idea, I think :) I'm on board. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Support The question mark seems entirely off the mark. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Ditto here. Zawed (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
In line with the style of symbol used for a current FAC nom, so support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
And done! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Military historian and newcomer of the year awards

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I apologize for the abruptness of this message, however November was a tough month for me on several fronts. As a result, I forgot to alert the coordinators that our end of the year military historian and newcomer of the year awards need to be run this month. Fortuitously, The Bugle hasn't shipped yet, so we can get a mention in there as well as the project talk page and announcements templates, but the urgent matter now is the timeline for nominations and voting. Given that the nomination came somewhat out of left field, I'd propose that we start the nominations on the 4th and let them run until the 17th, then hold the voting from the 18 to the 31st with the award presentations to be made January 1. Any objections, alternative proposals, or questions? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No issues here. Zawed (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good to me. Thanks for reminding us, Tom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeh, we try to get the Bugle out on day 7 each month... Proposal sounds fine Tom. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No objections here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Alright then, we are live. I've hidden the voting sections with the hide code, if need be we can simply trim out the hidden text if people add to the sections before voting officially starts. Otherwise, its in the community's hands now. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I went through some FACs and ACRs for candidates. If anyone has any other method of surfacing candidates, please jump in! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly well hidden.  :) auntieruth (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with Manchukuo military ranks and insignia

I have created the page for Manchukuo military ranks and insignia, using the images at, I used some interpretation to create it, and would like someone to check for mistakes I may have made. Thanks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

We've been complimented

Check out the last paragraph here. Guess it pays to work on your FA's, huh :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, check out the by line 'how effective the guns were'; thats a pretty good assessment of what the 16"/50 could do to the IJN if they had thrown down on the high seas. (I'm tempted to load that here, but I've no idea about the copyright at present.) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Military historian voting

I may be wrong but shouldn't the voting be open? (Unless I totally missed the thread it mentioned), in either case perhaps the link in announcement should link to this thread. Is it already open or are we late? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I've set it up now, thanks for pointing this out. Please let me know if I got anything wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the voting is getting lost a bit on the talk page: you may want to post some notifications. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: perhaps a mass message to everyone who's on the bugle subscription list? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
We can do that, but I'd hold off until Monday or Tuesday on account of the holiday. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Is this going to be done? The number of votes are rather low at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd support this. Tom's suggestion of waiting until after the holiday seems sensible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, but based on the time stamp, I think Tom meant we should have run it this past Monday - the next one will be after the voting period ends. Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd always intended to send a mass message, I just wanted to burn off enough time to make sure that we weren't rapid firing them (we had a grumble or two over that last year). Since we are down to about 72 hours, and with 24 of those hours occurring over the weekend, I figured we were close enough to the end to officially justify sending a mass message. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


I'd like to make my contribution by translate pages, primarily english-italian, but also italian-english. Lucacosta61 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lucacosta61: thanks for offering your services. You may be able to find some pages you can work on here: Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


I wanted to ask if the recent deletion of the article Ernst Graf Strachwitz was justified as reasoned on the articles talk page. I acknowledge that the community has ruled that the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross does not establish notability under WP:SOLDIER. However, besides being a Knight's Cross recipient, he also was an Austrian politician in post war Austria with significant media and press coverage. A check of the German Wikipedia article de:Ernst Strachwitz gives a good indication.

There is even a dedicated biography

  • Andreas Fraydenegg-Monzello: Die vielen Fronten des Ernst Graf Strachwitz. Eine politische Biografie. Aresverlag, Graz, 2013 ISBN 978-3-902732-18-7.

Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Without really having much of a clue about this guy or the topic area I'd say on the surface of it if there is a recent book on the him (not self published, and independent of the subject) then that would go a long way towards establishing notability per WP:GNG (WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant in my book as it is NOT policy). Certainly it would be enough to suggest that a bold redirect is probably not the best way to handle this, and that a consensus should be achieved on the talkpage at least before doing so. Anyway that is my two cents. Anotherclown (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the implication would be that a book published by Ares Verlag wouldn't be a RS because Ares Verlag (according to de WP) is considered by some to be a right-wing publisher. However, given the man's apparent political career and existence of a book on him, some sort of coverage in RS can be expected, and a bold redirect was definitely not the way to go in this case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The de WP article also links a Der Spiegel article from 1950 which covers his right-wing political activities, and the Austrian parliament website has an entry for him. I'd encourage K.e.coffman to self-revert the redirect in this case. There clearly is enough to justify the article going through the proper AfD channel at the very least. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, even if the source may be biased, a source is enough (in my book) to warrant discussion unless it goes against policy or guidelines. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • G'day, if the subject was elected to a national level parliament then he most likely satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. I believe he was elected to the National Council (Austria), at least that is what was in the article (albeit unsourced) before being redirected. As such, it seems that there would be a prima facie case of notability, IMO, which probably warrants further discussion (including an analysis of the references available to back up further claims of notability). As an aside, the whole point of the bold redirect strategy was to avoid needless AfDs. I believe that it is acceptable to boldly redirect in many cases, although in others it is probably best to discuss first. Which situation applies to a given article will not always be obvious. In this regard, I would argue that WP:BRD applies here. The article was boldly redirected in good faith. Now that the redirect is being questioned it can either be reverted and discussed, or kept in place while further discussion occurs on the talk page. The outcome can either be to keep the redirect by consensus, revert the redirect (with article improvements) by consensus, or send it to AfD if no consensus can be established on the talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I disagree Rupert. I think, given the redirect arrangement is a shortcut of project-wide procedures intended to address situations where the basis for an article was on shaky ground due to a Knight's Cross being the only basis for notability, this is an example of not doing due diligence (there were mentions of his political career in the article before it was redirected, and K.e.coffman should have properly look into that), and the appropriate action at this point is to self-revert and use AfD (if K.e.coffman still thinks deletion or redirect is appropriate). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with a revert in this case; I restored the article and added Cn tag for the uncited material. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing of A-class symbols

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I ran across Symbol support2 vote.svg and GA candidate2.svg and though they might be a better symbol than the current Symbol a class.svg due to it looking more like a GA symbol. Whether or not that's something we are looking for is the question. Thoughts? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there would be any benefit to associating A-Class more closely with GA—we've generally tried to do the opposite and represent it as a very distinct, MILHIST-specific process. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kirill Lokshin: However, the current A-class symbol is widespread and used by many projects, even if it isn't organized with a review system. Perhaps A Class Symbol.svg could work to show the MILHIST A-class as unique? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
That would just exchange one "letter A in a circle" image for another, no? What would be the benefit of making the change? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Being the only wikiproject that does it would set us apart from the others, just as our review process sets us apart from others in terms of A-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think using a similar-yet-slightly-different image would be effective in conveying that point; I suspect viewers would be more likely to assume that the inconsistency was accidental. More generally, I'm not convinced it's a point we really need or want to make at this juncture, in any case; note that there are indeed formal A-Class reviews run by other projects (e.g. WP:HWY/ACR), and there's no reason for us to start a debate about whether our process is "unique" vis-à-vis theirs. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I can see the logic in that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we don't want to associate A-Class with GA, we very definitely see it as a significant step-up from GA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Category: Talk etc....

These pages are all showing up in the backlog of unassigned task forces.....Thousands.... WEll,hundreds at least. Are we actually assigning talk pages of categories to task forces? What's going on here? Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We enabled the no-assigned-task-force tag for non-article pages last year. It would be easy enough to turn it off for categories, if we don't care about those not having associated task forces; do we want to do that? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be turned off for the talk pages. We can reach those easily enough by searching on the article space. Right now it's impossible (at least for me) to find articles that need task forces, because they are hidden among the talk pages. auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've disabled the tracking category generation for category pages; Category:Military history articles with no associated task force should clear out in a few days. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiki academy

I'm working on an article about writing a B level article. Hmmm. It's been on the to-do list above for a while. auntieruth (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll "B" waiting to see that ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Greco-Italian War

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Looking at the logs for the Greco-Italian War, I notice that each time the protection disappears we end up dealing with ghosts emanating from AnnalesSchool's grave. At this point, given that this has been ongoing for a year, would there be any objection to formally introducing a permanent protection level for the article, like semi-protection of pending changes? This is getting old, and I for one am sick of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the disruption justifies it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Materialscientist beat you to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
True, but that's not indef protection. Personally, I'd have put perment semi-protection in the article, but I wanted some feedback first since pending changes (which I do not use) could be a viable substitute here. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Protection as proposed looks justified to me. The editors working there in good faith (and the Admins that have to help them) have far better things to do than dealing with this almost constant disruption. Anotherclown (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Pending changes wouldn't be optimum here as it would potentially lead AnnalesSchool to believe that they can get something into the article. Long-term semi protection is more in line with WP:DENY. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with it. never understood the mania about it. auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oct to Dec 16 review tallies

Username GAN PR ACR FAC Total Awarded
Anotherclown 2 0 9 0 11 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 2 1 23 4 30 Zawed (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Dank 0 2 17 11 29 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles 0 0 6 2 8 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 1 0 2 0 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Ian Rose 2 0 10 2 14 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Nick-D 3 0 2 1 6 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 0 1 14 13 28 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 10 0 4 2 16 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Zawed 5 0 1 0 6 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
LavaBaron 0 0 4 0 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Lineagegeek 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Lingzhi 0 0 3 0 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Llammakey 1 0 1 0 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga 39 0 6 0 45 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Parsecboy 3 0 3 1 7 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Kges1901 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The Bounder 0 0 4 3 7 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell 0 0 1 2 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Errant 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Euryalus 0 0 1 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thryduulf 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009 1 0 2 0 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Iazyges 0 2 1 1 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Monstrelet 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, it is time to tally up the quarterly reviews and hand out the reviewers' awards. I've made a start by tallying up the Milhist ACR reviews. Can someone else have a look at the PRs, GANs and FACs for the editors listed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done PR and FAC, feel free to double-check. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikki, I'm currently working on tallying the GANs using the listings/delistings by Milhist bot on {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}, followed by a manual check of each review. It's a bit of a slow process, but I should hopefully have some numbers in the next hour or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Added GANs now... I just want to check the PRs again, though, as I think a couple might have been missed due to the issue with Veblenbot. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
My mistake, the peer review totals match my tally, sorry. I've added the totals now. Probably best to leave these sit for a day or so for people to repecharge if need be, then we can start handing out the awards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: G'day Ian, I already had you down for the GA review of Wilhelm D. Styer. Did I miss another one? My source file listed 88 GAN reviews (passes and fails) completed in the Oct - Dec 16 period with one for yourself. Admittedly, the source relies on Milhist bot updating the MILHIST Announcements template, and my own eyes picking up the (sometimes not readily discernable) changes, and then manually checking each review page, so it is certainly possible I missed one or two. But for my peace of mind, which one did I miss? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Tks for checking, Rupert... The other one is Rogožarski IK-3, passed on 10 October -- I was the third and final reviewer (the others aren't in our list, presumably they didn't do any ACRs). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see, it looks like a few people got in on that one...I'll have to admit that at 1 this morning my eyes failed me. Sorry. Are there any other concerns? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I will start handing out the awards now, starting from the highest to lowest. If anyone is keen to help out, please start on the lowest numbers and we can meet someone in the middle. The awards are handed out on the following schedule:

  • 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)

The templates can be found at the top of this talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • AR, I have attended to your award, cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Images on military navigation templates

I was wondering why {{military navigation}} supports the parameter "image" if a well defining image keeps getting deleted. See Template:Knight's Cross recipients of JG 52, or Template:Knight's Cross recipients of JG 1. Please advise, I don't believe this to be violating policies? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest this and similar topics be raised at the main discussion page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history rather than here, as this is not an internal MilHist coordinator matter. This would ensure wider community input. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: If we are going to move forward with a march madness drive, then this is the time we really need to start thinking about it. At a minimum, a backlog reduction drive would be a great help to the project to help clear out the ever growing number of articles and such that need help with tagging and assessing and such. We could also stand a lap through our GA, A, and FA class articles to make sure that all the usually stuff we check for in the A and FA toolbox is present and accounted for (I know my own Iowa class battleships have a number of links that have gone red since the last check, which is not good for FA retention). Given all this, I'd like to open the discussion with the following points:

  • Do we want to move forward with this?
  • If yes then do we want to do tagging and assessing, article maintenance, template fixing, etc, or do we want to stick with just one thing?
  • Assuming yes to 1 and we figure out 2, do we want to invite other projects to join us? Among other groups we share content with SHIPS and a number of national task forces, so if we want to move forward it may be worth seeing if they want to spin up their members for an independent tag and assess project.
  • If we are moving forward, what are we going to offer for a reward?

I'd welcome all feedback on these points, and if anyone has any suggestions or counter proposals I'd be happy to hear them. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we want to do checks of GA, A, FA stuff, and backlog reduction. I think the best way to do that would to have a table of sorts of point values. Now as tagging/assessing is much faster than either of the checks, it will have to be worth much less per action. I don't know if a spin off is needed, we could attempt to centralize the process (hold the entire competition) and have people say what wikiproject they were representing. We would obviously need the approval of the other wikiprojects for this. While I think a cash-prize would normally be the best prize, that seems wrong for a reason I can't put my finger on, perhaps all of the wikiprojects give out their own awards, which would be the wikiprojects own, with the exception of if a non-MILHIST won 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, and got a MILHIST award. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I think pastdrives have awarded [[File:Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif|100px]] and various levels of the Wiki Chevrons. Those seem appropriate. The devil is probably going to be in determining the levels for awards. Question: If we invite other projects, will credit be limited to shared articles? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
G'day, to provide reference to past drives, here are what some of our past drives have looked like these: Mar 11, Feb 14, Sep 14, and Oct 15 (I might have missed one somewhere in there also, sorry). I'm uncertain as to my involvement this time, as March - Apr is a peak work period for me, so I will potentially be away for some or all of it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Right out of the gate we can offer the three "service award" chevron variants listed in the awards section, along with the wikiproject barnstar, the epic barnstar (history related topics), and the chevrons. We can fine tune what we award based on where the need is greatest, but the regular barnstar, tireless contributor barnstar, and epic barnstar will likely be part of that conversation. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The gold, silver and bronze wikis have always been my favourite. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Well naturally those would go the first, second and third place overall :) No way we wold leave those out, they are way too important - particularly for those still trying to obtain one. If you like I can put together a sample award list so everyone can get a sense for what we would award, but we still need to determine if there is enough interest here to warrant running scripts and such to assemble a list to run a drive. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Coming in late but in response to your initial question Tom yes I'd support doing some kind of backlog drive along the lines of past efforts with awards being the same or similar to what we did last time. Trying to get other projects involved (i.e. SHIPS, Aviation, national projects etc) sounds like a good idea and will hopefully increase participation (as this seems to have been on the decline over the last few years as far as I can tell and is the critical vulnerability of any initiative). Anotherclown (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy with members of other projects being invited to participate where there is overlap e.g. Ships, Aviation, Firearms, etc, also (although I think the drive should be Milhist co-ordinated as it would fast become unwieldy to expect other Wikiprojects to co-ordinate their ends, IMO). The more, the merrier. The main issue, I think is the focus of the drive. Is it on content creation, or housekeeping tasks, or both? The housekeeping task lists are easily generated (per the other drives, but we could also include some sort of A-class article standards check - although, I think this needs to be considered in more detail though, because there are some implications that need to be explored). The downside of focusing on just housekeeping, though, I think is that potentially such a drive would be a little uninspiring. A mixed housekeeping and content creation drive might be more appealing. So potentially we could include the missing article lists as discussed on the main Milhist talk page, and the requested articles lists on the individual task force pages, e.g. {{tl:WPMILHIST Announcements/German military history}} (as such points could be awarded for killing off red links). Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I like that idea; it lets us work on both fronts and we benefit in the long run by reducing our overhead and adding content to the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes that works for me too. Anotherclown (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
March madness sounds great. I'm happy to have other projects invited, since they also invite us to participate in their drives.auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Alright then we all seem to be in agreement that the drive is a good idea. Next step then is generating lists to work off of. I know for a fact that I am going to be working on my quality content, and we definitely have a plenty of articles with B-class checklists that need to be completed. We should also mention something in the Bugle about the drive to see if we can't drum up some support. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: If we are moving forward with this then we need to get it set up within the next two weeks. So far we seem to be in consensus that it ought to be on two lines

  • A tag and assess line to help reduce our back logs and get our articles tagged with the milhist tempalte and updated as needed;
  • An evolution of quality content line aimed at our GA, A, and FA class articles to make sure that they are still up to the current quality standards, in particular looking to address link rot and to ensure that the citations and the other referenced material is still where it needs to be.

Are we missing anything to the above? If not then we need to put our assessment department page on notice so we can get the relevant lists from the automated processes and put them out for editors to adopt and go through. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Tom, I believe that we were also going to include the missing article lists from each of the task forces. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Other than the missing article list, as mentioned by Australian Rupert, I can think of nothing we've missed. I'll take a look at the missing lists and see if any of the stuff can be removed. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, I am currently working on setting up the drive page here: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military history/March Madness 2017. All input welcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day, could I please ask that some other co-ords take a look at this to see if we are all happy with this set up? Also, are we happy to start advertising this? I'd suggest leaving a generic message on the main project talk pages at Ships, Firearms and Milhist, and also possibly to send out a mass message to Milhist project members. Are there any additions to this, or concerns about this approach? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks Good! No complaints here, other than the complaint that its too early to start working towards those awards :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems like it's ready to go. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
One additional though for advertising: we can include a mention int eh forthcoming bugle edition. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, thanks for your assistance. I've added notes on the Milhist, Ships, Firearms, Tanks and Aviation project talk pages. I've also added a quick note to the next issue of The Bugle. I'm not actually sure how to do a mass message, though. @TomStar81: do you know how to do this? If so, would you mind putting something together, or letting me know how to go about doing so? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I've gone ahead and sent the mass message. As an FYI though, I thought something like this may come up, so I had created an academy course so others who needed to could send a mass message. If you get a chance I could use some feedback on how user friendly the academy page is, to my knowlage I'm the only one whose ever fiddled with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom, the course looks good to me. I will use it next time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment / question -- I've collected a number of names of notable military historians who are covered in but not in Could I add them to the March Madness list of requested articles under "Historiography"? Alternatively, I could provide the list here. Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Stub list

I have made a list of all the stub templates that apply to MILHIST here. Where do you guys think it would be a good place to put a link to it? I thought Assessment might make sense. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I have added a link to the list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Writing a good stub. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerning He Who Shall Not Be Named...

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Given that recently we've been getting increased isp activity, and since the sock log grows ever larger with said isp edits, would it be possible (or even advisable) to entertain a rangeblock to stop the disruptive editing? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Tom. I will admit that I was thoroughly confused by the information here, so I can't say I'm technically proficient in this area. Nevertheless, how big would the range be that you are proposing on blocking? If the range is too broad, won't we risk inadvertently blocking non related IP editors? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I have requested a edit filter for him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


G'day all, based on criticisms that I am seeing at various places such as WP:GAR and WP:FLC I am getting the sense that my reviews of various project-related articles are either missing a lot, or out of touch with wider Wikipedia expectations. As I do not want to disadvantage our content contributors by setting them up for failure at a later date, I will be taking a break from reviewing at GAN, ACR and FAC for an indefinite period. It is my hope that this will encourage newer editors perhaps with fresher ideas to get involved earlier in the review process to prevent major problems arising at higher levels. I will still potentially help with minor edits to candidate articles here and there, but will not be commenting on review pages directly for awhile. (Caveat: If I have offered a review prior to now, but not provided a "support" yet, I will return to the article once the issues are dealt with, but otherwise I won't be starting any new reviews.) Anyway, apologies for any angst that this may cause. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that AR. I've always found your reviews to be quite robust, comprehensive and helpful, particularly as I was starting out in Milhist. Hopefully, your reviewing break will just be a short-term loss to the project. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This certainly hasn't been my impression of your reviews AR. I'm always pleased when you review one of "my" articles as you always provide thoughtful and highly useful comments and spot areas where the article can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Zawed and Nick -- Rupert, I don't know why anyone would criticise your reviews and, speaking as both editor and coord, I'd be very sorry to lose your commentary from the GA, A-Class or FA processes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rupert, sometimes a break can be good. We all need to recharge every now and again and hopefully you'll come back with fresher eyes. But certainly I've always appreciated your reviews. Do you mind sharing with us the problems that have led you to this? As coordinators we administer the A-class process and most of us are regular nominators and reviewers so it would be helpful to know if there are things that we're not picking up that are causing nominators a headache further up the review process. Btw, I find that burying myself in article-writing and ignoring the projectspace can be very therapeutic when the projectspace gets on my nerves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
All good points, thank you. Rather than anything specific, it is more the general gist of a number of recent reviews of project-related lists and articles at FLC, even FA and at GA Reassessment demonstrate to me that it is time for me to step back a bit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, I have always valued your incisive and value-added reviews and the gentle guidance you and others provided me when I joined the project more than five years ago. I fail to see how anyone would think your involvement in reviews at any level was anything other than a significant positive. Don't listen to the knockers mate, and take a break if that's what you need. I for one will welcome you back to reviewing when you feel ready to leap back into the fray. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Old ACRs

The three oldest ACRS have all been open for over two months. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward William Purvis hasn't been edited since my oppose three weeks ago; understandable, since the sources just don't appear to be available but it probably needs closing by an uninvolved coord. The other two (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of frigates of India and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Indian naval air squadrons) are both from the same nominator, who also has Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sam Manekshaw open (nominated six weeks ago). The list of squadrons appears to be struggling for lack of input; the other two both have reviews with feedback that hasn't been actioned for over ten days. I suggest we close two, or at least one, to allow the nominator to focus on the remaining one and then re-nominate the other(s) when they're less busy. I'm also tempted to suggest that we impose a "one at a time rule" like FAC, but that seems a bit drastic so instead I'd suggest we ask nominators to wait until their first nomination is making good progress until nominating a second, and I think we should prod nominators and (if necessary) close reviews if nominators aren't responding to feedback once the review has gone past 28 days. I'm a big supporter of leaving reviews open for as long as they're generating useful feedback and I'm loathe to close a review for lack of input, but it's not fair to reviewers to let reviews stagnate. Thoughts? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Harry, thanks for these comments. Overall, I agree we need to do something to prevent the review process from stagnating. Limiting the number of nominations per editor might be a way, but if we were to do that, I think it should potentially be higher than one at a time per nom (I'd probably argue three at a time), but that is just my opinion. Regarding the current stagnant reviews (frigates and naval air squadrons), I'd suggest pinging the nominator, but if they don't respond within a week or so, then close them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

US Navy A class review

What should be done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States Navy? The article is clearly not of A-class standard and the nominator is not in a position to bring it up to scratch. I'm inclined to delete it rather than archive it, but I wanted to check whether anyone has any objections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair call, Harry -- I wouldn't even call it B-Class given the missing citations. Don't think I've ever handled an out-of-process ACR but in FAC, FWIW, I generally just TNT OOP noms (jeez, is that enough acronyms or what?!) that I get to before anyone has commented. If someone has commented, I generally go through the normal archiving process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobody's objected in nearly 24 hours so I've deleted it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)