Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

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


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

Coordinator tasks[edit]

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

Boilerplate and templates[edit]

Open tasks[edit]

Topics for future discussion[edit]

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

Missing academy articles[edit]

Open award nominations[edit]

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

  • Cplakidas for the A-Class medal with Swords. Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

ACRs for closure[edit]

All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either the promotion or non-promotion of the article under review. Any A-Class review filed on or before 24 August may be closed by an uninvolved coordinator. A guide to manually closing A-Class reviews is available, but normally the closing coordinator just needs to change A-Class=current in the {{WPMILHIST}} banner to A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail. Please wait 24 hours after a review is listed here before closing it to allow time for last-minute reviews.


Oct to Dec 16 review tallies[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

@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)


Good afternoon all, I have tallied up the entries for March Madness now, as per below. Could I please get some help with handing out the awards? Thank you. Please sign the "Awarded (sig)" field once done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Username Points Placing Entitlement Awarded (sig)
Anotherclown 109 Three Stripes AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Arius1998 353 Three Stripes AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
AuntieRuth 297 Three Stripes AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 840 Tireless Contributor Awarded by DPdH
Catlemur 702 WikiChevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
DPdH 1,365 2nd Silver Wiki
Working Man's Barnstar
AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
HerodotusTheFraud 524 WikiChevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Iazyges 260 Three Stripes Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Janweh64 37 One Stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
K.e.coffman 779 Tireless Contributor AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Kges1901 1,788 1st Golden Wiki
Barnstar of Diligence
AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga 16 N/A N/A
Lineagegeek 214 Three Stripes Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Lord Ics 231 Three Stripes Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Mifter 66 Two Stripes AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Molestash 196 Three Stripes Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Newm30 15 N/A N/A
Peacemaker67 122 Three Stripes Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
StatGuru 408 Three Stripes Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 153 Three Stripes Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Randomness74 145 Three Stripes Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
TeriEmbrey 15 N/A N/A
Trilotat 1,297 3rd Bronze Wiki
Working Man's Barnstar
AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Washoe the Wise 25 One Stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Yulun5566 12 N/A N/A
Zeromonk 50 Two Stripes AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
ZLEA 105 Three Stripes AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There has been a lot of collective effort in this drive, thanks to all that participated. And especially to the drive coordinators. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It was also great to see quite a few unfamiliar names. Thank you to everyone. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Stats would be available?[edit]

Hi, is there any plan to publish stats summatizing outcomes for this drive? Would be quite enlightening. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, sorry I missed this earlier. No, at this stage I don't have any plans in this area. Happy if others wish to pursue something, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Stub list[edit]

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...[edit]

@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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Feb Contest[edit]

I've tallied up the scores and updated the leader board for last month's contest. And I've handed out the runner-up's award, but can somebody handle the winner's award? My delicate sensibilities don't extend to giving it to myself!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Sturm. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Death on the Rock is TFA tomorrow[edit]

Hi folks. I'd really appreciate sensible eyes on the above article during its 'day in the sun' tomorrow. With the combination of the sensitive subject matter and the internal wiki-controversy over Gibraltar, I wouldn't be surprised if it attracted less-than-helpful edits but I'll have very limited availability tomorrow. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

March Newsletter[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We usually like to have our project news letter out around the 7th, its now the 10th, and it looks like the newsletter could still use some assembly. Therefore, I'm pinging everyone to see if there is anything else any of us can do to get this out before week's end. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I'm sure that Ian and I will be able to get it out this weekend. Please bear in mind that we both work full time so sometimes there can be a few day's slippage depending on how the weekends align with the target date (we were a bit early last month due to the timing of the weekends). If other folks would like to contribute it would, of course, be very welcome as always. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Of corse. It's more a 'don't forget about it' message than a 'why hasn't it gone out yet message'. And speaking of messages, this is the first one to be posted by me on my new iPad. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we're still very much committed to getting it out the first week of each month but RL went a bit crazy this time -- should be able to despatch tonight Sydney time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Otto Schultz[edit]

May I ask the coordinators to check if we have a violation of WP:3RR on the article Otto Schultz article? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of 3RR violation, but I do see an edit war dangerously close to breaking out. If I see any further reverting I think I'll raise the matter of page protection for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

trying to make the red link to open discuss work[edit]

on Names_inscribed_on_the_Equestrian_statue_of_Frederick_the_Great list. I've had this problem before, and simply cannot get the wikiproject box to open on this page: Talk:Names_inscribed_on_the_Equestrian_statue_of_Frederick_the_Great there is nothing to force the "additional information" to drop down.  :( auntieruth (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

and yes, I've cleared cache, restarted machine, used different browsers, and once a different computer. It might be something in my account settings? auntieruth (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Or perhaps an unidentified error in the Wikipedia-related software. Occasionally I have this problem with safety settings, my computer won't let me open something because it doesn't trust the site. @Auntieruth55: I assume the red link in question is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Names inscribed on the Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great; I was able to get to it without a problem. I've left it here for you if you need it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@TomStar81: well, I didn't get safety notices, just nothing.  :( I got this to work, but it took finagling....Had to create the entry forms from scratch too. But it works now.  :) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't work now. Could someone help me please? auntieruth (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Anyone got any bright ideas? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: Is there another article that you see this error on? It might help if I can compare a couple. Otherwise, sorry I really don't know what is causing this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, any chance that something is disabling JavaScript for you? That could certainly cause some of the "interactive" templates to not work correctly. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

() @TomStar81: @Kirill Lokshin: I don't see an error message. The [ show ] just doesn't work. I can click it to the cows come home, open new window, etc, and it still doesn't show me anything. I cannot expand collapsed lists either. And Kirill, I have no idea if something has disabled Javascript, but I also don't know where to look. I keep it up-to-date, though. auntieruth (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

More reviewers requested at A-class review[edit]

(Copying here from WT:MILHIST since I sort of posted this in the name of the coords, and because several of us are active reviewers)

Hello, if anyone has some time to spare, several nominations for A-class at WP:MHACR are in need of another reviewer or two to help move things along. The following have been open for a while and are close to promotion but are waiting for more feedback:

If you have time to review one or more of these, the coordinators, and I'm sure the nominators, would be very grateful! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What effort involves this kind of review? If requires checking against cited sources, i won't have access to most of them. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi DPdH, generally I just read through and look for anything that catches my eye—a statement that doesn't seem quite right, something that lacks a reference, a lack of detail here, excessive detail there, choppy prose. Then I make a note of it at the review for the nominator to address. The more of them you do, the more easily you spot problems. And I find looking for flaws in other people's writing makes me a better writer myself. I'm sure any input you had would be appreciated! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, will have a go soon. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There are also several things that all articles need to have reviewed, like image licensing and referencing. If you can get a decent grasp of copyright law, that's a good way to contribute to reviews. And checking reference formatting and running the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector is easy enough too. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Editnotice templates for our quality content?[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Awhile back I had suggested that perhaps it may be a good idea to entertain adding edit notices to our FA, A, and GA class articles with a quick cover of what editors to the site - and in particular the new or guest contributors - would need to observe if they were going to add or subtract information from one of our FA, A, or GA class articles. In light of the fact that my jury duty ended up getting waived, I thought I might revisit this idea and make a formal proposal to the coordinators about whether there would be any interest in moving forward with the idea. I generated prototype templates for the edit notices based on each of the three class levels, placing them here for feedback. Keep in mind that these are merely examples, if we decide to adopt the idea of editnotices for quality content the templates below would no doubt be fiddled with before moving out, and of course we'd likely need to seek community consensus to move forward with this idea as well. Additionally, some of the quality content we have may end up needing additional information in the template if this proposal is adopted; for example, our World War II article notes the article to be written in British English, while Death of Osama bin Laden notes that the article's subject was controversial, and asks editors to take their concerns over reverted or removed material to the talk page for discussion and consensus. The prototype templates are below, and I would welcome any feedback on the idea and/or the templates (or both, if you like). TomStar81 (Talk) 22:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea (I won't be able to respond to this within the next few days, most likely). -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I can see value in it certainly and would be happy to offer my support to the proposal. The only immediate issue I can see is the possibility of other projects misunderstanding it as some attempt to assert ownership given the words "You are about to edit a Military history WikiProject ... FA/A/GA etc". It seems that someone somewhere always gets their delicates bunched up over such trivialities. I may not be right in this case though of course. Anotherclown (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
G'day, I'd echo AC's point. Overall, I'm comfortable with the edit notice, but suggest just removing the Milhist bit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
That was my reaction too - might easily be perceived as an ownership thing. Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I've amended the templates to remove the specific mention of milhist (although in fairness the a-class template could probably remained milhist specific). How's this? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
They look good to me, Tom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry guys but you'll never get consensus for these. I'd oppose it for GAs because GAs are often still a work in progress and the review process lacks rigour; others would oppose it for A-class because it's a project-specific thing and not audited by the community as a whole (the same reason we're not allowed to put the A-class symbol a the top of the article). You might get consensus for it for FAs if it was discussed at WT:FAC or a similar venue. But, the current versions won't work. They're too big and too wordy and contain an overwhelming amount of information. Imagine if you Googled something, got to a Wikipedia article that happened to be an FA, went to fix a typo and were confronted with that. Even the talk page banners for FA and GA are much shorter and sweeter and more inviting (the FA banner says "if you can improve it, please do so"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nothing says we can't give this a trial run in our own article space to gather feedback on the idea (say about 30 days or so). As for the talk page banners, I can not argue that point; those are much more welcoming and simultaneously almost useless since beyond linking to WP:BOLD they would not be seen by editors in the mainspace before the add or subtract and save their reversion(s) and offer no advise for those who would edit the article about how to make sure their edits are not reverted for compromising the article's FA-based integrity, whereas these arguably offer too much advise, which in turns risks confusing would be contributors, or worse, scaring them off from actually editing quality articles altogether. Incidentally, the three above templates and the talk page template you point out also exclude certain article specific issues (such as the ongoing date reversions at General of the Armies for George Washington and the constant attempts at adding Metal Gear Solid 4 information to the battleship Missouri article), all of which are done by editors in good faith and reverted with a cacophony of groans by the rest of us who know this waltz and are tired of round about it brings. Given a chance, I think something like this would be welcomed by the community to a greater or lesser extent, but to what extent they would be helpful and how much they actually help are up for debate. In any event, the community would need to sign off on this before we move forward with it, assuming we generate enough consensus here to move forward with this, so there's still time for additional input and debate on the matter both among ourselves and between us an the community before we take any definitive action on this. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 17 review tallies[edit]

Username GAN PR ACR FAC Total Entitlement Awarded
Anotherclown 0 0 4 0 4 Milhist 2-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Dank 0 2 3 6 11 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles 0 0 2 0 2 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 0 1 4 0 5 Milhist 2-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nick-D 0 1 3 0 4 Milhist 2-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 0 3 14 10 27 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 17 6 1 24 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Zawed 5 0 2 0 7 Milhist 2-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Lingzhi 0 1 2 0 3 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Llammakey 0 0 1 0 1 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga 41 0 2 0 43 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Parsecboy 2 1 6 2 11 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The Bounder 0 0 7 2 9 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell 0 0 7 1 8 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009 0 1 1 0 2 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Auntieruth 4 0 4 1 9 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt 0 0 1 1 2 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
DarjeelingTea 0 0 2 0 2 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
TomStar81 0 0 1 0 1 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Constantine 0 0 1 0 1 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Mr_rnddude 0 0 1 0 1 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 21 0 7 4 32 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 8 April 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? Please do not list any reviews for me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Tks Rupert, I'll tally the FACs if others could pls look at GAN and PR. I'd like to despatch the Bugle today and we usually mention these, so be great if totals were complete before it goes out. BTW Rupert, your reviewing effort is an example to all of us and I think should be tallied... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Ian. I'll do GANs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
GANs done, feel free to repechage if I've counted wrong, my eyes are spinning... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Ditto (all round) for FACs... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Awards have been handed out. Thank you Ian and PM for helping with the tallying. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Inactive for finals[edit]

Just wanted to notify everyone that I will be inactive until Finals are over. I will pop in occasionally, but won't be available for anything big for a while. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Best of luck. Anotherclown (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No worries, good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

issue on use of military ranks in articles[edit]

Recently an editor took it upon himself to remove ranks from the senior staff listed in the article on "The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina"; the excuse was that the wiki guidelines do not allow for use of 'titles or honoraria' but makes no mention of military rank. Military ranks are clearly a special category that is not a title or honoraria, in the U.S. military officers are commissioned by the President of the United States and the rule has long been that they are entitled to be addressed by their rank whether active or retired. Especially when an article has to do with some military topic common sense dictates it is clearly appropriate and logical to use military rank, also not the rule not only does not address military rank it states that "we AVOID using titles and honoraria". Subsequently someone, presumably an administrator has remove ranks from all military personnel in wiki articles.

Logic dictates that unless something is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED it is acceptable. This seems to be consistent with what I have seen from many wiki editors who are biased, don't use common sense and in some cases make decisions based on a vendetta against posters who disagree with them. There clearly needs to be a fair and unbiased discussion about this issue and some common sense needs to prevail.Bob80q (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

One of the things that give Wikipedia such a sharp learning curve is the unwritten precedences, such as the rule that unfinished ships usually don't get their own articles, single-ship classes take up the article of the ship in them, etc. I believe the ranks being removed follows set precedent, but I could be mistaken.-- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Upon further review, I was in fact mistaken, please see Hawkeye and ignore me. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Military ranks are specifically permitted. See MOS:MILTERMS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
They are also not honorific titles, so the MOS page the editor in question cited is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently, the English Wikipedia has more than 50 official policies with a word count close to 150,000 (enough for a thick book). But that’s just the tip of the administrative iceberg. In addition to the policies, there are guidelines and essays—more than 450 devoted solely to proper conduct. You will also find more than 1,200 essays containing comments on the policies and guidelines, advisory notes, and analyses of the community. The total word count for all guidelines and essays can easily be in the magnitude of millions. It is safe to assume that no one in the world knows them all, and that Wikipedians really wallow in creating norms and regulations. [1]

Need help updating a wiki biography page[edit]

Hi, I'm new at this and am not sure how to update a Wiki page for someone. I was wondering if someone can help with updating a Military biography page with adding awards and such. I also have a higher resolution picture of the individual as well. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSCUSN (talkcontribs) 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on which page you were looking at. Does you person have an article here? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Derelict ACR[edit]

Hey all, you might have noticed that Sturmvogel has gone missing. It's been 2 months since he last edited, and as far as I am aware has not reached out to anyone off-wiki (I know that Ed emailed him a few weeks ago and got no response). A few of us were able to take care of the GA reviews he had pending, either reviews he started but did not finish or articles he had nominated. There remains Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909), which has been open for over 2 months now. What do we want to do with it? Does anyone have any interest in handling comments from reviewers? Or should we just archive it? Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I have had a go at making a few of the changes suggested on the review page, but unfortunately I don't have any sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes I'd say that's going to be an issue for anyone that tries to help out with this one. As such I propose closing for now, it can always be renominated in the future if applicable. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In Sturm's absence, I think that's the right course of action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I've closed this now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for following this one up. Hopefully Sturm is back soon. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

April to June 2017 review tallies[edit]

Username GAN PR ACR FAC Total Entitlement Awarded
Anotherclown 1 0 6 1 8 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Dank 0 0 3 14 17 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles 0 0 2 0 2 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 0 1 6 2 9 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Nick-D 1 1 3 4 9 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 0 4 8 19 31 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 10 0 9 7 26 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Lingzhi 0 1 5 0 6 Milhist 2-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Llammakey 0 0 2 0 2 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga 8 0 2 0 10 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Parsecboy 0 0 8 2 10 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The Bounder 0 0 5 2 7 Milhist 2-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell 0 1 7 2 10 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009 3 0 5 4 12 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Auntieruth 5 1 6 5 17 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler 0 0 1 1 2 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
TomStar81 0 0 3 0 3 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Constantine 0 0 1 0 1 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Eye Truth 0 0 1 0 1 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 1 0 5 4 10 Content Review Medal AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Kees08 0 0 3 0 3 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Ian Rose 1 0 3 3 7 Milhist 2-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Iazyges 10 0 4 1 15 Wikichevrons AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Vami IV 0 0 1 0 1 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 0 0 1 0 1 Milhist 1-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
K.e.coffman 1 0 3 1 5 Milhist 2-stripe AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 0 2 13 2 17 Wikichevrons Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 8 July 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 (apologies if I missed any – it is tallied by the Mark I Eyeball so it is prone to error – if I have missed one, please let me know). Can someone else have a look at the PRs, GANs and FACs for the editors listed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
GAN reviews done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll do FACs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've caught all the PRs too now. As with the FAC count, if anyone thinks they've been missed out pls shout. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
List of sunken battleships is not an ACR, it is an FLR. –Vami_IV✠ 16:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure what impact this might have on the tallies above -- can you clarify? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Featured List Review. –Vami_IV✠ 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean by FLR (technically it's FLC, Featured List Candidate, by the way) but I don't understand the significance of your comment -- the list above is saying you reviewed an article that was at ACR, not that you nominated one there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
G'day Vami, I believe you reviewed this ACR: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Benbow (1913). As it was opened in April and closed in June, it is included in this quarter. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Needing help with Cold War WikiProject[edit]

I am currently revamping the Cold War WikiProject and I was wondering if anyone could help me especially since this is the first time I am working on a WikiProject. Also, I noticed that this WikiProject has a Cold War taskforce which is why I am asking for help from this group. Please let me know by writing a comment on this post or on my talk page. Thanks Karthanitesh (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A few things for consideration[edit]

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

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

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

G'day, Tom, thanks for this. I don't have anything else to add, but am happy with your proposals above, including the edit notice above. (I am not personally particularly wedded to it, but am happy for it to be put to the community to test the waters so to speak). I probably won't be nominating for co-ord this year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It is also a good time to think about award noms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have started work on the election page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017. Can someone in the know please check that I set up the status sub page correctly (I suspect I might have mucked it up while copying it). Please be aware that I went for slightly different dates so that we conform with the 2016 page, which said that the co-ords hold their position until 29 September. This resulted in slightly longer nomination and voting periods, which is probably not a bad thing. Happy to go with different dates, though, if there are concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Everything looks right, but I confess I've never been able to put one of these pages together fully without help from Kirill Lokshin. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom. @Kirill Lokshin: G'day, Kirill, would you mind checking the coding on the sub pages for me? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I've checked over the coding, and I think we're good to go. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirill. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the reminder AR. I'm taking a year off from coordship, but if there's anything I can do during the year, please ask. I'll still be copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Should we enable the project-wide banner and/or push out announcements? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd say go for it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've put up the banner. If someone could post a few announcements in the usual places, that would be great. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: we're still a few short and only a day till noms close, do we need to put out an all points bulletin to members or something? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll stand again FWIW, just been v. busy the last couple of weeks -- if I think of anyone to pester to stand, I'll do that too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Same here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I won't be standing this time around. Life offwiki has limited my contributions as a co-ord much more than anticipated and I haven't achieved as much as I wanted to do. I don't see this changing in the near future. I still intend to be editing a bit though so will be around. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zawed: Just want to say thanks for your efforts as a co-ord this year. I have appreciated your efforts with closing reviews and doing assessments etc., and as always have enjoyed reading the articles you've worked on. All the best, mate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Likewise, Zawed! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we want to send out a mass message to project members inviting them to vote like we've done in previous years? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the limited participation to date, this seems a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding a "Needed" class[edit]

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

Protocal for naming military units[edit]

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

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

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

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

G'day, I'm not totally sure what you mean. On Wikipedia, we name articles using the common name used by reliable sources, but in the case of military units, we usually disambiguate them by country, so 48th Chemical Brigade (United States) seems a sensible title for the article in the absence of reliable sources that use another name. But you may be concerned with what the proper official name of the unit is, a decision for which I'm sure the US Army has internal protocols. If it is anything like the Australian Army, any changes to the official name would be done by a message to the Army as a whole, but usually the Army website is quickly updated with the new name. I would have thought the US Army website would be a good place to go in the first instance, and it says "48th Chemical Brigade" and links to the brigade website. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
User talk:VilePig has the best guidance on this; CMH is the arbiter for the exact names, and at that talkpage is a e-mail address for a CMH staff person who should be able to assist. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Dated 2013, the relevant text is "[i]f you'd like to hear it directly from Ned, who speaks for DA, you may contact him at: Ned Bedessem, Force Structure and Unit History Branch, US Army Center of Military History, (202) 685-2732; DSN 325-2732". Buckshot06 (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Recognition for User:WreckSmurfy[edit]

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

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

Howdy comrades![edit]

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

Great to hear from you Eurocopter, glad you're well. We'd love to see you back here but if you're busy with RL aviation, well, that doesn't sound so bad -- good luck to you and please just drop in here when you can! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
G'day, Eurocopter, thanks for checking in and glad to hear you are still poking around on Wikipedia. Most of the old breed are still around, although sadly I think Sturm is MIA (hopefully just focusing on bigger and better things in RL). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Good to hear from you, Eurocopter, and I'm glad to hear you're doing well! Sturm hasn't edited since April and I haven't heard anything from him off-wiki, but I think the rest of us old-timers are still around, in some capacity or another. Stop by any time you're free! Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello from one of the new guys! I can sympathise with the not having a lot of time, luckily(?) Hurricane Harvey has me stuck inside the house for a week or so, so I've got lots of time for now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Power out[edit]

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

Best of luck down there, hopefully it won't be long. It sounds like you're not in any imminent danger (I hope!), but we'll be thinking of you all the same! Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Sending my best wishes! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not in any imminent danger (I think). A friend of mine has offered me to crash at his place for now, so I should be able to edit from now on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

source review needed for Battle of Rossbach[edit]

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

A way to search by task forces[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gallipoli Campaign[edit]

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

I don't have the expertise (or references) on this campaign to respond to reviewers' comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I'm happy to attempt to address any issues that might be raised as part of the review process should it continue. That said I have no preference either way about this one. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not particularly keen on this review, but have worked through the image issues nonetheless so as not to waste Nikki's time. I doubt I will have much energy to make any massive changes to the article due to pending parenting duties, but probably could be persuaded to help with small issues if they are identified. To be successful, though, Keith-264 would probably need to be on board, too, as he has played a big part in getting the article to where it is now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye open but I'm busy with another sandbox clear up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)