Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2022/Interview

This month marks the 200th issue of The Bugle!

The Bugle was first published in March 2006. It was edited by the coordinator team as a whole until October 2010. and became the inaugural editors that month, in an edition which also established the basic format still in use today. replaced Climie.ca a year later, and replaced The ed17 in October 2012. There have also been several guest editors, including and.

Throughout its history The Bugle has sought to provide members of the project with an update on recent activities, recognise editors' achievements and encourage new and improved articles. Over time its scope has increased, and it now includes op-eds on military history topics or issues related to developing articles, as well as book reviews, interviews and review essays. Importantly, these have been contributed by many members of the project, for which we and previous editors have been grateful. As many other Wikipedia newsletters have struggled to put out regular editions, or have become defunct, reaching 200 continuous editions is an achievement for the project.

Back issues of the newsletter are available at the archives.

To mark the occasion, we've interviewed some of the major contributors to the newsletter over the years. We are also very keen to hear your reflections on The Bugle, and ideas for the future.

Interview

 * Why did you choose to become involved with The Bugle? What kinds of contributions have you made?
 * I greatly appreciated the The Bugle and always looked forward to it each month. My personal contributions are in three areas:
 * I had the MilHistBot and the FACBot add notifications when A-class articles and Featured articles were promoted.
 * I write book reviews. If a military history book I just read had a relatively recent publication date, I would write up a book review. So it is not all the books I have been reading.
 * On occasion, I have contributed Op-Eds. Usually these are about something I've been working on, but I was sometimes asked for a Bugle article on a particular subject. If I had the time, I would write more. Hawkeye7 (Talk) 21:15, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * I've been involved off and on for so long that I don't really remember exactly what started me contributing, and the gaps are generally just me taking a break from Wikipedia for a bit and sometimes not immediately picking everything up again on return; which is kind of expected after over fifteen years on Wikipedia. I'm rather passionate about image restoration, and largely write the featured content section, which is kind of convenient because it's one of the best places to find leads for new potential featured pictures. Readers might occasionally note that an image for an A-class or featured article from the month before appears in the featured picture section. That's not a coincidence, and being the editor of that makes it really easy to check through. I'd say this has been a relatively slow year for me due to some health issues (nothing major: just some sleep issues), but I hope to do more next year. Adam Cuerden (Talk) 21:58, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * It's been just a little too long for me recall exactly, but I feel like my first meaningful contribution to The Bugle was suggesting that we take the signpost approach and expand the newsletter to cover everything in its own separate section. As for contributions to those sections, I probably started paying more attention to the content in 2009/2010 during my tenure as our Lead Coordinator since I felt that the position required me to contribute both for outreach and as a "lead by example" thing for the project members and other readers. As to what I contributed, that has mostly been one paragraph here and one paragraph there - with the notable exception of the the World War I op-eds, for which I was nearly exclusively the sole contributor. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * From memory, my first contributions were to the book review section. I enjoyed doing this as a way to share my views on books I'd recently read, as well as to encourage a more critical use of sources than was common on Wikipedia at the time (standards are higher now). I've been one of the editors of The Bugle with Ian for around 10 years, and have contributed to a range of sections. I continue to handle the book review section, as well as the A-class review blurbs, and have contributed a few op-eds over the years. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely not a "major contributor". I have made a few gnonish contributions. I look forward to reading the Bugle each month and appreciate it. So I feel it behooves me to make some minor pay back. I have contributed blurbs on occasion to the past months FAs and ACs section, I have updated the contest results on occasion, occasionally I tweak typos. I once had a reflective essay declined for publication, but I don't think that counts. (It was snapped up by The Signpost, which clearly has lower standards.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said for the 150th commemorative issue, I got involved with as the newsletter got more ambitious and the time commitment needed to get it out each month increased. Both the call and us volunteering were very informal processes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * How has the newsletter and its role in the Military History Wikiproject evolved since it started?
 * The main change has been the introduction of the book reviews. I enjoying reading them, and I find the External Reviews section very interesting. I frequently click on the links to read the external reviews as well. Many times I have bought or borrowed a book reviewed by one of my fellow editors. Hawkeye7 (Talk) 21:15, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * I'd say that the Bugle has held up its role remarkably well, despite it seeming that much of Wikipedia communication has declined severely. While The Signpost has reduced to once a month from weekly, and other WikiProject newsletters and WikiProjects themselves have died off, while Portals have been all-but-killed... the worst you could say about The Bugle is that issues circa 2014-2015 were maybe slightly longer, take December 2014's issue, for instance. That was in the middle of a big push on the first and second World Wars due to their hundredth and seventy-fifth anniversaries respectively, though, so that's not a big surprise. I'd say the biggest change from the early issues is, first of all, subpages (the original issues fit into one short page), and, secondly, a lot of work that generally falls under "project setup" that you'd expect to have been sorted by now. Take the surprisingly short newsletter from January 2007 which details B-class criteria, naming conventions, taskforces, and the setup of our image showcase.  Adam Cuerden (Talk) 21:58, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * In the beginning it was a simple one page memo letter essentially, and the format has evolved to better keep up with the times. Its also expanded to include op-eds, book reviews, the WWI timeline, and to better cover our featured and quality content. These days The Bugle has become an important outreach tool, with reminders of upcoming elections, voting for awards and award highlights, and other important features the community feels are worthy of inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am a relative newbie, so I haven't noticed much. The number of op eds and interviews seems to have declined, which is a shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Like Adam above, I'm surprised as how well the Bugle has weathered the overall on-wiki decline of newsletters and other similar publications. These enterprises really boil down to whether people are willing to devote the time to contributing content each month; we're all volunteers, and no one can be forced to do anything they don't want to do. It really says something about the people in our wikiproject that the Bugle has continued for so long. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What have been the highlights of The Bugle for you?
 * One highlight that comes to mind is commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Great War in 2014-2018. Each month part of a timeline was published, frequently accompanied by an Op-Ed. Hawkeye7 (Talk) 21:15, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * For myself, I have to admit a fondness for TomStar81's series of Op-eds on the First World War, for example, this one. Excellently researched and well-written articles that really helped drive that project along. Adam Cuerden (Talk) 21:58, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * Honestly, given the above comments, I'm surprised as many people enjoyed the op-eds as there wasn't much feedback in the comments sections during the run for the most part. Glad to see that the pieces were appreciated as much as they were. I take pride in the fact that most months had an op-ed and a timelines, and in hindsight it was fun to put the op-eds together as it happened. I'd also say that independent of the WWI op-ed series I've enjoyed interviews we've run with members of the community both in and outside of the MILHIST project. Its nice to see what people have to save on a particular subject if invited to. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd also agree that Tom's series on World War I was a highlight - it was really great, and very dedicated, work. I've also been impressed by the standard of the op-eds members of the project contribute. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Surviving. So many things could cause a blip in any given month, and somehow all of those have been avoided each month. I suspect a lot of emulation of the swan: All serene grace above the surface, but paddling furiously beneath. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be selfish and pick out a few of my favorite articles from when I was the editor of the Bugle! First, our global remembrance of 9/11 for the tenth anniversary of that terrible day, for which many people chimed in for the article and on the talk page. Second, the re-publication of 's plagiarism review of South American dreadnought race, an article I wrote and nominated for featured article. The fascinatingly detailed analysis of what he did (and why!) should be better known today and help guide anyone looking for plagiarism in our articles. Third and finally, 's piece on writing about castles. As the years have gone on, I think our need for quality introductory content about editing has only grown as the world changes around us. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Have there been any low lights?
 * Regrettably, plans to repeat the Great War timeline for the Second World War never came to fruition. If we started 80th anniversary articles now, it would be up to 1942. Hawkeye7 (Talk) 21:15, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * The Bugle lowest point is exactly where it should be: Early issues show a lack of depth compared to later issues, which shows that we've improved. Adam Cuerden (Talk) 21:58, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * Don't really have a low point as it were, the newsletter has continuously evolved and its contributors come and go, so there are different formats and stories that reflect different times for the project, rather much like rings in a tree. That some rings are short and others more pronounced doesn't make it any less important, it just makes it different. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Without being specific, I do regret agreeing to one op-ed when it was pitched. While the author's intentions were good, the piece caused needless division and they could have made their argument much more constructively. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions for how The Bugle could be improved?
 * We should all pay more recognition to The Bugle and its role in the project, which is too often taken for granted. Hawkeye7 (Talk) 21:15, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * I'd love to see a return of regular Op-eds, but also understand why motivation might not always be there in the absence of a major anniversary. Adam Cuerden (Talk) 21:58, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * We could try for a little entertainment. A once-a-month newsletter with crossword puzzle and word search themed around one of the numerous task forces we have would be an interesting addition, particularly if other news letters that are still running cross published so both project's members could work on it. A little humor could help too, although I doubt very much that we'd ever have a full blown funny page a doodle or two with humors intention could liven the mood. Cycling through the existing the academy pages in The Bugle as a project would be useful too, every month featuring a different academy course to get the word out on style and copyright and other matters of interest. And of course, more contributors would always be welcome :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd really encourage members of the project to contribute reviews or op-eds. It only takes 15 minutes or so to write a book review! Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Somehow get more people involved and contributing. But I have no idea how that might be achieved. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said above, it's all about what people are willing to do. Sometimes the best thing you can do is make sure that a light is left on for anyone who wants to come on in. In addition, I hope it remains simple to write, edit, and publish, as added time requirements could present a major barrier to contributing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have any parting comments?
 * Probably the greatest achievement of The Bugle is that it is still coming out on a monthly basis after all this time. There were once many projects and newsletters, and most have not survived the decline in editorship. Even the Wikipedia-wide Signpost has been struggling. Hawkeye7 (Talk) 21:15, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * The Bugle, indeed, the entire Military History WikiProject is one of a handful of places we can really see the old Wikipedia that inspired me to join. The spirit of joyful collaboration lives on here, in a way I just don't see in as many places anymore. And that's to be celebrated. Adam Cuerden (Talk) 21:58, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)


 * Its our project newsletter, which means its ours to tend to and care for. In a time when Wikipedia's overall health and assessment seems to be on the decline we continue to the standard by which much of the Wikipedia-wide project is judged, and I'm still as proud of that now as I was then. The call of The Bugle is still being heard and replied to, which is a good reflection on us - and to a lesser extent WikiProject Musical Instruments for lending us a bugle to broadcast with :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm very proud that The Bugle hasn't missed a monthly edition, including in the face of the weirdness of the last few years. This makes us one of the oldest and most prolific newsletters in Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Continue to survive! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Similarly to how Wikipedia is the best of the old web, Milhist is the best of the old wikiprojects—and the connective tissue + shared sense of purpose provided by things like the Bugle are a big part of that. (Thanks to Adam above for inspiring this thought!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Over to you
The editors are also very keen to see your reflections on The Bugle, including what you like most about it and how the newsletter could be further developed. Please leave your comments in the 'discuss this story' field below.