Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 53

Oct to Dec 16 review tallies

 * 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)
 * 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: The templates can be found at the top of this talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Done now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 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
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 Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif 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. undefined (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)

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 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)
 * 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.
 * 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: Wikiproject Military history/March Madness 2017. All input welcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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 de.wiki but not in en.wiki. 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)
 * G'day. Yes adding them to the historiography template here makes sense to me - Template:WPMILHIST_Announcements/Military_historiography. Anotherclown (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Awards/tallies
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)


 * 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?
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
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: WikiProject Military history/Academy/Writing a good stub. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerning He Who Shall Not Be Named...
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)

Reviewing
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, 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  &#124;  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)
 * , 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. 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 (WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of frigates of India and WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Indian naval air squadrons) are both from the same nominator, who also has 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 &#124;  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 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 &#124;  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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Feb Contest
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
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 &#124;  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
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
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
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. I assume the red link in question is 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)
 * 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)
 * Anyone got any bright ideas? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

 * (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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Al-Mu'tasim, a ninth-century caliph (review)
 * List of protected cruisers of Italy, a type of warship in the Italian navy (review)
 * Kragujevac massacre, a massacre in Serbia during WWII (review)
 * S-50 (Manhattan Project), one of three projects to produce enriched uranium during WWII (review)
 * Tube Alloys, the British effort to develop nuclear weapons during WWII (review)
 * Curtis P. Iaukea, a Hawaiian army officer and diplomat (review)
 * Battle of Hochkirch, an engagement between Austria and Prussia in the Seven Years' War (review)
 * Norwich War Memorial, a First World War memorial in eastern England (review)
 * St Vincent-class battleship, a class of British warship (review)
 * 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, 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  &#124; 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?
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  &#124; 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

 * 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
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
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)

Need help updating a wiki biography page
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 (talk • contribs) 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
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 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

 * 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: 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)


 * I've also reviewed Dezinformatsia (book), a GAN. Should it be included? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Not sure how I missed that one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tallying and awarding all these, and especially ! Regards, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Needing help with Cold War WikiProject
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
I wanted to bring up a few things here since its time we discuss them: 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)
 * 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).
 * 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: 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. G'day, Kirill, would you mind checking the coding on the sub pages for me? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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, ! 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  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  07:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, Harry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the limited participation to date, this seems a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Working on it now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Walter Eldredge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walt539 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm not totally sure what you mean. On Wikipedia, we name articles using the common name used by reliable sources, but in the case of military units, we usually disambiguate them by country, so 48th Chemical Brigade (United States) seems a sensible title for the article in the absence of reliable sources that use another name. But you may be concerned with what the proper official name of the unit is, a decision for which I'm sure the US Army has internal protocols. If it is anything like the Australian Army, any changes to the official name would be done by a message to the Army as a whole, but usually the Army website is quickly updated with the new name. I would have thought the US Army website would be a good place to go in the first instance, and it says "48th Chemical Brigade" and links to the brigade website. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User talk:VilePig has the best guidance on this; CMH is the arbiter for the exact names, and at that talkpage is a e-mail address for a CMH staff person who should be able to assist. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dated 2013, the relevant text is "[i]f you'd like to hear it directly from Ned, who speaks for DA, you may contact him at: Ned Bedessem, Force Structure and Unit History Branch, US Army Center of Military History, (202) 685-2732; DSN 325-2732 edward.bedessem@us.army.mil". Buckshot06 (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Recognition for User:WreckSmurfy
This editor has almost single-handedly created over 75 Soviet division articles and appears hell-bent on created all the articles required for World War II - hundreds of them!! Would Coordinators kindly advise me on any additional recognition possible beyond barnstars, or initiate consideration of upper echelons of WikiChevrons, with Diamonds & Swords etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Buckshot, nominations for Wikichevrons with Oak Leaves can be made here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Howdy comrades!
First of all, sorry to brag in a little off-topic! By a stunning coincidence I just hopped-on my wiki user page and watchlist today, exactly ten years after I was firstly elected Milhist project coordinator and a bit of nostalgia came by. I opened this discussion and I was glad to see you guys keep up this excellent work! I want to send my very best regards to my old-folks and colleagues Kirill, Roger, Nick, Ian Rose, Buckshot, Parsecboy, Tomstar, Sturmvogel, Hawkeye, as well as all the newer guys who I did not have the pleasure to work with, as unfortunately I'm too busy with real-life aviation to conitnue to contribute consistently here on wiki. Take care and all the very best! Yours, --Eurocopter (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great to hear from you Eurocopter, glad you're well. We'd love to see you back here but if you're busy with RL aviation, well, that doesn't sound so bad -- good luck to you and please just drop in here when you can! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Eurocopter, thanks for checking in and glad to hear you are still poking around on Wikipedia. Most of the old breed are still around, although sadly I think Sturm is MIA (hopefully just focusing on bigger and better things in RL). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you, Eurocopter, and I'm glad to hear you're doing well! Sturm hasn't edited since April and I haven't heard anything from him off-wiki, but I think the rest of us old-timers are still around, in some capacity or another. Stop by any time you're free! Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello from one of the new guys! I can sympathise with the not having a lot of time, luckily(?) Hurricane Harvey has me stuck inside the house for a week or so, so I've got lots of time for now. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Best of luck down there, hopefully it won't be long. It sounds like you're not in any imminent danger (I hope!), but we'll be thinking of you all the same! Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sending my best wishes! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not in any imminent danger (I think). A friend of mine has offered me to crash at his place for now, so I should be able to edit from now on. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * now that is a wikipedia addict! auntieruth (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

source review needed for Battle of Rossbach
here any takers? auntieruth (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A way to search by task forces
I don't believe there is currently any way to search by two task forces within the MILHIST assessment categories, i.e. stub class Maritime and German articles, or C class World War Two and British articles. Would this be possible to implement? It would be helpful for searching for articles. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to do this already using Petscan. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gallipoli Campaign
I'm wondering what should be done with this nomination. The nominator doesn't seem to be in a position to address reviewers' comments (they've only made two edits since the nomination, neither of them to the article or the ACR, and judging by the FAC and PR they don't realise that reviews are interactive processes), which is probably why reviewers have been unwilling to invest their time in providing feedback. I notice and  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 &#124; 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, would probably need to be on board, too, as he has played a big part in getting the article to where it is now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye open but I'm busy with another sandbox clear up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the (understandable) lack of enthusiasm and the premature nomination, I've closed this. If anyone wants to adopt it, feel free to renominate. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Co-ord election results
G'day all, the voting period has ended, so I have archived the election page now. In terms of results, we appear to have 13 candidates who achieved over the minimum of 15 votes. Our stated max on the election page was 11, including the lead, but I would like to propose that we (like last year), accept the extra two positions as supernumerary. I don't see any major harm in doing so, as there appears to be a good level of support for all candidates (so arguably it isn't going against broad community consensus) and doing so should actually help us grow a larger pool of co-ords for the future. I would argue this is only a good thing. Are there any concerns with this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I might be biased as I found reasons to vote for all candidates, but I see no harm in having the extra bodies if they're all over the agreed threshold. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, good course of action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem here. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have updated the names in the relevant places. I think the only thing left would be a blurb in the upcoming edition of The Bugle. Otherwise, I think I've gotten everything, but if I did miss something vital, please let me know. To our new co-ords, welcome. While you are completing your march-in, if you have any queries about the role, please do not hesitate to ask. Additionally, if you have ideas for the project (e.g. ideas for the Academy pages, or plans for a drive, or revamping some other aspect), by all means please bring them forward. To our returning co-ords, thank you for stepping forward once again, and all the best for the coming year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting the paperwork Rupert. And absolutely agree with bringing on the extra two. Many hands make light work. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warm welcome, looking forward to serve the project and simultaneously learn from the capacity. I've a couple of plans rolling in my mind, the first is to audit the academy, for which I'll put forward a detailed plan shortly. And the second is to project our Military history project to a global scale i.e. to the Global Wikimedia community. For this, I'll initially create a draft roadmap before the end of October. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal as being is in the project's best interests. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very interested in your suggestion that we globalize this project. I look forward to your draft proposal. Biblio (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Jul to Sept 2017 reviewing tallies

 * G'day, as it is time to tally up the Project's quarterly reviews and hand out the awards, I've tallied up the Milhist ACR reviews (apologies if I missed any – this is my first tally – please let me know if there is any mistake). Can someone else have a look at the other categories for the listed editors? One thing that needs attention is, User:DarjeelingTea has done 2 two A-class reviews, but was indefinitely blocked for attempting sock-puppetry, we need to decide on this. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GANs done. I think we award Darjeeling Tea, they did the work, they might be unblocked in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added PRs. Thanks for starting this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gimme a few ticks and I'll do FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done now, and totalled. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Entitlements done, if everything is fine, we can give out the awards. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone who chipped in to get this done promptly, that was a pretty painless team effort! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Banners for new articles
I have been looking at the NPP Browser and adding banners and have some questions as a newbie regarding bots and logs. The short question is, is there a bot to create a log to streamline/automate finding articles to "banner"? The NPP browser has searches/filters by categories but not a filter for those without a banner (that I can see). It also catches video games with this. Then there are the uncategorised articles. A keyword search would narrow the field while a creation date would limit going back over old ground. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, not sure, to be honest, but potentially AutoWikiBrowser might support this... I don't use it myself, though. Can anyone shed more light on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

New Featured Article target?
G'day. We've passed 1000 Featured Articles! I propose we set a new Featured Article target of 1200, and highlight this milestone in the next Bugle. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tks PM, I was just thinking after reading your post on the MilHist talk page that it'd be worth a mention in the Bugle... ;-) As for a new target, I tend to prefer figures in wholes, halves or quarters so what do people think of 1250...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, just following the link to WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FA, it says only 815 FAs within the project's scope, so there seems to be a disconnect somewhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you go to is says 1,002, which is where I think it comes from. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just noticed that -- I thought MilHist Bot might have been updating the showcase page but evidently not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The MilHistBot is updating the A class showcase, adding them when they are promoted to A class, and the FACBot is removing them when they promoted to FA class; but the FACBot is not adding them to the FA class showcase. Give me a day or two. I will fix up the showcase page, and then enhance the FACBot.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want the good news or the bad news? The good news is that I have fixed up WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FA, and the Bots will soon start updating it. The bad news is that Category:FA-Class military history articles reports that there are "approximately 1,002" Featured MilHist articles, there appears to be 1,005. (Also: Richard Nixon is a FA, but is not tagged as MilHist)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tks very much for that, Hawkeye -- you may have forced us to revise our estimate of the 1000th MilHist FA, but better to know the truth...! Re. Nixon, well yes, apart from him being C-in-C during a major war, he was in the Navy during WWII so he probably should get a MilHist tag at that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The face that we also have a fair few delisted FAs complicates things further... Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I reckon 1,250 is a good stretch, I'd support that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I will go with more experience on this as to what is "not too close" but not "too far away". What would be an attainable target for a year (at a good streach)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think about 5 a month (the Bugle boys will know this better than me), give or take. So 60 max, probably more like 50? So 250 would be a five year target. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that five-year plans were all that successful in the Soviet Union? :) Another 100 (1100 all up) would therefore take about 20 months at the current rate. It would be an achievable target in the mid-term. We could also try to bring this down closer to 12 months as a shorter-term target and monitor how close we are going. A "good" outcome would better than "split the difference" - reaching it in 16 months. Just a thought. Regards (and I will sign this time :) ) Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Historically, it appears that the FA milestone has been upgraded in increments of 250. See here and here. I don't see any good reason to change that. Biblio (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 250 articles for five years is a better choice, and adding to the above discussion, currently en Wikipedia has about 5,150 FAs and our share is 1,002, counts almost 20% of the total. This is a big figure, so we must also get it highlighted in Signpost as well. What do you say? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 17:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy with 250. I seem to recall something being included in Signpost a few years ago, but can't seem to locate it at the moment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try out to Signpost Editor-in-chief, and we'll see how they can help us. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not opposed. They were just my thoughts. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've reset it to 1,250. Cheers all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In case if anyone has missed this; the milestone has been mentioned in The Signpost's "New and notes section. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear coordinators, a blog post about our project has been published on the Wikimedia Foundation Blog. Please have a look at it here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If possible please mention about this in the next issue of The Bugle. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Krishna, thanks for sharing this link. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that blog post, Krishna. I didn't realize that MilHist is responsible for such a large percentage of FAs. Biblio (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Tanks merger
Earlier this week, I approached WikiProject Tanks and suggested a merger with our Military land vehicles task force. In my view, the division of efforts is detrimental to article quality. Fortunately, the members of the project were very much open to a merger. I have proposed the following conditions: Another editor also proposed the creation of a new special project, like Majestic Titan. I noted that Operation Tanks was started last year and never really gained much participation. However, I think it is possible that Operation Tanks could be revived and broadened into a general project for military vehicles. Of course, such a proposal will meet the same fate as Operation Tanks unless it has the general approval of the other coordinators and project members.
 * The Military land vehicles task force will keep its name. Some suggested that the task force should be renamed to "Armored vehicles," but as one editor rightly pointed out, not all military vehicles are armored.
 * All the non-duplicate members of the Tanks project will have their membership automatically transferred to the MLV task force.
 * The unique parts of the Tanks project (such as its discussion page, portal, templates, awards, guides, etc.) will be included in the task force.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this merger. Biblio (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * G'work. This'll help us for better work, and also in the growth of the Project. As the merger is on tracks, if the majority are willing, there are a few things that we need to figure out. The first being how to deal with the project pages and subpages; here we can have four categories.

Next thing is updating the categories for respective classes, however this can be done by adding MILHIS template to talk, and does anything needs to be changed in the scope of Military land vehicles task force, as defined currently. Looking forward for other's suggestions on the merger procedure. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 17:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) All project pages and subpages
 * 2) Pages (including sub) that are to be merged
 * 3) Pages (including sub) that are kept for historical reference
 * 4) Pages (including sub) that can be deleted
 * We suggested that right from the get go on account of the fact that so many projects have dies recently due to suffocating participation, but this apparently went forward anyway with little to none of the usual support. I do strongly support this proposal, and in my opinion the sooner its done the better. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it seems to be the most efficient way of doing things. If the members of the Tanks project are willing I see no reason to stand in the way as long as its viewed as an act of self determination. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Given declining participation in WikiProjects overall, I'd prefer that everyone interested in military history come under under our umbrella. Independent projects are far more likely to go dormant. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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

The only remaining task is to remove the WP:TANKS project template from hundreds of article talk pages. I do not have enough time to deal with that right now, so I would greatly appreciate it if someone could automate the removals. Biblio (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the merger. I'll complete the task of removing within 24 hrs. Is the job is to just remove WP Tanks from the talk page or anything else? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I wonder, though, if it makes sense for the task force to have its own notability guide: WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force/Notability guide. I feel it would be better for it to just be merged with WikiProject Military history/Notability guide, and then redirected. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would there be any concerns with redirecting this page? I'm not aware of any other task force having its own notability guide. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so. It would be better to retain this at project level rather than have notability guides at TF level. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Activating archival bot
Hi everyone, I have been thinking that why don't we activate an archival bot on our coord's talk page. We can instruct it to archive threads older than two weeks or so. We can use the same lowercase sigmabot III that is used on the Project's talk page. Please voice your opinions. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to do so and not archive the standing items above the "Discussion" section? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be my concern too. If this can't be done (or easily) I can suggest a strategy that might be a workable solution. Migrate the standing topics to the coordinator project page. The detail at History of the coordinator system could be migrated to a sub-page. Do we have bots that target the open tasks? They would need to be re-targeted. That could be a hurdle. Just a thought. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's not really any need. Some threads are worth keeping around, and it's not like the page is bursting at the seems. I tend to manually archive it a few times a year when it starts to get a bit unwieldy. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  06:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Milhist Bot announcement
A little-known feature of the MilHistBot is that the ability to promote/demote A class articles is restricted to members of the category Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators. (This is security through obscurity, as anyone can add themself to the category - a better way would be to have a page listing the coordinators, which was locked so only admins can update it.) Anyway, there's a feature in Mediawiki whereby you can have a home page on Meta and it automatically appears in all Wikis. This can be useful for people who work in multiple languages. This affects two of you:, and , our coordinator emeritus. What has happened is that you two have been added to meta:Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators and the MilHistBot checks that too. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hawkeye. That would be very helpful. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The A class articles you passed were promoted without problems. You have have noticed a two-hour delay while I double-checked that it was handling you correctly. Your promotions will be automatic from now on.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Globalizing our presence
G'day everyone, please study and comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Globalizing our presence. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone able to offer a third review at Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham?
G'day all. Just wondering if one of the co-ordinators would be willing to offer a third review for Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham please? Through no fault of the nominator this one has taken quite a while to get through ACR (its first review ended up being closed at the four month mark due in part to limited reviewers). It's current review has two supports and it would be good to finalise this one if possible so that the article can continue to move forward. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. This has been on my to-do list for a while. I won't get to it today but hopefully will tomorrow. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am looking at it too. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wondered what the tagbombing was in aid of. I thought recommendations were reserved for the discussion page? &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  13:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @ fortuna, I wouldn't have called four tags over the whole article tag bombing. They were added with explanatory reasons. They were added where the solution was not evident. Where it was evident, I made a similar number of minor copy edits. The tags succinctly identify the issue and there is nothing that precludes their use. I will also be making comments. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's fine., what say you? And all others of course. Harry, did you get a butcher's at any point? &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, the tags seem to have been dealt with, IMO. Overall, I think it important to remember that reviewers work in different ways. Some add comments to the review page, and some edit the article. Neither way is wrong, but sometimes one is preferred over the other. It is often hard to determine, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, absolutely- no, this was sorted out ages ago, a minor misunderstanding merely. I meant the review itself, is all. Cheers, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  09:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did, but you were still working your way through Cinderella's comments so I thought I'd give you a bit longer. I'll try and get to it later tonight or tomorrow unless it's already closed by then, in which case I'll wait for the (presumably forthcoming) FAC. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  13:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, please feel free to do so. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  15:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

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


 * I think there's already a note on the main talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At the risk of confirming my ignorance to everyone, in what way is an index different from a dab page? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:INDEXES: "Wikipedia indices are alphabetical list articles, consisting of lists of, in turn, the encyclopedic articles available on Wikipedia for any broad, general topic. Examples include: Index of Buddhism-related articles, Index of surfing articles, and Index of physics articles."  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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


 * It seems reasonable for multiples of 3 X 3. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion. I can see the merit of doing it in threes for consistency with the ACMs, but I can also see the value in making it that bit more difficult to obtain and therefore more prestigious. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  06:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I also haven't got a strong opinion on this. Groups of five is easier on my brain, and I like the idea of increasing the requirement to make them more prestigious. But I say that as someone who will never qualify for one, so happy with groups of three if everyone else wants this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with AustralianRupert; I think five is easier and more prestigious, but I'm not super opposed to dropping it down. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any convincing reason for an immediate change to the criteria. In my opinion, we should just leave it as is. Biblio (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * it looks like the consensus is to leave this as is. Please chime in if you have a different view, so Hawkeye knows what Milhistbot will need to do? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving as is seems fine to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings one way or the other. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion on this. Anotherclown (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. no change to this. Five articles per ACC. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that this required about 20 lines of new code. Ping me if any problems are detected with awarding medals or crosses.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Hawkeye! We all appreciate what you do with developing and maintaining Milhistbot! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Biblio (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Award eligibility issue
G'day all, there appears to be a hiccup with the Sturmvogel's tally on WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM/Eligibility tracking. Per this diff, Sturm has three credits, but on two separate lines. Does anyone know why this might have happened? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like the underscore is messing things up. The bot won't know the difference between "Sturmvogel 66" and "Sturmvogel_66". HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  08:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * will be able to advise. Happy to handle this manually if needed, Hawkeye. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a manual award nomination now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that there's still a problem as I'm missing an ACM for Talk:St Vincent-class battleship, Talk:German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass and Talk:HMS Neptune (1909).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Sturm, I think Krishna awarded it to you here, but it wasn't added to the the list here: WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM. I've added it now, per: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Silly me, I was only checking the overall tally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

ROYAL NAVY COMMODORE - Correction to Epaulet
The page "Royal Navy officer rank insignia" shows the sleeve and epaulets for "Current Ranks and Insignia". Please be advised that the epaulet for Commodore has changed since the rank of Commodore became a substantive rank in about 2001. The reference of this is in the Royal Navy Uniform Regulations as amended to June 2016 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/documents/reference-library/br-3-vol-1/chapter-39.pdf) and a diagram is given nearly at the end of this chapter at Annex 39E (see Fig 39E-6e 1* Commodore) I have uploaded a version of how this should look at File:British Royal Navy OF-6-New.svg in the same form as the epaulets for Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral which I have created by taking your version of a Rear Admiral epaulet in .sgv format and amending it in Corel Photo-Paint and converting back to .sgv for ease of posting. I hope this helps.BarryALG (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Barry, thanks for your efforts. This would probably better be posted on the article's talk page, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mlitary Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards
As a reminder, next month we formally open the nominations for the Mlitary Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards. A notice should go out in the bugle this month, and we need to get the pages set up soon. We also need to discuss when the nomination and voting periods will begin and end. I'd propose a two week nomination/vote scheme since December is a slow month, with our nomination anchor day being December 4 (a Monday), but I'm open to other suggestions if anyone has any. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From memory, we just do them as sections on the main project talk page, rather than dedicated subpages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that there be a two-week nomination period followed by a two-week voting period? Biblio (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's been the practice in the past. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, since as Peacemaker noted that is our standard operating procedure. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I reckon we could open noms on Saturday December 2, close on the 16th, voting finishes on the 30th? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * i’m Fine with that as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder, nominations for this are due to close in the next 11 hours or so. If anyone would like to nominate someone, please do so. I would be very keen to see a few more noms for the NOTY award if anyone has identified someone who deserves recognition. Happy for more noms for MHOTY also, of course. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've archived the voting threads now and handed out the awards, and The Bugle has been updated. Overall, a pretty low turn out in terms of nominations and voting. I appreciate that it is the holidays, but I feel that we have let down a large number of editors whose work deserved some recognition. Anyway, in the new year I think we will need to work out whether we want to continue with this process, or if it needs modification in relation to timings, outcomes or methodology (or all of these). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk: Greenwich armour
Hello

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

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

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

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

--Tracey Mac 44 (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Tracey, thank you for this information. If you are not comfortable with editing the article directly, the best place to post this is the article's talk page: Talk:Greenwich armour. Someone working on that article will eventually be able to determine if the information you have provided warrants inclusion in the article. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Updating our active and inactive members' lists
G'day all, just looking at these two lists: WikiProject Military history/Members/Active and WikiProject Military history/Members/Inactive. Short of manually checking contributions, is there an easy way to work out whether someone on either list belongs there? (Is there a bot, or a script for instance?) For instance, one imagines that there might be some who are listed on the inactive list who may in fact be active, and of course, vice versa. I only ask, because I am considering sending out a mass message for the MHOTY nominations/voting and intend using the active list as the source for delivery purposes. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Back in 2012, I remember that we had this a long discussion about the members list and trying to make it more interactive and possible for a bot to update it, because there were no bots that could do it, so we were left to manually checking editors individually and moving them between the active/inactive lists. was working on some ideas in 2011, but I don't know if he ever progressed beyond an alpha-level state of testing the ideas being offered. Given that Wikipedia's underlying code will have seen many updates and revisions in the past 5 or 6 years, such as switching to Lua programming, if might be possible to implement some of those ideas much easier now, as some were a bit too adventurous for Wikipedia to handle or render, but it depends if the project is still interested in making it easier to check active members for notifying them of project-wide events likes awards and coord elections, as well as a possible mail list to offer a better way of handling members' The Bugle delivery preferences. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_40 (which I carried over from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Strategy/Archive_3). Sorry this doesn't answer your question directly, but just thought I'd raise these Archive discussions incase anyone is interested in trying to get a new members list format going again, as it seems to have been shelved, but it might be a good chance to consider whether the list could be evolved to something better than plain lists. — Marcus(talk) 10:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, Marcus, thanks for the links. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone through recently to check for indeffed editors via a script and removed them, but that's about the only scripty thing I know how to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have Popups enabled, that'll tell you the date of their last edit when hovering over a username. I expect it's possible to do it with a bot or script, but I don't know how much work that would involve. does so much for us already that I'm reluctant to ask him for more, but perhaps he might be able to help or offer some advice? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  03:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Harry, interesting gadget. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor change to the ACR instructions
Just FYI, I've changed WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review/Instructions to tell nominators to contact the coords if they want to nominate an article for its second ACR. This isn't something that happens very often and I've seen people struggle with it, so telling them to contact us seems like the best option, and we can move the existing review for them (those of us who are admins can do it without leaving a redirect, which should allow the "initiate nomination" link to work properly). IF anyone strongly disagrees with me, feel free to revert. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 03:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No disagreement. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)