Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 54

New ACR for previous failure
I want to start a new ACR for HMS Vanguard (1909) which was failed about six months ago because I was on a wikibreak. I've followed the instructions for starting an ACR, but the resulting page is the old review, not a new one. What needs to be done to fix this? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the section immediately above, but it seem relevant ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Sturm, WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909) just needs to be moved to WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909)/Archive1, then you can start a new review at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909). I can move this for you if you wish. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was something like that. Thanks, but I can take care of it myself now that I have guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Renamed it but the talk page link still redirects to the old review. I'll let y'all figure it out, but shouldn't the new review page be ~/Archive2 in parallel with GA reviews?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Sturm, I have deleted the redirect so that you can now raise the review at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909). It is probably easier to click on the red "currently undergoing" link on the talkpage, though, as it will pre-load. Regarding your point about Archive2, it would indeed probably be more intuitive this way, I agree. There would probably be a few things that would need adjustment, though, to make this work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

MilHistBot
Due to scheduled NBN maintenance, the MilHistBot stopped running on 8 December, and although there's nothing really wrong, I cannot restart it from here. My internet access is a bit sporadic at the moment Something to do with a truck and low overhead wires, so until further notice, the MilHistBot will run daily. I regret any inconvenience this may cause. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Too easy, thanks, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I manually updated the announcements page before reading this - hopefully it doesn't mess up the bot. Please revert me if it will or does! Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Audit of WikiProject Military history/Members/Active
G'day Rupert and I have just taken advantage of the quiet period between Xmas and NY to do an audit of our active list of members. They've basically been kept on the active list if they edited at any time in 2017, prior to that I moved them to inactive. There were a lot of editors who hadn't edited since 2013 and earlier, so the reduction has been pretty dramatic. We currently have 738 active members by that measure, down from 1100 before the audit. What struck me was the number of editors who I have never come across that are actively editing in the Milhist space. Which means they aren't really interacting with our main points of reference, like contests, GAN/ACR/FAC, the talk page etc. But they are still out there beavering away, getting the Bugle etc. Is there anything we can do to try to draw them into closer contact with the project? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If they're getting the Bugle, I'd be happy to include a reminder to readers of the points of reference you mention (although some like the contest and ACR/FAC are featured pretty prominently in the newsletter already)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ian, does everyone on the active list get the Bugle, or is there a separate distribution list? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get the Bugle, so I think it is a separate distribution list. It might be useful to send everybody (not already getting it) the Bugle with an opt out option. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Bugle distribution list is here: User:The ed17/sandbox3, per WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a coord, but there are probably less than 738 active members given that the inactive list starts at three months without editing, and a quick glance reveals there are several editors who haven't edited for half a year, etc. Kges1901 (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ack, thanks for pointing this out. We went with a bit more of a liberal interpretation with this update of the active list. I'd suggest that we update both the active and inactive pages to read "edited in the past year" or something similar (or at least make it six or nine months). As the update process is totally manual, it is very laborious so I doubt that we could check it every three months. Regarding the distribution list for The Bugle v. the active list, I wonder if potentially we should just post a message on the main talk page, asking if there are any project members who wish to receive The Bugle who aren't, and inviting them to add their name to User:The ed17/sandbox3. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the list of members, I've sometimes wondered whether it could automatically updated by. already does this for the list of administrators. Pinging. Biblio (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Bot could do this. It would be an entirely new task, so I would have to write it, test it and run it through WP:BRFA.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * that would be brilliant, Hawkeye. I’d suggest we still make it longer before we move to inactive though. I’ve always thought three months was too short. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * in order to give Hawkeye some guidance on the bot task, I propose we make the time period one year before moving to inactive. That allows for wikibreaks or longer absences. Any other views? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense to me. Would the bot also move names from the inactive list to active list, periodically, if members start editing again? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with the 1 year proposal, seems reasonable to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also agree. Biblio (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on what a bot might do. The OP started with a comment (in part) re "interacting with our main points of reference, like contests, GAN/ACR/FAC, the talk page etc." If the bot can also check for new members on the member list periodically, then it could address this. A message could be sent to new members per "interacting". The Bugle could also be sent with this and then the Bugle distribution list updated to add the new members. Receipt of the Bugle would then be on an "opt out" basis. The bot could be run immediately - ie following the distribution of each Bugle edition. I am not familiar with the specifics of programming a bot but in general, this is a fairly simple programming task. The interaction text would not be part of the bot but a text/data file that could be edited without editing the bot. Any thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, currently several coordinators monitor the active page and manually welcome new members using the standard boilerplate, but any further follow-up is pretty haphazard at best, at least by me... For info, the boilerplates for inviting and welcoming new members are on the coord handbook page. Right off the bat, I can see some scope for the welcome message to be tweaked to add an invitation to subscribe to the Bugle, and perhaps a few other things could be added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If a bot is able to identify the active but 'below the radar' members of the project (as defined as not having a subscription to the Bugle), I'd suggest that it also leave them a message tailored to experienced editors which invites them to subscribe and watchlist the main project talk page. The bot ideally would check to see that the editors haven't previously subscribed and opted out of the Bugle. Some kind of listing of who these people are would also be helpful - it could contribute to addressing the concerns recently raised about a relatively small number of editors getting the limelight. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have updated the welcome to Milhist and invitation to join Milhist templates to include mention of signing up for The Bugle. These are my edits: and . This should hopefully increase awareness of The Bugle at least. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that so much time has passed it may behoove us to put forward to the signpost or other Wikipedia wide notice-based groups a short notice advising editors who edit to take a moment and list themselves as part of project if they have not done so already in order to get a more accurate picture of where the projects on Wikipedia stand as a whole. Not sure how we would do this if we wanted to put a notice up at the watchlist page, but it is something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * may be able to advise? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd have said no, it's too insular of a topic. ;-) However, the Signpost does operate a little differently these days. You might get away with writing up a WikiProject report on the project as a whole, and include that as a call to action? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Would 365 days do instead of a year? I don't think we get much out of a leap year calculation. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mate, whatever is easier for you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fine with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bot Request for Approval is now filed at WP:BRFA. The first run should move 26 members, one of whom has not been active since 2010. Once approved, it will run automatically each month. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for doing this, Hawkeye! Another laborious job automated! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Hawkeye. Will the bot also check the inactive list for members who have become active again? I know it is rare, but it has been known to happen. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't mentioned, but I can get it to do that too.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you want the 365 day threshold to apply to them too? If so, there are 154 of them.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so, maybe move them back if they've edited in the last 90 days? Or is that going to cause too much churn I wonder? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bot was approved for trial. It will run on the 16th of the month from now on. I get a report on what it has done. Being the first run, there was more to do than usual. The report read:
 * 08:34:02 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Blockerd94 last active 2016-04-10T10:01:24Z (645 days ago)
 * 08:34:45 Tue 16 Jan 2018 ChristiaandeWet last active 2014-12-08T15:45:17Z (1134 days ago)
 * 08:35:31 Tue 16 Jan 2018 DiverScout last active 2015-08-04T07:03:52Z (895 days ago)
 * 08:35:33 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Djembayz last active 2015-11-15T01:47:54Z (792 days ago)
 * 08:35:53 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Elmasmelih last active 2014-10-07T17:47:33Z (1196 days ago)
 * 08:36:53 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Haider67 last active 2017-01-03T09:39:07Z (377 days ago)
 * 08:37:13 Tue 16 Jan 2018 HWClifton last active 2017-01-12T18:43:11Z (368 days ago)
 * 08:37:20 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Inkbug last active 2017-01-04T08:24:17Z (376 days ago)
 * 08:38:30 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Leifern last active 2017-01-12T19:08:46Z (368 days ago)
 * 08:38:42 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Lostintherush last active 2013-06-15T04:33:28Z (1675 days ago)
 * 08:38:53 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Magi Media last active 2016-11-28T01:56:49Z (413 days ago)
 * 08:38:57 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Malke_2010 last active 2014-05-20T17:46:10Z (1336 days ago)
 * 08:39:16 Tue 16 Jan 2018 MBK004 last active 2010-11-11T08:23:33Z (2622 days ago)
 * 08:39:35 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Miskin last active 2016-11-11T21:33:02Z (430 days ago)
 * 08:39:44 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Mongoose Army last active 2016-12-23T13:22:54Z (388 days ago)
 * 08:39:52 Tue 16 Jan 2018 MrGRA last active 2016-08-21T20:14:51Z (512 days ago)
 * 08:40:01 Tue 16 Jan 2018 NelsonLB last active 2016-12-08T07:55:33Z (403 days ago)
 * 08:40:46 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Mournival last active 2015-10-13T02:02:46Z (825 days ago)
 * 08:40:52 Tue 16 Jan 2018 parsa1993 last active 2017-01-03T11:54:51Z (377 days ago)
 * 08:40:58 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Pen of bushido last active 2016-09-26T14:30:31Z (476 days ago)
 * 08:41:14 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Police,Mad,Jack last active 2016-08-22T12:56:45Z (511 days ago)
 * 08:41:32 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Reedmalloy last active 2016-11-25T14:03:04Z (416 days ago)
 * 08:41:40 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Rin tin tin last active 2010-08-30T22:08:23Z (2695 days ago)
 * 08:41:41 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Riotrocket8676 last active 2016-12-14T20:59:44Z (397 days ago)
 * 08:41:58 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Sassf last active 2017-01-01T16:00:48Z (379 days ago)
 * 08:42:29 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Snapper five last active 2016-11-22T19:02:34Z (419 days ago)
 * 08:43:46 Tue 16 Jan 2018 Tristan benedict last active 2016-11-07T07:52:31Z (434 days ago)
 * 08:44:33 Tue 16 Jan 2018 714 active members
 * 08:44:33 Tue 16 Jan 2018 27 inactive members found
 * 08:44:35 Tue 16 Jan 2018 updating inactive list
 * 08:44:40 Tue 16 Jan 2018 updating active list
 * 08:44:44 Tue 16 Jan 2018 finished okay
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for setting this up and getting it approved Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades Populating Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists
Hi everyone. The way Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists is populated, articles from the Crusades taskforce of WP:MA always fill the the backlog if they are rated Start/C. Examples Zengid dynasty and Zaraka Monastery. I checked to see if filling out a B-Class checklist would take it off the list (Venetian Crusade) but it didn't work. Do youse guys know you to fix this? --Molestash (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It turns out there was a bigger issue here: the WikiProject Middle Ages banner was using one of our automated assessment templates (WikiProject Military history/Task force categories) without actually passing through any of the A-Class/B-Class parameters that the template uses to determine the correct rating. In addition to the problem you were seeing with the missing checklist category, this also meant that a Crusades Task Force article would only ever show FA, Start, or Stub assessments—none of the other assessment classes could be activated from the template.
 * I've updated the WikiProject Middle Ages banner and our automated assessment templates to pass through the parent assessment directly if they're used in a banner that doesn't support B-Class checklists, so all of this should be fixed; please let me know if you spot anything broken as a result of the changes. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kirill, that problem was well beyond my ken. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guys. Going through more articles it appears this problem was mostly fixed but some articles are still populating the backlog when they should not be. Here are some examples: Talk:War of Saint Sabas, Talk:War of the Ass, Talk:War of the Lombards. --Molestash (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

October to December 2017 reviewing tallies
G'day, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to tally up the quarterly reviews. I have started with the ACRs. Can someone else please take a look at the other review types? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll do the GANs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And they are done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take PRs. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Grabbing the FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FACs done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Krishna, did the PR totals actually get saved...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I think they blew off in an edit conflict. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Totals added. I don't know what the entitlements are. And an incredible effort by Nikki, Rupert, and Peacemaker! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Added the entitlements. Templates can be found here: WikiProject Military history/Awards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That was pretty painless. Thanks to everyone for chipping in in getting this done promptly! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Project audit
Greetings, my dear fellow coords the Military history is one of most celebrated projects on en Wikipedia, and is widely acclaimed for this structure and self-sustaining procedures. It's been more than a decade since the project's inception, and now at this point, I feel that a Project audit is advisable for enhanced working, and I have mentioned the same during coord elections. Here I propose a few things that needs to take care before we actually start the the audit.


 * 1) Creation of 4–5 member team including one lead
 * 2) List of sections/pages that are to be audited (Academy, assessment, MOS, taskforces etc.)
 * 3) List of any project/policy pages to be created
 * 4) Checklist while auditing a particular page
 * 5) A template to mark that a page has been audited (on the talk page)

I request all the coords to give their inputs regarding the above mentioned points, so that I can create a cumulative workflow. I feel "XVII Tranche Audit" will good to title to this audit, comments are welcome. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate an intent but this brief statement gives insufficient depth to the intent. Can I suggest that you "fleshout" just what you perceive and intend by this proposition. It can see that this is not something that is simple or brief. Can I suggest a separate page that details your proposal in the first instance and, perhaps, is a place to discuss this in detail. If this is the case, I am sure that our fellow coordinators would undertake to watch such a page and contribute to a discussion there, as if it were conducted here. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm having nightmares of annual ISO 9001 audits already. ;-)
 * On a more serious note, I would echo Cinderella157's suggestion that we flesh out what this audit would actually entail, in practical terms, before we decide whether/how we want to proceed with the workflow. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well we waltzed through the academy a few years back so that shouldn't be too high a mountain to climb. As for the rest this, I agree that it should be fleshed out a little so we can see more of what you have in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd echo Tom's point about the Academy here, but it certainly doesn't hurt to see if they could be improved further. I'd be keen to see if we could finish off the final couple of Academy articles, too... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see more detail. I echo Rupert's observation about the remaining Academy articles, and think it would be worth looking them over again to see if we need to add any. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. I'll do the needful by the end of this week. Before I start, can anyone suggest be we can I start? In the sense, where to create a sub page; as a sub page of main project page or coordinators talk page etc. I would like to name the page as "XVIII Tranche Project Audit", your comments are welcome. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't object to taking a look at our project's overall strategy and whether our structure best supports it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably as a subpage of here would be my idea? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day Krishna, I'd suggest creating it at: WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing I'd like to suggest is that we add a section to WikiProject Military history/Content guide for military biographies, linking to Wikiproject Biography guidance but adding specific things that apply to military biographies, like the infobox, and including dates of promotions, wounds, awards/citations etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be a good idea. I'd also suggest updating that page a little, e.g. "Firearm" is pretty narrow, I'd suggest changing it to "Military weapons, equipment and vehicles" or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings, thank you all for your inputs. I'll create the page with the required information within a couple of days. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A couple of us have started premptively but the details are still to be fully fleshed out. Should we make a preliminary announcement and if so, when? I have created a page for review of the Academy I have provide a guide to process and started to populate the page but I am working in a bit of a vacuum. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Annual drive
G'day ladies and gentlemen, last year we ran a multi-faceted drive in March: WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2017. Just hoping to scope whether there is a desire to run another one this year. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to pitch in to a drive. What do we think the priority should be?  Are we looking to focus more on quality over quantity, in which case a drive on bringing articles up to B-class status might be good.  Or should we look elsewhere?  I have been adding links to the WikiProject Women in Red/Military redlink list with a view to encouraging creation of articles of women in the military.  This list is up to around 700 red links so far with more to be added, and includes many interesting individuals.  We could potentially look to join forces with the large pool of editors at WikiProject Women in Red and run a joint-drive to help reduce gender bias on Wikipedia? - Dumelow (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think the key to making these drives successful is to enable editors to participate in many different ways so it can appeal to the strengths/interests of as many people as possible. Last year's drive had elements of backlog rectification (i.e tagging, assessment, adding task forces etc), as well as maintenance/clean up (updating links and content in developed articles), and content creation (creating requested articles). I feel that it was relatively successful so would be keen to replicate the general idea. The content creation aspect this year could easily include the Women in Red military list, as one of those areas where interested editors can find red links to turn blue, along with many other areas that have missing articles (for instance, the lists of requested articles on our task force pages. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, per AR's comment I'd support something similar to the last one (and have no issue with incorporating Dumelow's suggestion into such an activity if there is support for that amoung the rest of the co-ordinators. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, last year's drive was a little underwhelming. I support running one again this year (including Dumelow's suggestion), but it would be good to advertise it well in advance via coming issues of the Bugle as well as a mass message in the week prior to try to get maximum involvement. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although we did use those two methods of advertising last year per this and this. The announcement in The Bugle probably came a bit too late (coming several days into the drive), though, so if we can firm up some dates early, we could try to get it out in the February edition instead, this year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest we run it same as last year, 1-31 March. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be happy for those days. I've added a quick placeholder announcement here: WikiProject Military history/News/February 2018/Project news. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Collaborating with WP:Women in red would be awesome. Weren't they working with a military museum over in Chicago on women in warfare or somesuch? cc Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out and glad you're interested in collaborating. What month were you thinking to do this? Would you be open to suggestions? (cc: ) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We usually do such things in March (1-31), we'd definitely be open to suggestions. We have an "Articles to be created" section on our WikiProject Military history/Open tasks page, which doesn't look to have too many women on it at this point. Category:Female military personnel is where a lot of articles on military women reside. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've referred to your suggestion on the WiR ideas page here. As March is Women's History Month, many of our editors may well prefer to concentrate on Art & Feminism or other more familiar areas. For focus on women in the military to be really effective, it might be better to devote specific focus to it in April, for example. That would not necessarily mean you could not hold you main drive in March. It would just mean that WiR could draw on your red lists, etc., to continue the effort in April. Any thoughts?--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'd be happy to run our drive in April if it increases participation; however, I'd like to see what the other co-ords think. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From a strictly personal point of view I am going to be very busy in March and early April so April would be better for me. Thinking more widely I feel that the potential for a significant increase in participation makes it worth delaying til April to run the drive in co-ordination with WP:WiR - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it increases the output, I'm good with April. But in that case, we need to change the title. Also, I am sure that by April the proposed user group of Military historians will take good form, and I can help with cross-wiki collaboration to promote the drive and increase the participation. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Waiting until April seems fine to me too. On the other hand, might doing it in March, at the same time as Women's History Month, be a way to get MILHIST editors involved with WiR? Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of closer engagement with WiR during Women's History Month, but unfortunately from a personal participation perspective, I'm pretty busy with RW stuff in March and up to 25 April. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On the basis of the above discussion, I am tentatively listing a WiR editathon on Military women in history for April 2018.--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive" sounds good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @Ipigott, I support the WIR (military) but note my previous concerns that many WIR (military) will often not meet En Wp GNG even though they might be notable in their own WP language domains and will require some language skills to create an English article. You might note that I have contributed several articles. I am somewhat proud of Francien de Zeeuw but this is often going to be "as good as you can get". Perhaps the other language WPs are a better source for recruiting, though they need to be aware of GNG and referencing requirements in En WP and EN Milhist. Just a suggestion/observation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Responig to the original discussion - what works works, though the WIR issue is a modifying factor. An "ides to ides" (15th to 15th) might work.  Just throwing a knife into the Caesar (spanner into the works).  No strong views to the extent that I want to stamp my brand on any particular suggestion at this time.  Cinderella157 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for expressing these concerns. I think relatively strict approach to notability on the English wiki is something we experience in most of our editathons. Fortunately quite a few of us are fluent in a number of languages or have experience in making good use of machine translation. I think we should be able to cope quite well. As for the timing, it's easier to arrange things month by month as the preparation of editathon pages, invitations, etc., require quite a lot of work.--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, when I first floated this idea it was my hope that it would eventually become a wikipedia-wide thing, since all projects everywhere on site really need the same basic tagging, assessing, etc work. All in all I consider this outreach to be a good indication of how well this idea is doing. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * and G'day, all. I have started the infrastructure pages here: WikiProject Military history/April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive and WikiProject Military history/April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive/Worklists. I have also advertised it here: WikiProject Military history/News/March 2018/Project news and WikiProject Military history/News/February 2018/Project news. If there are any suggested adjustments, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks as if we're all set for April. You might be able to enhance our own red links on the basis of some of these.--Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I added Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists to the list of articles to assess. I find it is useful to assess these articles to improve our knowledge of what areas we need to improve on (articles missing references, needing improvement to grammar etc.) and I have found quite a few in there that were already at B-class standard - Dumelow (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * totally. I'll take a look this week, maybe today. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day ladies and gentlemen, there is just over a week to go until the annual drive is due to start. Could I please ask that if you are keen to participate, you sign up at WikiProject Military history/April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive? I will look to send out a mass message (to MILHIST members) shortly (probably tomorrow). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I've added info about your drive to our Military History meetup page. I hope there will be strong participation by WiR members.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Take two A-Class nominations off hold
Hello all. Previously, after Sturm and I nominated all four of the Type 1934-class destroyer, two of them, German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz and German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen, were placed on hold in order to allow for us to fix problems which were in all four articles. I am unaware of how exactly the hold was put in place, so for whoever does know, can these two articles be taken off hold now that they are ready? Thanks. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've added these back to the ACR list with this edit: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Modifying the A-class instructions
Would appreciate the opinion of coordinators here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and hopefully for one to determine if actionable consensus exists to modify the A-class instructions. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the link, I see something approaching a consensus with my closing comments and endorsement by @Ian Rose. Such a revision would not be prescriptive and allow for reasonable discretion on the part of nominators - particularly where they significantly contribute to the review process.  That is, they give as much as they get (more or less).  I think that this would accommodate the  reasonable concerns of @ Hawkeye7 ?  Any modification should not discourage editors advancing articles but encourage them to participate in the process in a constructive and positive way. I hope that this is sufficiently clear. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've added something now. Please feel free to adjust as desired. This is my edit: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Good for me :) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

this discussion appears to be complete.
with 5 supports, this appears to be complete, but I don't know how to close this discussion or to deal with the template, if it has been altered. auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruth, it might make sense to ask a non Milhist editor or admin to close this, to avoid the perception of a closed shop. Such closes can be requested here: Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing ACR
Hi, Just suggesting a change to our protocols. Presently, the closing procedure for A-class reviews states a 24 hr wait from proposing a close to closure. In reality, this doesn't occur. Initially, I got "caught out" because of this advice last year. Having reviewed articles for close, and waiting 24 hrs, another Ed closed the reviews. This resulted in an unnecessary duplication of effort. I suggest a number of changes.


 * 1) A proposer for a close ensures that there are three clear supports and no outstanding issues/discussion before proposing a close.
 * 2) A potential closer notifies their intent to close against the request for closure. This tells other Eds that the task is "in-hand". I have already done this as a matter of course.
 * 3) Potential reviewers should notify on the review page that they are participating in the review process. The intent of this is to capture pending comments.
 * 4) Nomination for close should be notified on the review page and the talk page 24 hrs prior to requesting close (one the other or both - this is a suggestion for discussion). This point may or may not be necessary.  On the one hand, it shifts the obligation for the 24hr wait.  On the otherhand, if there are no "incomplete" reviews and unanimous supports (x3), this is redundant.  If there are unsupported reviews, it gives the non-supporter the opportunity to comment on why the article should not be promoted.  I can think of more than one instance where this might have been appropriate.  In one instance, this was a "missed" communication between myself and the nominator but the article had not been proposed for close.  This was quickly remedied when I "eventually" asked the nominator to address the issue. Another case was when an article was proposed for close with "significant" unresolved inconsistencies.  The Article was passed despite these.  In short, if there are at least three unanimous support and no outstanding reviews or "non-supports" or unaddressed comments, the article should be promoted "automatically".  If there are outstanding reviews or "unsupported" reviews, notification should be given before proposing a close.  In such cases, the closer must then exercise due dilligence.  This point is "key" in any discussion that follows from this post.  I suggest, if there is "clear and unambiguous support" nomination does not require notification.
 * 5) Many reviewers strike out "comments" and replace this with "support". This makes it easy for a closer to assess.  Is it possible to create a template as part of the assessment/review page that provides guidance to reviewers?  This might include some of the "issues" identified herein, such as making their support (or otherwise) explicit or pending per what is common practice.
 * 6) Where a "significant error" in process has occurred, the "close" should be reversed until the matter is resolved. There may need to be a process for resolution.  This may be a "tribunal" of three uninvolved co-ordinators?  I could indicate an example of a significant error.  There is also the issue of how the review can be reversed and how this interacts with the Bot and awards etc?
 * 7) In consideration of the above, there is no reason to delay a close by 24hrs per the current advice. If there is a clear support for close, there is no reason for a 24hr wait.

Conclusion: In practice, the 24hr wait is not followed by closers (mia culpa now too). Our processes should reflect practice and provide appropriate "checks and balances". My points (above) suggest an improvement to our present processes. I see this to be part of our present audit. For discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The 24 hour thing is not consistently observed (me too), and if it is, is seems to be largely because no-one (who isn't a reviewer) has seen the post requesting the close. On occasion, someone jumps in on the review with some comments after it has three supports and an image review, and in that case, the closer just does their due diligence and makes a note on the post that there are new outstanding comments, delaying the close until the comments are addressed. I think there are enough checks and balances in the current practice. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for raising this, Cinderella. I believe the 24 hour clause was added by Dan a few years back when he was copy editing pretty much every article at A-class and wanted to take a look before they were closed. Although I sorely miss seeing him around (although I note he has popped in recently, which is great), as he has largely moved on to bigger and better things, I would suggest that we could probably soften the language of the instructions now to make it more of a suggestion, as in reality it doesn't get followed often anymore. Over the years the average length of time our reviews are open for has been steadily increasing. This is both a good thing and a bad thing, IMO. Good in so far as our reviews are trending towards being more robust which helps improve quality, bad in so much as longer reviews can make the process a bit off putting to reviewers and writers which impacts upon throughput and engagement. As such, I think we need to be careful not to make the process more involved than it needs to be, so that we aren't inadvertently slowly things down with red tape (although I agree there is room for revamping our instructions here a little). I personally think that if there is a co-ord online who is keen and free to close, and something is listed for closing, as long as they do their checks for outstanding comments etc, it should just be closed rather than waiting an arbitrary period of time for an extra review that may not come, and when they may in fact no longer be free to do the close. Of course, where the situation isn't clear cut, I would expect that a co-ord who intends to close should probably add a note to the review page with this intention to call for any saved rounds, or to confirm whether their interpretation of the situation is correct. Regarding errors in closing, that may be something that needs to be explored, but I think it is potentially a separate, albeit potentially related, issue. There would be a few options here, I think: re-open the review with consensus (difficult probably due to bot processes, award noms etc), start a re-appraisal review or resolve the issues on the talk page outside of the formal review process. I feel that the last of these would probably be the preferred method, but can see a situation where either of the first two might also be appropriate (albeit not ideal). Anyway, sorry for the long post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Distilling it down per numbered points above. No worries, I've made a couple of tweaks now to hopefully make it clearer that it is just a suggestion. Feel free to adjust as desired. Thinking about this a bit further, I wonder if maybe it should just be added to the "Commenting" section at WP:MHR (the instructions at the top of the ACR page), instead of as an edit notice. An edit notice will only be seen by an editor when they decide to edit the review page, which in reality probably reduces the notice's visibility. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) This already happens?
 * 2) This is simply a case of typing "closing" or "closing all" (and signing) at ACR for closure. It is a simple thing to avoid duplicate effort. I have already started doing this. It is a simple instruction that can be stated at.
 * 3) This is simply a case of typing Reviewing by edname (and signing) on the review page. It is simply to indicate that an Ed is undertaking a review, even if they haven't posted comments yet.  The "reviewing" can then be struck out and replaced by "comments". It meets the intent of the 24hr wait but in a different way.
 * 4) A notification on the review page (prior to requesting close) is only necessary if there is not unanimous support. This is done by the requester. This is a simple courtesy which is probably already done in "most cases" in one form or another.
 * 5) This is already the usual practice. It makes it very easy to assess the closure.
 * 6) As AR indicates, this could be problematic because of the Bot etc. The other points are not contingent on this.
 * 7) This isn't really done in any case - so why have it?
 * Points 3-5 can be achieved with a template or banner added when the review page is created. It largely makes explicit some of the things that already happen.  As such, it should tend to smooth out the process rather than create hurdles.  Hope this clarifies some things. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have created a draft template at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6. You are welcome to play in my sandbox.  Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, to clarify, do you propose that this would be a Editnotice, which would be automatically added to each review page when it is created? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be yes, to the second part, in that it would automatically become part of the review page when it is created and yes, if this is best done as a Editnotice. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I think that would be technically possible with an addition to WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class review preload boilerplate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @AustralianRupert, can you see benefits in what I am trying to achieve? Per your above particularly, can you see any difficulties or problems (except point 6)?  In short, is it worthwhile? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I don't think it can hurt, but I'm not sure that it will be followed by everyone all the time. Not everyone will want to pre-emptively state that they are reviewing something. I also think that it may be seen as being a bit prescriptive. If we look at some recent ACRs, there are many different formats for how reviewers add their comments. But you never know until you try something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @AustralianRupert, not trying to be too prescriptive. If it isn't followed exactly, that doesn't matter too much and I know that different people work different ways - as I do sometimes. The draft is just that.  It is up for discussion and improvement. It tries to avoid duplicating effort or missing effort.  Good QA, documents what works without being too prescriptive and bureaucratic and allows for flexibility to achieve the "best solution" in a given case. There are only a couple of minor differences to how things "generally" happen already and what usually works.  For example, if somebody doesn't want to say that they are reviewing an article and it gets closed: well, their bad luck if everybody else followed the advice given.  I appreciate your reserved support.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @AustralianRupert, your edits have polished what I started. Yes, it could be added at WP:MHR. I thought this might be the case with an edit notice.  What I intended is that it "appears" on the review page automatically after the nominators proposal.  It is part of the boilerplate?  User:Cinderella157/sandbox 7 is an example but it doesn't quite work because of the toolbox?  Does this help?  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry I misunderstood. Not sure it is a good idea to replicate it like that for every review page, to be honest, as I think that would probably clutter WP:MHACR (when transcluded multiple times, for instance currently 20 odd times). I think it would be best in the instructions at the top of the page, i.e mentioned once, rather than repeated for every page, or maybe as a hidden comment in each review page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotebox text should only appear once on any review page - just like the toolbox, I think. Experienced editors will just ignore the banner but it is meant to capture the newbies. If the "dummy reviewing" is a problem, it could go but your comment isn't quite clear to me...  Having said that, I just went to WP:MHR and saw that everything on the review pages is trancluded there.  There should be a way to exclude the quotebox from being transcluded - not that I know what it is.  On the otherhand, why are all reviews transcluded "in full" to WP:MHR? Why not have the individual reviews atWP:MHR contained as hidden boxes?  I can now see your issue but there is probably a work-around, even if we don't know what it is.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The solution is . Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Cinderella, I have added the text you've developed to the instructions here: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review/Instructions. Happy to revert if you disagree, and we can continue the discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Germanicus
I'd like to resubmit Germanicus for another A-class review. I know I disappeared from Wikipedia during the last one, but I should have the time to do it. I won't have to leave again for a while now (work made me move). SpartaN (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm mentioning it bc it says to request the coordinators for a second submission for A-class review. SpartaN (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day . The original review page needs to be moved (it is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Germanicus/archive1), and the old page deleted to make way for a new one to be created. Both of those things have now been done, so you can just go ahead and change A-Class=fail to A-Class=current and create the nom. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

January contest
There's a small problem in the scoring of last month's contest. Kges1901's Talk:64th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Division (Soviet Union) wasn't assessed as B class until 1 Feb and should be moved over to this month's contest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * D'oh, I missed this until now. Yes, that is my fault. Please accept my apologies. Not sure the best way to resolve this, though, as it changes the results of the month and the awards have already been handed out. However, I'm not a fan of giving and then taking back, at least without consent. If Kges is happy, I could simply swap the awards around, and adjust The Bugle'; however, I wonder if potentially we could try a creative solution and just upgrade Sturm's second place to co-winner and award the Wikichevrons twice. As the points carry over into the year it won't change that result. Could you please both let me know what you would prefer? Again, sorry for this. I'd been planning on taking a break from tallying the contest, so I will put myself in the sin bin for next month and leave it to someone with fresher eyes. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with adjusting the Bugle. The error is mine, I forgot that it is by UTC and not local time. This is really a small matter and upgrading Sturm's award sounds like a great solution.Kges1901 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, all. I have done this now. Here is my adjustment to The Bugle: . Once again, apologies for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Citing "Op Eds" as further info
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2018/Op-ed. Per post, these "well written" articles should be shared more broadly. Also, suggest this is an opportunity for recruitment? Op ed pages linked to "Article" pages could have a recruitment message incorporated - "do you want to help improve this article?"; "This is how you can help"; "Would you like to become part of the MilHist Project?". For consideration. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible bot expansion
Would it be possible to have a bot that would automatically add a MILHIST project tag onto the talk page of any page tagged with a MILHIST subproject Biography Project tag, and vice versa? There's a large number of pages that only have one or the other, mostly concentrated amongst the more ancient people, who have only one tag. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's possible. The place you want to go is Bot requests  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Award instructions
G'day all, please be advised that I have expanded the award instructions on the Awards page. These are my edits:. Hopefully this will help any new co-ords understand the process more easily. Please feel free to tweak as you see fit, or offer concerns or thoughts here. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, @,AustralianRupert I made this edit . It puts the steps as numbered points. If this is an improvement, then it could also be applied to your edit for "Nominations for the Oak Leaves". The boilerplate text to be posted to the recipients talk page is located somewhere? This could be made explicit and the link given? I could see the potential for the bot to automate some of these steps and remove some of the potential for human error (@User:Hawkeye7)? As noted, there are omissions in the awards list at WikiProject Military history/Awards (and other classes). It may not be easy for the bot to update this list (the logical test being more hassle than it is worth) but it could post to a date order list on a separate page. This separate page could provide an auditable trail of potentially all awards conferred by the project. I have an algorithm in mind that is pretty simple. It could deal with everything except updating WikiProject Military history/Awards and the Bugle but both of these steps could be reduced to a simple cut and paste. The dif of the award would not need to be recorded at WikiProject Military history/Awards (etc), since it could be placed by the bot on the date order list. Just my thoughts. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with getting the Bot to update that page. I will add code for it to do so.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * @ Hawkeye7, As I understand it, the bot adds the nom to . It might add a hidden template such as . The bot would be released when the co-ord changes the status to awarded?  Don't know your thoughts on keeping a separate log page (ie by date) that I indicated above. @AustralianRupert, we use a fairly standard message for awards but the templates don't have this message?  The boilerplate for the standard message lives somewhere else? Or should we edit the templates to have the standard message?  I can't, as I am not a template editor?  I won't do the numbered points atm, pending whether the new heading interfers with the bot. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added a link to the templates for the awards now: . @Cinderella: Happy if you want to put in numbered points. Also added a different heading level for the instructions and individual nominations. sorry, will this affect the bot when it posts the award noms? Can revert if necessary as the heading levels are really just cosmetic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see Template:WPMILHIST A-Class medal (Diamonds)/sandbox and Template:WPMILHIST A-Class medal (Diamonds)/testcases. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have created a new template:

which generates:

The MilHistBot can use this when adding nominations for A class awards.

If status is changed to approved, the MilHistBot will:
 * 1) Post the award template on the user's talk page
 * 2) Change the nomination to indicated that the award was awarded, citing the oldid of the award
 * 3) Add the award to the historical list
 * 4) Add the award to next month's Bugle

After processing, the text will now read:

which generates:

This will require a WP:BRFA. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  23:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @ Hawkeye7, this sounds good. There is the matter of having the awards delivered with a suitable statement eg: "On behalf of ...". Is this to be added by the bot or do the award templates need to be modified? Re, the historical list: is this the "log" I referred to and/or lists at WikiProject Military history/Awards? Not all awards have a list on the latter page? Not important at this stage but documenting the list of "awards" you intend the bot/WPMILHIST Award nomination to work for. Thank you very much for your time in following up on the suggestion of the bot automating these steps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While the Bot could do it, my preference would be for an appropriate "On behalf of ..." message to be loaded into the templates. Adding new awards to the list will be fairly straightforward, but initially, the Bot will handle WikiChevrons, A-Class medals and A-Class crosses.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have requested template editor rights so that I might contribute more fully rather than relying on others to do the work. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, just to clarify, not all templates are restricted to template editors so you probably can edit most of the award templates now. Personally, I'm a little reluctant to edit the template to include a standard message, as I think it might imply that it is mandatory. While most of us probably cut-and-paste our citations with slight variations, I feel that there should be some room for an individual (or personalised) message if editors want to use one. Is there a way potentially to provide an example of a citation, without implying it is the only option, perhaps? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @AustralianRupert, please see the sandbox and test cases (above) for the template. Per the these, the first part of the message is "standardised". There is scope to add a personalised message after this, as exists now. How this might interact with the bot is another thing. I think that there are virtues in the automation and accuracy that arises. Can I suggest an additional parameter to ?  - "Message=approved by Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)". "Approved by" would be the default but this could also be personalised. For consideration. Alternatively, a personalised message could be added after the bot does its thing. I have misunderstood the restrictions to template editing - always learning!  I also note (if I have this right) that any change to the award templates will be retrospective. This will be an inconvenience but IMO, this would be outweighed by the process accuracy conferred by the process being automated (but it is a case for the bot to add the standardised part of the message). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a "template editor" but you don't need this permission to edit most templates, only high impact ones that are used by large numbers of pages.
 * Because the award templates are substituted, additional changes to them will not be retrospective
 * The award template already has a citationmessage parameter which can be loaded with whatever you like. This explains what the award is for. The ones for the A class medals and crosses will be pre-loaded by the MilHistBot with the names of the articles
 * I can add another parameter to override the "On behalf of" message. Templates allow for a parameters to be given default values.
 * Do we want an "approved by" parameter?
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * @ Hawkeye7, I have a clearer understanding of restrictions on template editing now and thank you for clarifying the effect of substitution wrt retrospectivity. We do not need an "approved by" parameter per se, I was just thinking of how to address ARs concern per your point 4. I just happened to give it a name and default content.  My uncle would say, "children and fools should never see something half done ..." - or something like that (pointing to myself). So on that basis, I should leave it to you to finish. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It may be easier to follow the results of a test run, against the sandboxes. The Bot:
 * 1) Posts the award template on the user's talk page (in this case, the Bot's own page)  (the typo has been corrected)
 * 2) Changes the nomination page to indicate that the award was awarded.
 * 3) Added the award to the historical list
 * 4) Added the award to next month's Bugle

Currently, only A-Class medals and crosses are handled. The Bugle step is the most complex. The Bot will create the page if required, adding headers if required (as it did here). Teaching the Bot to calculate what next month is took some thought. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Those tests look pretty good to me, Hawkeye. Thanks for your efforts with this. My only suggestion at this stage would be to add the different possible parameters to the documentation page for WPMILHIST Award nomination particularly for the award param. It might also work to provide an example citation on the same documentation page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:Peacemaker67, Thanks for looking at the awards list issue for Parsecboy. The process was new to me. You can see that we are working to document and improve the process. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that the MilHistBot is now using the new template, but the Awards run has not yet been cleared for trial by BRFA. If you ping me, I can run it manually.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Bot awards run approved for trial, so it will run daily shortly after midnight zulu.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Hawkeye, just wondering if the bot could be tweaked to use a level 4 subheading when it posts the nomination? For instance this edit – – would become this: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Already done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Hawkeye, I had a go at approving the award using the template with this edit: . I think it has worked as advertised, but just wanted to check that I did it the right way. Can you please take a look and let me know? If that was the correct process, I will look to rework the instructions. Also, I notice that there is a slight typo in the citation here: . Instead of "On behalf of the Military History I am..." it should say "On behalf of the Military History project I am...". Are you able to adjust the bot accordingly? Once again, thanks for setting this up. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

GAN second opinion requested
I would like a second opinion on a GAN from an editor who's experienced with military aviator biographies. The nominator and I have repeatedly clashed over various issues and I think that a fresh set of eyes is necessary. The nominator is very knowledgeable, so I'm reluctant to fail the article outright, but he is unwilling to adapt to Wikipedia's requirements. Many thanks in advance for anyone willing to help me out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about adjusting contest instructions
has misunderstood the instructions for the contest and has nominated articles that he only copyedited. He's abroad right now with poor connectivity and I think that we shouldn't review his articles and close last month's contest until he's had time to removed the articles that shouldn't be there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, it looks like this may have been resolved: I am sitting this contest out from a tallying/awards perspective, but in terms of the wider issue, I wonder if the instructions are clear enough about what makes an article eligible to be claimed by an editor? I think potentially we could tweak the "How it works" section a little to hopefully make it clearer. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope that it is resolved now. I have gone through my entries and removed a further 25 which on reflection I do not think I have put enough new content in to meet the criteria. That said, I have found it a little difficult judging just where the bar is, so possibly a tweak may be helpful.
 * Apologies to all for the delay, and thank you for your patience.
 * On a brighter note, this takes the number of articles which I have promoted to B class in February and not entered in the contest to 56. With those in the contest, 82. Quite a fruitful holiday. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think that we should be a bit more specific about what work on an article counts for the contest as Gog's mistake is perfectly understandable given the extant wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would support same to avoid "good faith" mistakes. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I have had a look at this now and I would propose the following change. In the "How it works" subsection of WikiProject Military history/Contest, I would suggest adding another numbered point. I propose something like: "To be eligible to claim points for an article, the claiming editor must have made a substantive change to an aspect of the article that leads directly to an increase in its assessment rating. Invariably this will mean that the claiming editor will be the main contributor (or co-contributor) to the article for the month. Such improvements can be focused on one or more aspects of the B-class criteria. For instance, adding references, improving structure or grammar, adding images, or expanding content; these changes should be significant and incidental changes should not be claimed." Are there any thoughts or concerns on this, or suggested amendments? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If I may comment, as the sort of editor new to the contest whom this is aimed at, that seems very clear to me. (And I am tempted to reinstate several of the entries I removed. But I won't.) I can't of course, comment on whether it says what you want it to say, but it does say what it says clearly. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggest: "To be eligible to claim points for an article, the claiming editor must have made a substantive change to an aspect of the article that leads directly to an increase in its assessment rating. Such improvements can be focused on one or more aspects of the B-class criteria. For instance, adding references, improving structure or grammar, adding images, or expanding content; these changes should be significant and incidental changes should not be claimed. The claiming editor will be the main contributor (or co-contributor) to the article for the month." Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'd be happy with that. are there any other opinions on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy with Cinderella157's text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just being pedantic but do we really mean "substantive" (i.e. real) or "substantial" (i.e. large). I guess "real" change might be valid but I suspect "large" change could be more what we have in mind... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, actually I was going for substantive as in "real" here, as I thought substantial could give the wrong impression that size of the change is what is relevant (as opposed to quality/outcome) but happy to change to "substantial" if you believe it an improvement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * An observation: a change may not need to be large (by way of absolute or relative volume of text) to be sufficient to create a significant (and thereby real) change in an article's "quality"? Improvement in article quality is the benchmark. If "large" is what we have in mind, then it is subjective and the object is to remove subjectivity. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, not suggesting we mean large simply in terms of lots of text or many references but large as in the improvement we make, so "substantive" is fair enough, but perhaps "significant" is simpler? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at the particular part: {{xt|To be eligible to claim points for an article, the claiming editor must have made a substantive [real|large|significant} change to an aspect of the article that leads directly to an increase in its assessment rating.}} A rel change leads to a change in rating. A large change doesn't seem to fit. A significant change does, except that it is again used. I am not intrinsically opposed to this repetition though. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What about "meaningful" instead of "substantive"? Would that be a fair compromise? That would resolve the repetition of "substantial". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, meaningful would be an acceptable synonym. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Are there any objections to updating the instructions along these lines (with "meaningful" instead of "substantive", per the above)? If not, I think we should implement this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Are we also in a position to to put up the revised scoring per my table 4? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per AR's proposal. I've no issues with this. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

February tallying and scoreboard update proposal
I have completed the checking of the February results (with some help) and, of course, most of this was Gog's. From this, I could make some observations. While the edits made were perhaps a bit more than incidental, they were not considerable. I suggest that this might be better than "meaningful" in that there should be a considerable improvement in the quality of the article, as opposed to size. Having said that, Gog has, overall, made a considerable improvement to the project, which should not be discouraged.

My next observation is that many of his articles were initially assessed as deficient in B3. The criterion requires: "It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content." many of the articles are quite small - perhaps five or so paras. A lead, body and Ref section satisfies the criterion and is not inappropriate for the size, even if a more detailed structure and lead might be an improvement. It appears that we might be assessing to a "perception" rather than the standard as stated. B class is not perfect, it is not a "Good" article. It is reasonable but still with scope for improvement even if the assessment page does say: "An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure ... it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic ...". What then, is the true distinction between B and higher levels? Perhaps "adequate" and "satisfactory" are better terms.

I would observe that our (WP) quality assessment scale probably does not serve us as well as it might. I would refer to a discussion at the Village Pump (proposals) for a better assessment process - but this appears to have died a natural death. I observe that size does not determine quality but it does determine the effort required to achieve quality. There is a perception that smaller articles are precluded from higher levels of assessment. This should not be the case (except perhaps for the smallest which are at their limit at two or three paras) and if it is to be the case, it should be made explicit.

More to the point of this discussion ... Firstly, there is the case where an article has already evolved to to a higher class than what it was originally assessed as but has not been reassessed. This should not qualify for points. Perhaps we might review the competition scoring to be more accommodating of the situation that has arisen with "minor" and a "major" scores that are related to the size of the article and quantum of effort to achieve the improvement - perhaps doubling the scores for a major effort? (I could expand on this idea) This might also permit sharing of points for a collaborative effort? Finally, there is the matter of timing. The effort to improve an article spans across two calendar months. This may well be the case for A class (&c), in which we take the points (with some limited discretion) to apply when the article passes the assessment and not when the effort occurred. We should address this to some degree. The other concern is the matter of "main contributor". We should distinguish the "main contributor leading to the revised assessment" v the "main contributor in the month". I give a scenario: An editor improves an article over a period that spans the start of the month (or at the start of the month) the article is assessed as improved in the early part of the month; however, further edits are made by others over the course of the month such that the editor that improved the assessment of the article is not clearly the main contributor for the month.

Clear as mud? Apologies for the long comment. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Another observation is that a simple checklist without the benefit of comments does not necessarily make it apparent why an assessor has not passed an article to B class and therefore, what is required to elivate an article to B class. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I appreciate you taking a look at this. I think we need to be careful, though, to keep the process simple and easy to understand with as few rules as possible. I am concerned that we are potentially going to scare editors away from participating if we don't achieve this. Equally, I am a little concerned that potentially we are penalising an editor from claiming points because the old assessment was out of date and the article they worked on was actually (but not formally) a higher grade prior to them getting there. How are they to know this? Even if they do know this, do we want them to not work on the article because of this as the article will be ruled out of contention on a technicality? I don't think we do. The rationale of the contest is to motivate editors so that articles get improved. If the opportunity of a quick kill (by selecting a mature article to work on) motivates article improvement, that is surely a good thing. Equally, do we not run the risk of discouraging editors from participating in the contest if we add too many caveats about what is eligible, while also making the job of verification too onerous for any co-ord to be interested in doing it? Regarding multiple editors working on an article: if two or more editors work on an article in a scoring period and bring it to a higher class, with one working on one aspect (say for instance structure) and the other on a different aspect (say referencing) we haven't split the points in the past. Both editors have usually been entitled to claim full points equal to the end assessment. If we did split the points, it would make verification a nightmare (it would also probably require a change in scoring schedule as it is currently based on end assessment, not individual criteria), and would likely confuse new editors to the point that they probably won't want to participate. WRT the checklist not providing enough information to aid article improvement, I agree, but I don't think there is a solution short of site-wide change (which I doubt there is an appetite for). This is why edit summaries should be used, or comments posted on the talk page or at WP:MHA when assessing up to B-class to provide suggestions about what is necessary IMO to promote an article to the next level. (Comments written directly on the talk page are probably best where the assessment hasn't been requested at WP:MHA and when there isn't a currently active main editor working on an article, as this allows someone coming to the article potentially years later to understand what is required to fix an issue, e.g. the recent issue with lack of tribal casualty details on the Pink's War article, which was raised on the talk page years ago, and fixed yesterday). Anyway, just a few thoughts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Short comments (hidden) along with the assessment template is one way to address this. It just requires an "effort" to get this happening. A simple doubling of all scores and creating a two tier structure for each step could be simple and easy to implement Start to B class would be 10 points for a substantial effort or 5 points for a lesser effort (such as just putting in a few headings. To some extent, this could be self regulating and would not create an additional burden. It would be easy to implement given that we are early in this years cycle. There is the element of fairness, considering the degree of effort from say Lazeges compared with most of Gog's articles. We want to encourage both and a fair awarding of points is the only way to do this. I do not suggest that Gog has acted in anything but good faith, I don't think he has understood the spirit of the comp. Defining the spirit of the comp is an easy task (though perhaps more subjective) than writing a set of rules and caveats. Another possible consideration is a reviewers comp? I agree with all of the principles you have indicated.


 * Having done the checks, I don't see that this doubling would be a greater burden (though I don't know how other co-ords have approached the task). For formal reviews, it is easy. For B class and lower, it is more difficult. I have checked the Talk edit history for the current and past assessments (and previous deficiencies in the article). I have then checked the article edit history to confirm edits made by the claimant and that these have been responsible for an increase in the article's assessment (ie addressing the deficiency identified in the previous assessment).


 * At present, we tie the comp to a rise in assessment. This is fine for independent assessments. However, a significant improvement in article quality may not result in a change of assessment. The current criterion is simple to objectify but clearly not without problems - it might reward a nominal effort that is temporally associated with a in a change in assessment (even if it is not responsible for that change) but does not reward a significant improvement in quality that does not result in a change of assessment. I might point to the Kokoda Track campaign. I think that this was a significant change in quality that has not resulted in a change in assessment - just saying. One solution is for changes to be nominated by a third party for edits to B class and less - regardless of whether the edits result in a change of assessment.


 * In the first instance, I believe that doubling point and two tiers is a simple solution combined with defining the spirit of the comp. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, can you please clarify this point a bit more: "One solution is for changes to be nominated by a third party for edits to B class and less"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, editors put their own name on the competition board. There is no issue with GA A and FA, since these are formal reviews. B class reviews can result in an outcome of Start C or B. They are individual reviews and, by convention, usually done by a third party. The reviewer might be asked to place the result on the competition board (nominating it for the comp) their nomination is based on the spirit of the comp. I was actually suggesting this outside a review process though. This would capture something like Kokoda and the First and Second Battles of Eora Creek – Templeton's Crossing that I worked on. You might have put these in the comp for me (or I might have asked you to). The only possible glitch is if these were subsequently elevated (GA A or FA) in the same comp year. There shouldn't be double dipping. But individual integrity and casual oversight should avoid same. I am just throwing around ideas. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think self nominating would still be fine for these instances (claiming points for improvements that don't lead to changes in assessment), as the third party input would come with verification. Third party nominating would seem to me to potentially be a bit hit-and-miss, and possibly open to claims of selection bias. Regarding double-dipping, I think we would want to limit claims to one non-assessment increasing improvement per article per editor per year, but I think it would be ok for subsequent claims for an article where there was an increase in assessment rating. We already do this, for instance in one month an increase from Start to B with a claim for 5 points, and then next month for B to GA with a claim for another 5 points etc. In this regard, if we were keen to expand the scope of the contest, I would suggest that we would probably keep the points awarded for a non-assessment increasing improvement claim relatively low (say 1 point for minor work, and 3 points for major work such as a full rewrite). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That would work. It would also go a way to resolving our present issue in that many of Gog's edits were not consequential in raising the assessment. The doubling the score idea is also to distinguish major and minor work that does lead to an increase in assessment. Minor work that does or does not result in a change of assessment might be of similar value. I see this might (largely) resolve the problem we face. I could try drafting up a scoring matrix in my sandbox. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Modified scoring table
Please see User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6. I have produced two tables. Both include points for minor and major edits that don't result in a promotion of an article. The points I allocated for these are open for discussion. The first is a simple doubling of points for minor and major efforts (except at the lower end of the spectrum), where no distinction is made between minor and major. I have placed the original matrix between my two draft tables for ease of comparison. The second draft table assumes that any promotion to GA A or FA is a major effort. As such, it simplifies the matrix. The tables retain the quite clever relationship of scoring from the original matrix. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I made a suggestion for a slight tweak with this edit: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer the third option, which assumes any promotion to GA, A or FA is a major effort as the claimant would be a co-nom on the review, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I prefer the third option too. Your edits didn't come out right so I reverted and constructed a third table to capture your intent? I wasn't certain what scores to use so I just made them up. I think a middle ground between two and three might be better. With table two at the low end of the spectrum, my rationale was that any edits not sufficient to raise the assessment were probably not sufficient to score and any that were sufficient to raise the assessment were likely to be more than minor. I could suggest a middle ground on this. See table four. Basically if you don't get a stub to at last Start, there are no points? I also tweaked the minor no change scores. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your revert, to be honest. My change wasn't directed at adjusting the formatting. I was addressing the issue of awarding points for non-assessment increasing contributions at the Start and C-Class level, which had been omitted: . In the new tables, I think only Table 4 achieves this and there is now also a formatting and scoring issue with Table 1 in the GA, A and FA columns on the first row: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And I probably didn't understand your edit either. Table 3 is what I thought you were trying to do and the revert was just to put back table 1 to original. How is table 4 (given it has no points for a non-assessment increasing contribution per my rationale above)? How about the points in table 4 for non-assessment increasing contributions/ Perhaps, if you want to tweak these, you could edit by creating further examples, as I have? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for sticking with this. Looking at the table now, I wonder if it is a bit confusing. For instance, reference the new Table 4. On the first line, shouldn't each column increase (at least slightly) at every increment as it progresses to the right? It seems there are no points increase for a minor contribution claim for an article progressing from C to B, unless I'm missing something? think this might be a product of the fact that we are trying to do too much with the table, perhaps. As such, I think there might be an easier way to express this; if we removed the "min" and "maj" columns and just have a single score like before, we could then simply have a note stating that a "minor contribution claim equals half of a full contribution at the relevant increment". The nominator could then still record the start and end classes on the entries page, but we could include another column that says "full claim" or "half claim" (with the nominator stating what they are claiming for). Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I won't argue against a simplification. As I said before, the original table was quite clever in maintaining a relationships in points both horizontally and vertically. Apart from titivating the fringes, table 4 maintains this by a simple doubling/halving. The table gives an "at a glance" scoring and removes arithmetic error. making a verbal statement v the table does not change the result. I see no issue with a major contribution not changing assessment being equivalent to a minor one that does. The "problem" you see on the first row does not appear on the second row but does on the third. I think that you are "missing something" in that table 4 just maintains the initial clever relativity, save halving for a minor contribution. We could apply another scaling factor but it would lack simplicity per Occam's razor (besides, I run out of fingers and toes adding large numbers). Your suggestion of adding a column for minor or major claims has merit, since it makes the claim explicit and avoids ambiguity if the points claimed are incorrect (as I observed doing this month's check). I appreciate your thanks. This is the sort of thing I said I could bring to the project. If you sensed some frustration, it is only that this is not something we can do alone and I sense a degree of urgency. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed table 4
This is the proposed Table 4 as at this time, per the discussion above. If you wish to propose edits, please use User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6 and follow the instructions there. I ask this, because, in my experience, editing the table can be a little tricky. Can we also refer to any future versions alphabetically, to distinguish them from the earlier discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion of table
G'day, thanks for putting this together. Works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks fine, but I am left wondering how much extra effort we are requiring of the coords who check each entry, needing them to drill down to see what edits have been made and whether they agree with the minor/major points claimed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I described how I went about checking this months nominations. You can also see that I closed each nomination individually. It didn't take long to get a good feel for whether it was a minor or major change, so on that point, I don't think it will take much, if any, more time if one is doing a modestly diligent check in the first instance. The only issue is that it is intended to attract more participation - which should be seen as a good thing, I think? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, while I appreciate the effort that's gone into this I don't think adding further complication to the scoring table is a good thing at all. Not only does it make more work for those checking scores, it leaves room for argument over just what those scores should be based on peoples' interpretations of minor or major work. I think the discussion of how clear our instructions are has been a good thing (I'm sorry I didn't have time to participate in it) and I applaud Cinderella's efforts in finalising the Feb results, but I think things should stop there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi @Ian Rose, this whole thread started with the observation that Gog had nominated [many] articles which he had only copy-edited. B4 requires that an article be free from major grammatical errors. In truth, a quick copy edit of a small article may be all that is required to elevate an article on the assessment scale. Similarly, for B3, a heading and a brief lead (one, two or three sentences) may be all that is required to address this criterion and claim points. As AR observed, it is quite reasonable for a contestant to make a "quick kill". In each case, these are meaningful changes but certainly not major contributions. I am sure that I could quite easily game the new rules to produce a similar situation to that which started all this. There is no reason that another editor might not do the same in good faith (and absolutely no reflection on Gog). I can only see that a differentiation between a minor and major contribution will address this. Sure, minor and major has a degree of subjectivity. It is not a perfect solution. However, at the suggestion of AR, contestants are asked to identify which class their nomination falls too. I suggest that this "check" will limit many potential concerns. As a "balance", the comp checker can always call upon a third opinion. I see this to be the exception rather than the norm but only time will tell. Finally, the table encourages more participation. This must be a good thing - even if it means that there are more nominations to check. Per my above though, I do not believe that the time to make each check will be (meaningfully) more. It also allows awarding of lesser points where a nomination has not been judged as leading to a promotion in assessment. It provides more flexibility to the comp checker without having to ask the nominator to withdraw their nomination. Be clear, that was an onerous task. I believe that the table (and its implications) has more benefits (in many respects) than detractions. I am all for simplicity but sometimes, it does not produce the required/desired outcome. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks sharing your concerns, Ian. Are there any more comments from any other co-ords, or non co-ords who may be watching this page? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see this point is strongly felt but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. I would say that a more complicated scoring system could just as easily drive people away as encourage them. Also I find this suspicion that people are out to game the rules to be pretty pessimistic based on my experience with the contest and the contestants. Sometimes the effort that elevates an article an assessment level will be minor, and sometimes it will be major; I find it tends to come out in the wash. For instance I usually go all out when improving a Stub or Start-class article, with the view that it might one day get to A-class or FA. That means I've put in a much greater effort than necessary to get the article to B-class, and more than enough to get it to GA as well. The ultimate reward for that extra effort comes later, and I don't begrudge another contestant their points for doing the requisite amount to get an article to B-class and no more, because it all helps the project. The contest has been running at least a decade, and the Gog episode is the first serious issue that might have arisen from a failure to comprehend the instructions that I can recall. As I said above, I think that justifies another look at the instructions (in fact they probably needed a look anyway, lest we get complacent about them) but I don't think it justifies a more elaborate scoring system, and would be interested to see other opinions beyond the few we've heard so far. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @Ian Rose, I was not suggesting that anybody was (or will) game the comp (willfully). Rather, that I could and that the comp was still subject to good faith misinterpretation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Because this affects current contestants in the comp, I intend opening this discussion to those affected (about 24 hrs from now). I think it is important to gauge their response to this proposal, given that they are directly affected by any decision here. I note that many may be following this discussion but some are not? By this, we might gauge the fairness of what I propose. Timeliness is a matter of natural justice. It is an element in which we have failed in to this point (overall). If the amendments to the rules and the table both get up, I propose a simple doubling of scores with effect of the Feb comp and that the changes become effective for the March comp. I think that steps to notify intent (to ensure fairness in these respects) have been put in place as best as possible. please speak up if there is any objection. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging stakeholders
and @User:Kees08, @User:Kges1901, @User:Randomness74, @User:Catlemur, @User:Djmaschek, @User:Lord Ics, @User:The Bushranger, @User:Gog the Mild and @User:Zawed. I am pinging you because of foreshadowed changes to the MilHist comp. This includes an adjustment to the "rules", by way of clarification, and an adjustment to the scoring table (per above). These (in my view) are closely tied. The changes to the rules are:

Changes to the scoring table can be summarised as follows:
 * Changes to the scoring table
 * 1) Scores in the table are essentially doubled. This allows for differentiation of minor and major contributions to an article on the basis of a full or half score. The table essentially retains the "clever" relationship (horizontally and vertically) of the original table.
 * 2) The table opens the comp to changes to an article that do not lead to an increase in assessment.
 * 3) The table assumes that an increase in assessment of an article above B class is a major contribution.
 * 4) Competitors would nominate whether their nominations are either major or minor.

The benefits are:
 * 1) A tie to the revised rules that provide greater flexibility for a competition closer to award points for what is assessed as being less than what is claimed. The present alternative is largely to disqualify a nomination.
 * 2) A fairer recognition of effort with respect to a nomination.
 * 3) The competition is broadened (hopefully) in a way tat increases participation.

Detractions raised are:
 * 1) Subjectivity of what is a minor or major contribution.
 * 2) Greater effort to close.
 * 3) Greater complexity of the table which will detract rather than encourage participation.

Comments in rebuttal are:
 * 1) It is somewhat subjective. However, any edits to a small article will generally be minor. Significant changes to a large article (or making an article much larger) will be major. A "check" is self nomination, by which, a nominator must assess whether their claim is major or minor. A "balance"is that a closer may call upon a "third opinion". The proposal may not be perfect but (IMO) it is better than what we have.
 * 2) The effort to close is not likely to be significantly greater to a closer applying reasonable diligence. There may be more articles to close but I do not think this is a bad thing as it represents greater participation.
 * 3) I don't think the changes are that complicated since it is essentially a doubling of the existing table with two grades. I don't think that is all too complicated. However, any clarification would be appreciated.

It is intended that the changes take effect from the Mach competition. Previous points would be simply doubled. A notification on the contest page of pending changes have already been made. While it would be ideal to make changes as of the start of the annual comp, we are, nonetheless, quite early in this years comp to the extent that it should have a minimal impact on the final result.
 * Implementation

Comments (support or opposition) are requested below. Thank you for your input. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conclusion
 * Support, but question on Competitors would nominate whether their nominations are ether major or minor. does this mean the nom should indicate which it is? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Iazyges, The nomination table would have a column for Min/Maj in which they would place Min or Maj. Instructions would clarify this. This would make explicit whether the claim (for the nomination) is either min or maj. This is intrinsic to the "check" (and balance) in the process as I have explained it. The "rules" have not yet been fully integrated with the table. While the proposals are close to final form, they are still works in progress. Hope this answers your question. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Seems like a good solution to the issue. Kges1901 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It seems a sensible, relatively pain free solution, and has, IMO, a chance of modestly increasing participation. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral While it is generally a good idea, I am a little skeptical of the extra work load that it will create.--Catlemur (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - oppose because the only reason I decided to start submitting to the contest is because it was really easy and I did not have to think about it; weak because I am not a big contributor to the contest, as I focus on spaceflight and only join when there is overlap between spaceflight and milhist.  Kees08  (Talk)   04:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose scoring change/support rules change per my comments elsewhere, I believe that tweaking of the rules should be given time to work before considering changing the scoring system, which is nice and simple as it stands. IMHO this is more about getting new participants to better understand what they can claim, than a systemic issue with the contest as a whole. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

and @User:Kees08, @User:Randomness74, @User:Catlemur, @User:Djmaschek, @User:Lord Ics, @User:The Bushranger and @User:Zawed. Pinging stakeholders that have not responded. This is a matter that requires a quorum (IMO) - whether it is a decision to implement or not. The proposition has two arms, of which the first is a rewording of the rules and the second, is to revise the scoring table. Opposition to the scoring table has been essentially to see how the rewording pans out as a solution alone. This is a point in time where both changes can be implemented with minimal disruption. This may not be the case further in time if the rewording alone is not found to be sufficient. In respect to the situation giving rise to these changes, the table provides a resolution not available by just changing the wording of the rules. The revised scoring permits awarding of lesser points by the competition closer where the nominator's edits are not assessed as being consequential in elevating the assessment of the article. The alternative, without the revised scoring, is to disqualify the nomination. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see how the rules change goes and only complicate the scoring if and when the rules change signally fails to work. In fact, I would go further and say that if anyone is regularly having articles disqualified, they clearly are not playing by the rules, and should be banned from the contest, rather than changing the scoring arrangements in the first instance. Simple scoring arrangements are part of the attraction of the contest, IMHO. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your response @Peacemaker67. My chagrin is at the lack of response (and quorum) throughout this "episode" from those that have accepted a duty to the project. It is not too hard to express an opinion one way or another - even it is ambivalence. I acknowledge and appreciate your opinion, even if I disagree in that this is not a significant increase in complexity. Regards and thanks, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, based on Ian's concerns, and AC's comments below, as well as PM's above, I think we probably need to see how the new instructions go for a while to see if further change is required. I had a bit of a play around today in my sandbox, to look at a potential compromise solution, which expands eligibility for an editor to claim points for making contributions to an article that doesn't result in an assessment change (please see Tables 2 and 3 on User:AustralianRupert/sandbox for a couple of mock-ups). Not sure if that is an improvement or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be that some don't consider this as big an issue as others, and would therefore rather leave things as they are. The reality is that unless there is a consensus for change, things should stay as they have been for years. I know that isn't considered ideal by some, but there it is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @AustralianRupert, I appreciate your thoughts and input. I would observe that the original "complaint" was one of relative effort even though more than "incidental". It was only on closer inspection that a number of the nominations were assessed as not being meaningful to the change of assessment. Of those I determined to be "meaningful", most were still minor in extent. I acknowledge that there appears to be no consensus for change at this time. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for your time with this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-reading my comment, I may have come off as dismissive, . That wasn't my intention. Thanks for the thought and effort you have put into with this, I just think we shouldn't make things more complex than they are without a really good reason. Coords should be focussing on making sure new contestants are entering into the spirit of the contest rather than just racking up points. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem. I don't have an issue with a conscious decision not to implement this part of of the solution. Your input has been appreciated. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Here because of the ping. For what its worth, I agree that I would prefer to see the impact of the instructions before implementing a change in scoring. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding to the ping; I need to reread this again so I can re-familiarize myself with what I've missed before I pencil in an S/O/N count above. Should be back to it sometime later this week or early next week. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

February contest verification and results
G'day, all, as per the above I am having a break from tallying and handing out awards for the contest this month. As such, can I please ask that a couple of other co-ords take care of this task this month? The Bugle can't go out until this is done, so it would be great if this could be taken care of in the next couple of days. This is probably a good opportunity for someone who hasn't done it before, to learn the ropes so that we gain some redundancy. If you have any questions about the process, please feel free to ping me. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All of the entries have been verified, it seems, but I'm not quite sure what to do about those of Gog's that Cinderella commented on - does anyone feel strongly about excluding some or all of those? I haven't looked at most of them, but these edits don't seem all that substantive to me (especially when the structure of the article as it was was perfectly fine to meet B3). Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think that there are a couple which might be removed. Regarding my comments on the contest page, I have been conscious of potential subconscious bias and believe that my comments can be objectively substantiated. I have applied the same process to similar article by other editors (though not with the same results). I have foreshadowed (immediately above) a possible change to scoring (simplistically, a doubling of scores to introduce two tiers that reflect whether the changes were considerable (wrt quality and effort) or not. Can I suggest that (with some reflection on the above discussion) we ask Gog to do a self reassessment with respect to both the number of articles claimed and the number of points claimed, comparing his articles with other similar claimants (such as Iazyges) and the spirit of the comp. This could be a global assessment, rather than a case-by-case basis. Without prejudice to what Gog might decide, I might suggest a simple halving (just off the top of my head). Having said this, I do not suggest in any way that Gog has acted in other than good faith. I am just trying to find a solution which is both fair and seen to be fair wrt to both Gog and other contributors. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have the tallies all done. It is a matter of having a consensus on what we do. I will post these a little later today. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Scoreboard updated subject to consensus/confirmation. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I could say that I am sorry for being insistent but I am not. This, and the above discussion, are things that really need to be addressed sooner rather than later, as it is holding up the Bugle. It is also a matter that needs needs something approaching a quorum. AR and I have been holding up our end of the stick but this really needs more input and soon. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As the Bugle was a few days over-due, Ian and I have sent it out. We'll include the February contest results alongside the March ones next month. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, Nick, probably the best course of action here while we sort this out. For my part, unless Gog wants to withdraw the entries Cinderella has highlighted, I think it would probably be best to honour the points claimed until the instructions are made clearer (per the proposal above). Would like to get some more opinions, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe we have to treat Gog's entries as submitted in good faith, as it wouldn't be right to retroactively apply a different standard. We could, however, ask Gog to withdraw any articles identified by Cinderella, and see what Gog does. I'd support such a request. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * this needs to be resolved, and the suggested course of action (to formally approach Gog and ask for them to withdraw any articles identified by Cinderella) needs a few more coordinators to achieve a consensus before Rupert, Cinderella or I approach Gog about it. Could you all please chime in and let us know your views asap? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your solution seems fine to me, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * My observation per my above is that Gog should be approached with the option of a reassessment on either a case by case basis or globally. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I think it would be a good idea to ping Gog and see what their thoughts are so that we can resolve this. My internet is playing up this morning (and I may be recalled to work shortly) due to the cyclone here, but if I am still online later today or tomorrow, I will ping Gog if there are no objections, or if someone hasn't beaten me to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to do this but I think it would be better coming from you as lead Coord (in the first instance) I am happy if you make me the POC though, for Gog to discuss this. I strongly suggest there be the proposition of making a global reassessment as this might simplify "arguing" over semantics for each individual case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Cinderella, spent the morning clearing trees with a chainsaw, which I hadn't touched in quite some time. Was good to get back on the tools for a change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Message to Gog
Dear @User:Gog the Mild,

I have taken on this duty on behalf of our Lead Coordinator, AustralianRupert, to contact you in regard to the February contest. AR is otherwise indisposed at the moment, being in the midst of a natural disaster. I apologise on his behalf for not attending to this matter personally. You are aware that your entries in February's competition has caused some consternation among the coordinators (as evidenced by the recent discussions on the Coord talk page, immediately above. As a matter of disclosure as to my part, I have also messaged AR on his talk page. The "issue" is that you have interpreted the rules and spirit of the competition in a way quite different from the intention and which has not happened previously (to my knowledge). Having said that, there is no suggestion or implication that you have not acted in anything other than "good faith". Consequently though, we have (attempted) to clarify the spirit and intent of the comp - that an entry addresses deficiencies in an article in a way that directly leads to it being promoted on the assessment scale.

You will note that, with some help from my fellow Coords, I have been responsible for checking and posting February's comp results. Among others, I have checked all of your submissions. For many of these, I have left comments. In most of these cases, the articles a quite short - consisting of a lead and up to, say, five paragraphs. They have generally been assessed as C class and deficient in B3 (structure). The minimum requirement for B3 is a lead and at least one (main) section. This is quite appropriate for such a small article, even if the lead might be improved or further sections added. The disparity between the prior assessment and the article's state may have occurred for two reasons: either the article has been subsequently improved or the assessor did not apply the minimum and appropriate requirement in such a case (to which, the assessment may have been incorrect). While your edits to articles submitted into the comp have invariably improved these articles, my concern (and that of others) is that these have not directly led to addressing the deficiency in the article such that it was promoted - even though it was promoted subsequent to your edits. I am more than willing to discuss any of my comments.

The problem that we, as Coords, face is to achieve an outcome that is both fair and is seen to be fair, in respect to both yourself and other competitors. You will note that I do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this as I am not nor have ever been a contestant (not by my nomination at least).

It is potentially within your power to resolve our dilemma. On behalf of the Coords, may I ask you to reconsider your entries to the comp. I would ask you to do so in light of the most recent discussions on the Coord talk page and other similar claims for points in the comp. This is, without prejudice to your initial claims. This may be made on a case-by-case basis but I suggest you might also consider a global assessment of both the number of points claimed and the number of articles claimed, as this may simplify matters.

I also note, the foreshadowed changes to the scoring table. I am reasonably confident that this will be implemented in something close to the proposed form. It would certainly simplify matters for us if this could be implemented with effect of the February comp. Your decision may be contingent upon this and/or without prejudice to how this may ultimately be implemented.

Thankyou for considering this somewhat long post and request. Please ping me on your talk page, my talk page, the Coord talk page or at my comments on the February contest with your response and/or any questions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Also posted to Gog's talk page.


 * G'day as AR would say. This seems the most appropriate page to reply on. Thank you for opening up communications. I have several times been close to taking action myself, but have felt that my motives may be misconstrued. Thank you for the opportunity to extricate myself from this situation with at least a semblance of grace.
 * What should be some light hearted fun seems to have involved a lot of editors in a lot of effort which they could have expended more usefully, and for this I am sorry. I would be grateful if you could withdraw all of my February entries from the contest. It is possible that I may wish to re-enter some of them in future months if and when I understand more fully both the rules and the ineffable spirit of the contest.
 * Apologies again for the inadvertent misunderstanding [redundancy intended]. Can I end with a comment on the cordiality and helpfulness I have encountered at MilHist since I became more active a few weeks ago; the project has created a good atmosphere in which to work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for accepting this advice with good grace, Gog. I think you have chosen a good course of action. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:Gog the Mild, can I thank you sincerely for your response. I would also express my disappointment that you were not contacted earlier. As to the effort expended, a good deal of this has gone to a proposal (per the table above) to expand and revise the comp in a positive way. That your entries prompted this review is a positive outcome. I have withdrawn those entries against which there were comments. This leaves some 14 articles for a total of 62 points under the present scoring - significantly exceeding the next competitor. I would encourage you to retain the nominations for those article; however, I will strike these too if you still wish me to. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I find myself in something of a bind. I have a competitive spirit and am fond of Wiki-bling. But I also dislike being awarded anything under false pretences. I am not competent to judge if the latter applies to this position, and feel that my judgement is being swayed by an unseemly longing for barnstars. I would be grateful if you personally could make the decision on my behalf. You have given my entries a fairly good scrutiny. If you feel that they meet the requirements for a certain number of points, or that they don't, then you are in a better position to judge than I am. Or toss a coin. Whichever way you decide I would prefer it if there were no explanation nor reasons, just a decision.
 * If you prefer not to, then obviously bat the decision back to me. Either way, many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:Gog the Mild, the decision is made. The points stand per my immediate above. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing
Hi, I have finalised the contest results, made the awards and posted the results to the scoreboard. I have also copied Feb's log to the archive. Is there anything else to do at this time? Can I suggest a sub-page of the contest that records the steps in closing both the monthly and annual comps - as a record of our corporate knowledge. This can then be linked on the contest page as a ready reference. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Cinderella. Thanks for finalising this. The results should also be added to The Bugle. February's results would usually go in the March edition, but this time they will need to be added to April: WikiProject Military history/News/April 2018/Project news. A past example can be found here: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @AustralianRupert, Added results to Bugle. Thank you for watching over my shoulder. I hate getting things wrong. If you can take up my suggestion (for want of another), I will cast my eye over it and add my suggestions from my novice experience. Ping me (here I guess) with a link. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day all, I have drafted something in my sandbox here: User:AustralianRupert/sandbox. Essentially I feel that some of this is already covered in the "How it works" section of the contest page, but in the draft I have split it into "instructions for contestants" and "instructions for co-ordinators" and expanded it a bit to hopefully make it clearer. I have tried to incorporate the change in the instructions we have already talked about earlier. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not had much to do with the contest (ever) but I'd say adjusting the instructions is a good idea and ARs changes seem ok to me. I wonder if maybe we should update the instructions and then wait a while to see if changes to the scoreboard really are needed? Anotherclown (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems like a good idea, IMO, AC. By way of an update, I have adjusted User:AustralianRupert/sandbox and also created User:AustralianRupert/sandbox2 (using templates developed by Cinderella). My intent is that the first sandbox would be used to update the contestant instructions at WikiProject Military history/Contest, while sandbox2 would become WikiProject Military history/Contest/Coordinator instructions (which would be linked from the contestant instructions). Please note that these edits are not intended to change the scoring or the design of the contest (as that part of the issue hasn't achieved consensus yet, IMO). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with AC on amending the contest instructions and giving them a go before making the scoring arrangements more complex. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have updated the instructions per the above now, without any changes to the scoring system. If there are any concerns, please let me know. Thank you all for sharing your opinions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Participating regiments in 1883 Anglo-Egyption War
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this - I am a complete virgin regarding both Wikipedia and military history

My G-Grandfather, William Hills, served in the 4th Hussars. His regimental number was 1123 and his records are available on Find My Past. The 'Military History Page of these shows that he was in Egypt from 4 Aug 1882 (but no 'to' date) and that he was awarded the Egyptian Campaign Medal and Khedive Star. My difficulty is that the 4th Hussars do not appear on the list of regiments engaged in the campaign and I cannot find and record of such participation elsewhere. By way of background there is a family story that he somehow became involved in a minor fracas in company with Francis Duke of Teck and was subsequently awarded some sort of medal by the Teck family. My inclination would be to dismiss this as fantasy but it seems likely that he did truly have a 'special' medal of some kind. All of his medals were stolen from one of his sons and there is no way to verify this.

It would be most interesting to learn the facts regarding the regiment's involvement in the campaign so that I could check any possible sources for the medal story

Hopefully by ticking 'watch this page' below I will be notified of any response but in case it's helpful my email is jlr4346@outlook.com. Many thanks for any help you are able to give — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polar500 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably best asking over at Reference desk but I can fill in a bit of info for you. The 4th Hussars did not serve in Egypt in 1882.  However both the Egypt Medal and Khedive's Star were awarded for actions in the country up to 1889 and 1891 (respectively).  Two officers and 43 men of the 4th Hussars formed part of the Light Camel Regiment (part of the Camel Corps) for the 1884/85 Nile Expedition to relieve Gordon of Khartoum (source).  Is it possible that the date is wrong in your source and he was part of this later force?  This source states that no men of the 4th Hussars were eligible for a campaign medal in 1882 (indeed the 1855 Siege of Sevastopol was the last prior campaign the regiment fought in).  Though of course this would not tie in with the Teck connection as Francis seems to have returned from Egypt in 1882 - Dumelow (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Could Hills have been attached as a supernumerary with another unit, such as Churchill? As per Dumelow, this source also mentions the 4th as part of the Light Camel Regiment for the 1884/85 conflict:  (p. 518). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would have been quite unusual for a private to have been detached from his regiment, though he may have been a batman to a supernumerary 4th Hussars officer or similar. Is it possible he served in Egypt with a different corps?  Judging from his regimental service number I suspect he would have enlisted shortly after the 1870 Cardwell Reforms on an eight-year enlistment.  A lot of men would re-enlist with a different regiment or corps at the end of their original enlistment.  Some corps such as the Commissariat and Transport Corps drew heavily from re-enlisted veterans and would have served in every British conflict - Dumelow (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Help on creating a page
Hello, I am working on a page for the Russian intelligence during the French invasion of Russia in 1812. Do you have any good sources or anyone I can speak with who can offer good research?

Thank you, TeresaZidek (talk) TeresaZidek —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Russian, Soviet, and CIS Milhist TF reaches 200 GAs
I'd just like to inform the coords that the Russian, Soviet, and CIS Military History Task Force has reached 200 GAs, per Category:GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles, so that the appropriate announcement can be made in the Bugle. Kges1901 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great milestone! Well done to everyone who has contributed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Kges. Great work. I have added a mention of this to the next edition of The Bugle. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on Task Forces Scope
Hi everyone, there is a redundancy in the task force coverages that I don't think is necessary. The North-American task force according to it's page covers "Military activity regarding Central American and Caribbean countries fall under this task force." while South-American task force covers "Central and South America and the smaller but closely-related Commonwealth Caribbean" Since these task forces were broken into geographical locations, am I ok to begin the process of reorganizing the articles into a more geographical based task forcing? I think it is a hold-over from when the South-American task force was titled "Latin-American" task for so articles such as Mexcan Navy still now appear in the South-American Task force which is humorous. --Molestash (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When we created the continental taskforces, we decided that because the UN geoscheme has Central America and the Caribbean as subregions of North America, we would organise them that way. It mustn't have been fixed at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for highlighting this. Agreed per PM. The wording on the South American task for should be adjusted, and relevant articles moved across to the North American task force. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 reviewing tallies
G'day, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to tally up the quarterly reviews. I have started with the ACRs. Can someone else please take a look at the other review types? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting this started, I've done the GA reviews. For the record, I included these comments in Hawkeye's total - he wasn't the reviewer of record, but I felt like that was worthy of credit. I also excluded a few reviews for Sturmvogel - he started two on 31 March (but hasn't actually reviewed yet), so I figured they ought to be included in the next quarter's tally. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done an image review at ACR of Qubec Agreement: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Quebec Agreement. Is that missed, or any issue? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Krishna, as that review was closed in early April, it is not included in this tally. It will be included in the Apr-May-June tally. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah! yes, you're right. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day ladies and gentlemen, I have tallied the peer reviews now. Apologies if I missed any. Would someone mind tallying the FAs? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FAC/FLC done, and tallied. An amazing number of editors contribute to our Featured processes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PM. Were there any FA/FLC reviews for Dudley? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry . Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Awarded the rest. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 09:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Two articles for ACR?
I want to put Territorial Force up for ACR, but already have Yeomanry Cavalry there. The latter has two good reviews, but is otherwise not attracting much interest. I think that the Territorial article will fare better, but don't want to abandon the Yeomanry article because I think it may get there one day. May I submit the TF article for concurrent review? Alternatively, could we suspend the ACR for Yeomanry Cavalry, let the Territorial Force ACR run its course, then afterwards resume the ACR for Yeomanry Cavalry from where it left off? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Factotem, please feel free to nominate the second article while the first is still under review -- naturally we all need to exercise common sense and not inundate the ACR system but two noms at the same time, particularly when they're staggered as it were, like this, is okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Eyes and hands are needed
As a result of the 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs many weapon and weapon system articles are seeing a flurry of editing activity, and not all of it useful. There's a report on ANI concerning disruptive editing at the Tomahawk (missile) page, and i'm certain other articles on missiles, planes, and ships have likewise seen some fallout-related editing. We need to check the articles and make sure that the material thats been added meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Account hacks
Hey all, there appears to be a significant attempt to hack accounts, which may or may not be related to our project. See here for a few editors who appear to have been targeted (and one who seems to have been compromised). Someone just unsuccessfully tried to log into my mobile account. Keep your eyes out for any accounts that begin to behave oddly. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty incredible graph here on this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to be Grawp and/or an imposter, based on Prüm's last edits. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They just hit this account too - I wonder how wide-ranging these attacks are. Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They targeted me too.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Same here. This seems to be fairly widespread. Kges1901 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on Ed's graph, there have been thousands of failed attempts per minute, for much of the day - it seems to be a site-wide attack. Hopefully things settle down soon.
 * The odd thing is, Prüm's account seems to have gone rogue about a week ago, well before this attack started. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mine was tried overnight too. Although I'm in the MILHIST project I don't display a user box and am pretty inactive in it. Lyndaship (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem specific to military history editors - there's a discussion of it at WP:AN Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just got a notification here too. What the hell, I wonder? Its kinda of unusual for so many attempts all at once, so there has to be something more to this. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was apparently World Password Day, and somebody decided to "celebrate" like this. Whether their intent was actually to breach anyone's account or just to annoy everyone with the alerts isn't clear. Either way, you'll be safe if you have a long passphrase (the longer the better; MediaWiki supports very long passwords) that you only use here. See also XKCD. And turn on two-factor authentication if you can (it's available to anyone with admin rights on any project). HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've got a long password so I'm not terrible worried; as an additional countermeasure I added letters and symbols (though I confess that I am unsure if the Wikipedia password login differentiates between the capital and lower case letters). I've tweaked my password to make it that much harder to guess, but I confess I'd feel better if I hadn't gotten the notification in the first place. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that pretty much everyone had this happen. It doesn't seem to have been a particularly serious attempt to hack accounts. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Co-option of an additional coord
G'day I propose co-opting Zawed (a former Milhist coord) as an additional coord for this tranche, to replace Anotherclown who has resigned. Given the length of time until the end of the tranche, I think it appropriate that we replace him to keep coord numbers up and ensure willing hands are available to ensure project activities keep moving. Zawed is amenable to my suggestion. Please advise. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm supportive of this. Zawed has the experience, having been a co-ord before, and he is keen to help out. As many of us have been busy recently and we are now a co-ord short, I think it wouldn't hurt to co-opt in this situation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Zawed is sensible, and many hands make light work, so I can only see this being an advantage. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 11:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree - thanks for being willing to help out, Zawed! Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 and ditto. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 from me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 from me. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 from me as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we have consensus for Zawed's co-option. Implementing. Thanks everyone, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response, +1 from me. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Featured article restoration project
Hi everyone. I was looking recently at the dozens of former featured articles in the Warfare category. A good deal of major articles used to hold featured status, but they were demoted with time, and virtually none have been restored. It occurred to me that MilHist should launch a sub-project to bring these articles back to featured status. Any thoughts on this idea? Biblio (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Biblio, I had a go at restoring 2nd Canadian Division during World War II awhile ago, and took it through an A-class reappraisal as part of this effort. It is difficult, though, if the article's main contributor is no longer around. I think a few of us also had a go at Western Front (World War I), but ultimately there were too many issues to deal with. Ultimately, I think it would be great if we could restore some of these, but as always getting enough editors interested in working on them may prove difficult. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The main challenge is obviously matching the editor(s) with the article. The secondary challenge is the sheer amount of work which needs to be done - bringing an article back to FA class requires about the same amount of work as getting it there in the first place. That said, I can see something like this as being very helpful in publicising opportunities for fixer-uppers. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we'd need to choose one where we have a group of active editors that have a particular interest, like Iowa-class battleship, where we still have a few members of Operation Majestic Titan around who might be interested. Some of the others are quite obscure and are probably reliant on someone with a particular interest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We could first prioritize the "low-hanging fruit," such as the former FAs that are now GAs. These articles include Battle of Hampton Roads, Erich von Manstein, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Iowa-class battleship, and USS Kentucky (BB-66). I might start working on some of these in the near future. Biblio (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me - we would probably have the most luck with highlighting an article where there are active editors, as Peacemaker suggests, and an article that's already GA is an obvious place to start. In general, it can't hurt to make these more visible for those in search of a project to work on - I know from time to time, I find myself without an obvious "next article" to write or need a change of pace, so something like this could be useful, even if I'm not planning on taking something back to FA in one go. I've been tinkering, on and off, with Franco-Prussian War over the last several years with a couple of other editors, and while it's not FA-ready by any stretch of the imagination, it's certainly in better shape than when we started. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started looking at the Battle of Inchon since I have quite a few sources on the Korean War. It's going to be a long term project though, as a lot of work is going to be needed to bring it up to scratch. Zawed (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a noble project but a lot of work. Even though these articles already have a lot of good content, getting them back to FA status would take more than just dusting off cobwebs. You'd need to be abreast of all the literature on the subject, which for a sprawling topic like Western Front (World War I) is a huge task (look at that bibliography, then think that there are no sources in German, very few in French, and almost none published in the last few years (the centenary has been the catalyst for a slew of new books on WWI). This is also also reason most FAs tend to be on relatively self-contained subjects—even assuming you don't get bogged down in lengthy discussions about the detail, it would probably take a year and cost hundreds of pounds to write an research an article like that. Oddly, Nelson's article is twice as long but a biography (especially of a figure who is long out of living memory) is probably much easier; at least the scope is defined for you. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

SPA changing info boxes
This SPA is changing the result in info boxes of battles to qualify the result of the battle contrary to MilMos/template doc. It may be linked to Talk:Battle of Trafalgar and is a possible sock puppet being pointy. Not certain of the best and most expeditious way of dealing with this. I know I could take it to ANI. Regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left them a note to begin with. Next step would be a warning. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States)
I notice that this has not been edited for 10 weeks. Does it still need action, or should it be closed? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, pretty sure it has been closed per this diff: . Is there something else that needs to be done? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. But I am unsure why it is still on the project discussion page under "Good article reassessments". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed it from the template with this edit: . Not sure if the bot will add it back in, though. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

April to June 2018 reviewing tallies
G'day, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to tally up the quarterly reviews. I have started with the ACRs. Can someone else please take a look at the other review types? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @AustralianRupert, Not certain how to go about this and help. Is there a place I can look for instructions and where to start? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Cinderella, there is a brief outline at the top of this page above the How to section: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

PR April done Cinderella157 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, you know, this might be a lot simpler if this was done like the article comp. Reviewers could add their reviews to a table the same way. We could encourage reviewers with a regular add in the Bugle. Create a separate page for the reviewing comp. thoughts? Reagards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, agreed that it would be simpler in some ways, but I think some reviewers would not feel comfortable with us making them self nom for recognition. This would likely mean there would be quite a few opting out, so it potentially wouldn't be a very accurate reflection of who is doing what. I'm still hopeful that maybe Milhist bot might be able to do the tally one day (as it would rule out the human error that is inherent in the tallying process). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @AustralianRupert, perhaps we might pass some of the burden to those requesting a review - acknowledging those that have contributed to a review of their nom. There is some danger of sour grapes but most will want to acknowledge the input in good faith. Also,, the bot might create a short-list to work from based upon review requests posted to MilHist that have been finalised/archived? This would save checking through lists that contain irrelevant prospects. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A complicating factor is that the way we currently do it, reviews are only counted when the review is closed. For FAC, PRs, and ACRs, that can mean a review is done in one quarter, and not tallied until the next. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

May PR done no June archive yet. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FACs done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, the June peer review archive is here: Category:June 2018 peer reviews. There isn't always a link displayed on the archive page; sometimes the links are "commented" out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

PRs done. Regards,
 * Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Did the GANs and tallied. Well done to for an astounding 40 GANs... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I did one GAN in May but its not listed. Did I skip some part of the procedure?--Catlemur (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G’day, you sure did, but the entry point for Milhist awards is doing at least one Milhist ACR. Which it doesn’t appear you did. Please let us know if we got that wrong? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Understandable, have a nice day.--Catlemur (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User renamed
Greetings, this is to inform you all that my username has been globally renamed from "Krishna Chaitanya Velaga" to "KCVelaga". Regards, KCVelaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the initials and last name club! ;) HJ Mitchell &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  10:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

June writers contest
G'day, all, I hate to ask, but can I please ask that someone awards the second place award for the June 2018 Writers Contest? I've awarded the first place award, but can't do the second. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

U.S. NMCB 11 COI tag
A "Special request" was left on my talk page by the Public Affairs Officer of U.S.Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 11. The battalion had attempted to do their own article, but had it rejected due to COI. They requested that I do their article. I accepted the assignment, but told them I could not give them an estimated time of completion as I knew nothing about the battalion. When I finished, it was submitted and accepted by Wikipedia. Now, an editor has placed a COI tag for my having done the article. I have told the battalion I would see what could be done to have the tag removed which is why I am bothering one of you. Sorry to trouble you and thank you for your time. Mcb133aco (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, as coordinators we hold no specific authority with regards to content of articles, etc. Your best bet is to post a comment on the article's talk page asking the tagging editor to specify what aspects of the article they are concerned about, and then work to address them. If you do, consensus can be established on the talk page about whether or not to remove the tag. The editor who tagged the article has already started to help improve the article with this edit:, so they are likely to be prepared to help further if you seek to engage with them on the talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. The person that placed that tag does not have a talk page. So, how are they to know I placed anything on the article's talk page in reference to that tag? Mcb133aco (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP editor does have a talk page, and it can be accessed at User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. Kges1901 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you my mistake. Misunderstood- Wikipedia says it has no user name 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 and I assumed there was no talk page as well Mcb133aco (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I have posted a link to the discussion on the tagging editor's talk page for you. Without that, they will not know that you are requesting clarification. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Forthcoming coordinator tranche
We're about five weeks out from the next coordinator elections, but I wanted to open a section here for us to discuss the election and anything else that we might want to put up for community ratification. In particular, I'd put out the following for our consideration: Does anyone else have anything to add or note on the list? Feel free to add, at this point all options are on the table. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it may be in our best interest to lay out some basic criteria for our Coordinator Emeritus position, such as a minimum amount of time or a certain position held to qualify for the position, and perhaps a mandatory minimum to retain the position (such as check in once a year or something to that effect).
 * Should we consider term limits for the coordinators, or mandate a "down time" between tranches for those who have served multiple and/or consecutive terms? I know I'm guilty of this, I'm arguably our longest serving elected coordinator and looking on it now I wonder if perhaps the opportunity to work with or as a coordinator may help newer editors join and/or stay with the project. I higher turnover also invites new blood, which means new ideas, and as much as it pains me to admit it would help break up what could rightly be called the old boys club of editors who have served as coordinators, which could be a long term benefit for the military history project.
 * With regards to general community consensus, I recall creating these templates for consideration last year and I was wondering if anyone may wish to revisit the issue. Alternatively, I was thinking that they could be re-purposed for articles that we consistently have trouble with to serve as a kind of road sign for those editing pages where consensus is generally needed to do or not do things, or where there may be active arbitration or discretionary sanctions in place (such as with Israeli-Arab articles, or more recently with Nazi Germany articles). Any thoughts?
 * We had a complaint last year that the same people end up getting nominating over and over for the end of the year awards because they are content editors. In lieu of this, is there some way we can track people who tag and assess, or review year long, and so forth in that manner so they can get a little love this year? It does seem unfair that the content folks get all or almost all of the love each year, so lets make an effort this year.
 * If memory serves we still have a few as of yet unreviewed academy articles, and I for one am not keen on carrying over work from one tranche to another so lets see if we can't get it all done before September.
 * From Peacemaker67, a suggestion concerning the ARBCOM case currently titled German War Effort be included in a forthcoming edition of the Bugle.
 * Ensure that the next issue of the Bugle has links to the academy courses concerning coordinatorship.
 * From Peacemaker67, making a source review a required part of the A-Class review process. The ArbCom GWE case has underlined that we as a project have AGF about sources and not been stringent enough at times with checking sources in the GWE area, and I believe that adding a source review at A-Class would help to address this. Alternatively, a narrower approach would be to mandate a source review for articles in both the Germany and WWII task forces.
 * Not sure we really need to formalise the Coordinator Emeritus arrangements, it seems to me that it is an "honorary colonel" position best kept for long-time coords who are less active in the project. Kirill, for example, is always happy to help with advice and assist with things every now and again, but I don't think that it is necessary to be "checking in". That said, there are a couple of people who are probably in line to be added. In regards to term limits, I think people give themselves a break when needed, I did two years ago, but we shouldn't be discouraging willing workers. We got a bit of new blood this tranche, and I see renewal occurring gradually. We still need the old hands who know the ropes and where the bodies are buried. I think the template idea might be replicating the ArbCom notices that already exist, and I'm not sure there would be consensus for that. As far as the same people being nominated for MHOTY etc, I have sympathy for the gnomes, but visibility of their work is an issue beyond the results of drives. We'll also need to put something out to the project and possibly tweak some coordinator guidance once the German War Effort case ends at Arbitration Committee (shortly). That might be best done via the Bugle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Tom, thanks for raising these points. Regarding the templates, I wouldn't recommend pursuing these as they could be misinterpreted as the project asserting ownership on the articles they might be added to. Regarding term limits for co-ords, I think this could be a good idea, although in practicality I am concerned that potentially there aren't enough people interested in the role to allow for this to occur in reality. Personally, I will be standing down at the end of this term. There has been a lot of criticism of the project of late; as lead co-ord I take responsibility for that. As such, it is time to let others have the opportunity to take the project forward, if they choose to. Regarding recognition for those that work behind the scenes, perhaps there could be two explicit categories for annual awards: content creation and behind-the-scenes work. The main issue last time, though, was not criteria, IMO, it was the fact that very few people nominated others for awards. That makes me wonder if our editors actually feel that the process is worth engaging with. How we tackle that, I don't know. Agree with PM regarding co-ord emeritus position. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With regards to the Coordinators Emerti role, its more so people can get a sense for what got them there or why they are retained. Of the four coordinator roles - coordinator, co-opted coordinator, lead coordinator, and coordinator emeritus - only the Emeritus has no prescribed function per se anywhere on the chart. For example, the coordinators and the lead coordinator are know to help with the admin tasks, co-opted coordinators are sought out to fill in gaps, but there's no per se description what the emeritus or how one gets to it. I think it would look a little better for us to have at least some formal guideline or role or participation requirement or such so that folks see that they aren't just selected because they were popular or well known or cool or so forth in that manner, they were selected because we felt we could benefit in the long run from retaining them. In a sense, its sort of like our Chevron with oak leaves award - we award that in the name of the project as a whole when consensus is reached among us that someone is worthy of such recognition, and for the benefit of others we do spell out what the difference is between the two versions. Perhaps a note as two why they were elected/proclaimed emeritus would be sufficient for the purpose. As for term limits, we could stipulate that limits reset after a one term break if we were worried about filling in positions, that way others have the chance to step up if they want to. And agreed on the ARBCOM, we'll need to broadcast that. Incidentally, thats why I put my template suggestion back in rotation - remember, we can fiddle with words very easily, so adjusting a template of that nature to note that the articles are under arbcom sanction would be child's play. (BTW, I work the next few nights, so it'll be 48-96 hours before I'll be able to effect a timely reply to anything else that comes up here. Just an FYI.) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My view regarding Coordinators Emeritus is that they stay once elected and for as long as they are still active on en WP. Eventually we'll have a few, but I don't think we have to retire them, especially when they've been awarded it for long-term (and founding in the current examples) contributions to the project. It is part of our project history and is one of the few ways to reward diligent and long-term service to the project. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added another one above regarding source reviews at A-Class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You stole my thunder with that one, PM. I had been going to propose the same and agree this is a good idea. For the sake of fairness, I would support source reviews for all articles, not just World War II topics. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I always try to source review (or see if one is done) before supporting at ACR, but it's true it hasn't been mandated like the image review. Just being pragmatic, given it's a requirement at FAC we're really just setting ourselves up for a fall if we don't require it for all ACRs. Glad this has some groundswell now, tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As a suggestion, I think that it might also be helpful to reduce the number of coordinators. Now that MilHistBot does the wretched work of closing ACRs, not as many coordinators are needed. Reducing the number of coordinators could make it easier for editors to figure out who they could contact. I'd suggest capping the number at ten (the lead coordinator and nine 'regular' coordinators): this seems sufficient to cover both the workload and the inevitable uneven availability of coordinators across the year. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ten should be enough as long as they are all going to actively do coordinator stuff when they can, like check the monthly contest and quarterly reviewing awards. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ten huh? That sounds about right, although I could see us going lower since milhistbot does a lot of our hard work for us now. While we are on that subject, what format do we want to use this year for the elections? According to the archive, last year we did a 10 day nom and 10 day election spread, with a little tweaking so as to link the the advertised end of the tranche with the actual end of the tranche. Did we want to stick to the 10/10 scheme again, or try something different? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We have to allow for coords who are otherwise engaged at various stages of the year, so I think ten is good for now, although I admit I've previously advocated for eight. We still have labour-intensive jobs like the contest and reviewing awards to deal with. I think 14 days is a bit more standard for the nomination and election periods. I'm thinking open nominations 00:01 on 1 September, close noms 23:59 on 14 September, open voting 00:01 on 15 September and close the voting at 23:59 on 28 September. Gives us a day or so before the new tranche take over. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Last things first: agree with PM's suggestion for timings. First things next: agree with Nick's suggestion for a total of 10 coords. My question last: if we say 10, will we stick to it? For the past few years at least, partly because we've not exactly been overwhelmed with nominees, standing has guaranteed election. Shall we have a minimum number of votes per candidate as well as a maximum number of slots (in which case we could theoretically end up with fewer than 10 coords, but we could cross that one when we come to it)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that given the reduced number of active members and lower engagement with the nomination and election process, setting a vote threshold as well as a total number of coords might give us a result we're not going to be happy with. I'm happy to lock in ten coords in total, and if we get less nominees, then we go with what we've got. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Remember those templates I have a link to up top? Suppose for a moment they were re-purposed for advertising articles with arbcom sanctions in place. That could be a good theoretical use for them. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day Tom, as I mentioned elsewhere, ArbCom warning templates for talk pages already exist (see Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates, and should be used in preference to project-developed ones. I think the use of those templates would need endorsement from the wider community and might impart a sense of ownership that mightn't be a positive in the eyes of others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Election page and sub pages
G'day all, I've created WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2018 (and the sub pages) for the election next month, just in case one of you was thinking it still needed doing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose amendment to "What do coordinators do?" guidelines
The current arbcom case overwhelmingly supports the principle that wikiproject coordinators "...do not have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers." Six of the eight arbitrators who supported this principle then went on to support a Finding of Fact which asserted that some MILHIST coordinators' behaviour "...was influential due to their position". The contradiction between principle and finding betrays, I think, some ambiguity over this aspect of the project coordinator role, certainly in the way it is perceived. It seems to me that the project is to some degree responsible for this ambiguity by the statement, on the project's coordinators page, that part of what the coordinators do is "...helping to informally resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive." I don't see the coordinator position as granting any role in the dispute process that any other editor does not also have. What do people think about removing this clause from the "What do the coordinators do?" section? Factotem (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The key word is "informally". The coords tend to comment in the role of 'wise elders' or similar (e.g., suggesting ways of resolving issues as people who are familiar with the broad topic area and Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes). WT:MILHIST can be a pretty busy talk page, and the coords occasionally lightly manage it by commenting on discussions to suggest productive approaches and hatting those which have clearly gone off track: nothing compared to the aggressive management by regulars at the major noticeboards. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I tried to make the point regarding that FoF (which unfortunately doesn't appear to have been accepted by the majority of Arbs) that there was a lack of evidence provided in the case of the coords in question trying a "call from power" or otherwise seeking to lean on the non-existent powers of a coordinator when in discussions. Personally, I find that disappointing, as FoFs should be based on evidence, not the "vibe" that coordinators somehow have greater influence in discussions or might seek to have such influence. I actually don't think that we do. We tend to use a light touch on the Milhist talk page when issues arise, as Nick-D points out, and I don't expect that to change. Our role in calming things down is very informal, again as noted by Nick-D. So far as discussions elsewhere are concerned, coordinators are just editors like everyone else. So I think this would be an over-reaction to the case. I'll also note that some coords are also admins, and some of our actions in relation to disputes or heated discussions on Milhist talk or even elsewhere may appear to be those of a coord, but are probably more admin-like. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I find it disconcerting that the Arbs never once bothered any of us for our two cents on the matter at any point during the Arbcom case. Its our poroject's purview to keep an eye on this sort of thing and to have excluded us as an advisory community here does I think warrant a degree of concern from the project. That being said, I have better sense that to approach arbcom about it - ill simply vote in new members next time they're up for election. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (Former coord) I used to think about this kind of stuff, I don't any more, and I'm not any good at it. But if anything happens on Wikipedia that oppresses people to the point where they want to leave, that's an issue for everyone. Does this Arbcom decision rise to that level? Is it a "last straw" for anyone? Another way to put it: there may be big-picture issues here, but we shouldn't let the big picture distract from the more important question of whether the arbcom case and the surrounding jibber-jabber has left anyone feeling unappreciated or shackled. If so, we should try to deal with that. We (Wikipedians) have a bad habit of being silent about things that we shouldn't be silent about. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ArbCom generally doesn't go looking for advice, but is receptive to advice presented either as evidence, or as commentary on the proposed decision. For better or worse, this means the onus is on editors to 'push' advice towards ArbCom. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead coord
G'day If you hadn't noticed already, AustralianRupert has resigned as lead coordinator of the project, sadly. Given we have only six weeks to go until the end of the tranche, I would like to suggest that we do without a lead coord for the next six weeks. The main things to do in that time are the August contest and the election. I've already done the election page and subpages, and am happy to administer the nomination and voting processes, if others would take the lead in checking the August contest. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would endorse your acting pro tem. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think we need to formalise anything for such a short term. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that coming, but thats life. One the matter of the Lead Coordinator, if we need to we can lean on the Coordiantors Emerti for the next few weeks. As a practical matter its not that important since we are on top of the coordinator elections, but I would also support a pro tem motion if thats judged to be better for the group. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should be able to manage without resorting to a pro tem, it is only for six weeks. I will try and keep an eye on the contest. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed - six weeks isn't that long, and as long as people are keeping up with the contest and the election, we should be just fine. Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Guerrilla warfare page - third opinion, please?
Hi there. AaronGray and I can't agree on an edit and I (for one) would welcome a third opinion from a milhist editor - would that be possible? The edit in question is at the top of the history list and concerns the use of children and the relationship to terrorism - there's also a discussion on the talk page. Thanks very much for any help! Fugitivedave (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a RfC might be appropriate in this case. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Fugitivedave (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom and Milhist
In light of the recent arbcom case and its effect on the project, I was wondering if perhaps it may be worth our while to create a series of academy pages for the arbcom cases that relate to our pages so as to simply what the case says and the actions permitted/not permitted on the pages in question. Explaining the basics of the arbcom cases for editors working on the pages that fall within our purview could be useful for us from an outreach perspective to both members and coordinators, but I wanted some input before WP:BOLD-ly moving forward with the idea :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day Tom, the GWE ArbCom case didn't proscribe any actions, and I think that we've done enough to address the issues that arose by incorporating a source review at A-Class, as well as the proposed addition to WP:MILCG that is under discussion on the project talk page. Personally, I think we've advertised the outcome in the Bugle, which hopefully everyone has read, and the source review and proposed MILCG change do the rest. There will always be content disputes, and they are matters for individual editors. So far as dispute resolution goes, perhaps we should create an Academy page that briefly talks about dispute resolution, which should include basic information about what discretionary sanctions are with a link to WP:DSTOPICS. I'd be happy to collaborate on that. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminder re: coordinator election nominations
G'day just a reminder to indicate whether you will be running again this year and if so, nominating yourself at WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2018. The additional question seems to be a thing this year, so maybe consider answering that when you nominate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking input on an idea for a new department
I had an idea last night (or early this morning, who can keep it all straight when you're a nightowl :-) about possibly creating a department for references for the project, however I'm unsure at the moment whether it will be possible to do this from a technical standpoint and whether or not it would be a good idea to move forward with the idea (assuming the answer to question 1 was yes).

It's known that our project accounts for a large portion of articles by virtue of it reach across nations and through time, and with that comes a number of editors who have added references to the articles in question to help bring them up to C, B, GA, A, and FA class. Its also known that some bots here check websites for blacklisted sites and others modify references by fixing syntax, retrieving internet archive versions of websites, etc. Given this, I wonder if it would be possible to create a bot or modify our milhist bot to generate a complete list of all references currently used for listing in a single department of resources so as to provided our editors with a substantial base of on and offline resources to draw on for creating, expanding, or otherwise citing articles they are working on. In theory, if this could be pulled off, it would create a massive resources repository for editors, but i'm not sure if its possible to do this, nor am I sure if it would be wise to. At a minimum the department would need to be fully automated, and links checked to ensure they are not harmful. What do you guys think? Is this something worth looking into, or is this a bad idea? TomStar81 (Talk) 14:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom, this would be an exceedingly large list. To flesh this idea out a bit, what would distinguish this from being just a data dump? What would make it a usable and useful resource - ie, what features would it have and how might these be incorporated? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day Tom, in theory and on first glance this is an interesting idea, but it would involve a huge amount of information, and it would need to be finely sorted into specialist areas, almost to the extent of the way categories work. Just taking my main area of interest, Yugoslavia in WWII, just for biographies there would have to be (often overlapping) lists for the main players; Partisans, Chetniks, Ustashas, Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Bulgarians and Albanians. And new and old sources are being added all the time. I'm not sure it would be practicable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been chewing on that for a few days too. The easiest solution that I came up with here would be to list according to the relevant task force, but that creates an even larger list since the same sources end up listed repeatedly several times over. Creating a table could tackle part of the problem by listing a source and the categories it is grouped with, but that would be an absurdly large table. As for the new sources and sources being removed, we could run an automated process once a month to update the new sources and clear out former sources. It may also be in our interest to consider hosting this on Meta so as to provide a global source list. As an alternative, we could invite people to create a userpage titled sources and an automated process could update just that page to include sources collected from the editor in question, but that creates two problems: 1) not everyone will participate, and 2) some people find and use more sources than others, so some lists would likely be massive while others would likely be microscopic (such as it were). I'm still chewing on this idea, I may come up with a satisfactory answer down the line. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ideally, it would be made usable by pulling relevant sources for editors looking for source material for a given article. That being said, this is still in the thought process stage, so if you have an ideas feel free to share. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting my analytical hat on :). Would the following be somewhat analogous?. If I wanted to write an article about X, I might look for similar articles. Having found a similar article Y, I could look at its reflist and the categories to the article. From the categories in Y (eg L,M,M), ie might find further articles (U,V,W) and further references from the reflists of those articles.


 * If so, the question would be: what additional features or advantages do you see your idea having over the process I have described? Not a criticism but trying to help flesh out the idea. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been up for about 24 hours and its starting to catch up with me, so bare with me here while I try and get my head around this. From where I sit the advantage is that if you wanted to write or improve article X this would have rounded up sources and placed them in a single master category so you could see sources that would or could be of use to you. In addition, it would have organized them in some fashion so if you were looking for a source you could find it here. It could also be used to replace questionable sources with more reliable sources, or as a resource guide for those working in article reviews here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of us, including myself, maintain "library" pages of resources on our user profiles. Perhaps these could be linked to from a central page associated with the project. It would be up to the editors to "volunteer" their library pages for inclusion. There would still need to be some sort of index at the central page to help editors navigate their way to library pages with references in their general area of interest. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That was one idea noted above - everyone could create a User:x/Library page and we could run an automated process to either collect the pages into one single category, populate the pages automatically with resources added if they are judged to be within MILHIST's scope, or do both. Ideally, we could figure out a way to populate such as list so as to allow for people to find what they are looking for easily (something like arranging by categories or implementing the dewy decimal system), but I have no idea if thats even doable, must less how realistically plausible that idea would be. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Somewhat late to the party; I do have a list going at User:Iazyges/Byzantine Authors Database which includes a list of all Byzantine sources (ideally at least, its very much a WIP). Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also have an incomplete library page, although it is of sources I own rather than all those I’ve used. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

July to September 2018 reviewing tallies
I thought I might as well start this now as I do not expect these tallies to change significantly in the few remaining hours of this quarter. I have counted source reviews as equal to image reviews, and invite others to check my tallies. The GA tallies may be larger than the previous quarter because I counted failed GAN reviews as well. Kges1901 (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, the Peer review/Archive page hasn't been getting updated since June (I've asked about it) so we might struggle to add peer reviews unless someone with more Wikimojo than I can think of another way to prise out the information. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, FAs done. Apologies if I've missed any, my eyes feel like poker machine wheels... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I am pretty sure I got all the PRs (thanks to Kges1901 for finding the archives). Also tallied. If anyone thinks we've missed any, please let us know? Otherwise we can start handing out the awards in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for getting stuck into this so quickly, that was relatively painless. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I love new coords -- so enthusiastic... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's what I volunteer for. Kges1901 (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Checking
, checking that the coordinator ping captures everybody correctly for the new tranche. It needs to be updated manually. Might be worth documenting as one of the tasks upon closing the election. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I got everyone, but you're right it should be listed as a task. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is Template:@MILHIST that needs to be amended. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought it was the categorisation... Thanks for this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I got the ping. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Same here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI
I found this off the AN/I boards today:
 * There are about five new accounts sequentially whitewashing It would be nice to get more eyes on this. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the article is in a state of lockdown, but it would probably be in our best interest to keep an eye on it once protection expires so we can intervene if the problem persists. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Quarterly Reviewing Awards
I've recently blown the dust off an old project to have our handle the Quarterly Reviewing Awards. My proposal is that the MilHistBot will tally up the reviewing award nominations for us on a quarterly basis, and post a table with the tallies and award nominations here for action. Nominations will use our WPMILHIST Award nomination template that we use on our Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards page. The process will then follow that of the other awards, with the Bot-generated nominations checked and marked as "approved" by a coordinator. The Bot will then deliver the awards to the users' talk pages, and change the template from "approved" to "awarded". Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be great, Hawkeye! It is one of the most labour-intensive tasks we still do as a coord team, and any automation would be greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. One question: how will the bot determine what qualifies as a review? Kges1901 (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good question. The Bot assumes that any comment from someone who is not a bot, nominator or FAC closing coordinator is a review. Also: there was nothing in the instructions that said that the reviewer had to be a MilHist member.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is fit for purpose. So long as it runs the A-Class one first then only counts those that have done one ACR, we should be fine. While it will pick up drive-by comments as well as full reviews, I don't see that undermining the integrity of the awards, as drive-by comments aren't common and I doubt anyone would attempt to play the system. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Old reviews
We still have three Good article nominations left over from July. I've recently promoted a couple, and the three oldest are now all on the American Rebellion. There are also two old A-class reviews from June and July, which have attracted little comment. If anyone could pick up and review one these, that would be good. It's bad when articles are left waiting for months for reviews. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I picked up one of the July GANs. I have mentioned to TwoScars that his article is too long, and that might be putting people off. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Another of the July GANs has an undue level of detail, which I've noted on the talk page, and which may be putting people off. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the GANs up, PM. Much appreciated. Kges1901 (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now reviewed TwoScars article, so maybe there's one older article there now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Contest rules contradiction
The contest rules for the MILHIST contest on the 'contest entries' section state that This is self-scoring (but not self-assessing) so requests for assessments should be made through the normal channels (i.e. at WP:MHA) but rule #4 on the main contest page states that As articles are improved throughout the month, contestants should list their articles at WP:MHA for independent re-assessment, although it is acceptable to self-assess up to C-class.. This came to my attention because submitted self-assessed articles to the contest, and I removed them per the statement on the contest entries page. A question for more experienced coords: should self-assessed articles count for the context up to C-class or not? Kges1901 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bother me either. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, I've updated the contest entries section to align with the rules. All that is need now is for another coord to initialize a few remaining entries as Sturm and I can't initialize our own. Kges1901 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please hold. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, those are done. I don't have time right now to tally up the points though Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections
Nominations for the Arbitration Committee are now open. In the past, we have usually had one of our members, often a coordinator or coordinator emeritus on the committee. In the current climate this is needed more than ever. I realise that it is a lot of work and possibly drama, but it would be good if one of us could stand up. Despite what it may say on the nomination page, only admins need apply. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Process for nominating an A-class article for delisting
I'd like to nominate the grossly outdated Air Combat Group RAAF to be de-listed from A-class status, but am not sure what the process is. Could someone please let me know what this is? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, you just nominate it in the usual way, and note in the nom statement that you are requesting a review with a view to demotion. Maybe including in what ways you feel it now fails to meet the A-Class criteria and what scope there is for addressing the shortfalls. We should probably add something to the assessment page to explain how you do it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Assessment statistics
I'm not sure whether anyone else has noticed this, but it looks like has been blocked for more than a week now. Given the lack of activity on the talk page, it seems unlikely that it'll get unblocked in any sort of reasonable timeframe.

As an alternative to the bot, I've put together a ParserFunction-based implementation of the assessment statistics tables (WPMILHIST Assessment table / WPMILHIST Assessment table row). I've manually updated the main table in the assessment department to use the new template; the tables on the individual task force pages should switch over automatically.

As always, reports of things not working correctly and/or other feedback/reactions/suggestions on the new implementation would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill! Glad we still have you around to fix such things! Will keep an eye on it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Probable sock of
appears to be a probable sock of ; would coordinators please examine the evidence and give opinions at his talkpage? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Review
I added three questions and answers to the page WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator concerning Coordinators Emeriti, in each case basing the information on already established criteria used by our project. Because this process involves the coordinators I wanted to get feedback on whether or not the additions are considered appropriate and if so to invite anyone interested to copy edit the information if you think you can say it better. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * While coordinator emeritus is indeed and primarily an honour, I think saying that it is honorary may give a wrong impression. It should mention what I consider to be an important point: a coordinator emeritus has the authority of a coordinator and can continue to approve awards and a-class articles.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've made a note of that in the first section. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They look like good additions, thanks Tom! I agree with Hawkeye about the operational aspects of coordinators emeritii, just today Kirill gave me some wise advice which I acted upon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

November contest
I've reviewed the last few entries, although one of mine still needs to be checked, and have updated the table. Can someone set up the December table, check my entry for November (other than Kges1901 since it was a co-nom) and pass out the gongs?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing and archiving of thread on the main talk page
G'day today I closed and immediately archived a thread on the main talk page which, in my opinion, was an out-of-process oppose to a nomination for the "Military historian of the year" award (given the award is based on simple approval voting). I considered that it was disruptively pointy and undermined the whole collegiate nature of the award, and my actions were taken on that basis. The non-disruptive part of the thread related to the name of the award, so I created a new thread to address that matter. Obviously I am open to being reverted by any of you if you think I acted inappropriately. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The correct sequence of events would be (1) commented & (2) closed ; then (3) immediately archived the sub-tread . Please also see discussion with Peacemaker on his Talk page: Involved close. It's not a coordinator's role, even the lead one, to clerk discussions that they are involved in. Peacemaker became involved when he commented on the thread (including to disparage me & try to determine my state of mind). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Why are you open to being reverted by fellow coords but not by other editors? What special role do you think coords play in this situation? –dlthewave ☎ 01:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because we have been elected by the members of the project to administer parts of the project, including the awards processes. You haven't. If you want to, run for election next year. Coords deal with disruptive actions on the project pages, and always have. This is not a new thing. The thread was disruptive, out-of-process, and undermined the whole basis of the awards, and that is why it was closed and archived immediately. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , while I'm sympathetic to the desire to remove the thread immediately, I think we're unfortunately getting to the point where trying to archive it is going to cause more net disruption than simply leaving it in place. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But this is the problem Kirill. It is intended to be disruptive. We shouldn't reward this type of behaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , of course it's disruptive; but you getting dragged to AN/I over this will be more disruptive (in my opinion, anyway)—particularly if the end result of that turns out to be that the thread stays in place regardless. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The disruptive nature of the thread will speak for itself, so IMO it is better at this point to not add fuel to the fire. Kges1901 (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think I should unarchive it, I will. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , my recommendation would be to unarchive it and let things unfold as they will. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I bow to your wisdom and experience on this. Thanks for the advice, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken archive on the main discussion page
It appears a bot has archived the nominations of the Milhist newcomer award prematurely. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have readded it with a donotarchive template in a comment line. Kges1901 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Contest point additions
Recently, has added 26 points in this month's article writing contest. All of these were significantly expanded by me alone, and Sturm only did several copyedits. Should we remove these entries? I hesitated to remove them myself but I am involved in the contest so I'll defer to other coords. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 23:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You copied the description paragraph for those ships from articles on the other boats of the class that I'd written long ago rather than write your own.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, there is no reason two editors can't claim the same article improvement if they have both contributed to the article's promotion during the month in question. Especially if, as Sturm suggests, you copied a section of the article from one of his. I haven't checked, but have you also claimed them? BTW, it is usually considered poor Wikiquette to use an editor's username in the heading of a thread except at drama boards like ANI. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've claimed the points. But I am puzzled as to how Sturm can claim points for B-class articles and GAs when I only copied a section that he had authored. Sure, this design section is nice, and it saved me some time, but it's not what gets an article to GA or higher. At best, the addition of the section of text he wrote would have raised the article from start to C class, and even that is unsure. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 16:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just an observation but, isn't this contest supposed to be for fun? It's not as if it's for money or a job promotion. What's a stake here anyway? A barnstar? Doesn't seem to be worth all this grief and ill-will. JMHO - wolf  21:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you even suspect that what I did here was close to to what you did when you copy-pasted my work from one of the other Type 39 torpedo boat articles for T22, T23 and T24 and then claimed credit for it? I don't care that you copied my words, I care that you did it without attribution. I'd really like it if you could follow the procedure laid out in WP:CWW whenever you want to borrow existing text from other articles. Having made my point, I've withdrawn all of those submissions as L293D did the vast majority of the work and I don't think that the amount of work that I've done this month on them really meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that I claimed only start-class points for T22 23 and 24 when the articles were actually B-class at the end of the month. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 01:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, please comply with WP:PATT when copying and pasting from one article to another. It is a simple thing, but attribution is needed for the reasons laid out in WP:COPYWITHIN. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning out the incubator
The Incubator is supposed to be a temporary place for new TFs to organize, but many of these groups have been there for significant periods of time without change. I suggest we promote Indian military history to a full TF because it is the only one that has a significant number of users (even more than most of our country-specific task forces) and at least three of those users are active (KCV, Adamgerber80, and Kautilya3), more than many of our country-specific TFs. Furthermore, Noobs at this WikiProject and German weapons of WII should be archived as User:GermanGamer77 is indef blocked, and the first does not make much sense for a TF while the second is not a broad enough TF area. Waterloo Bicentennial seemed promising, but the bicentennial has now passed, so it should be archived. Further comments on the other groups: In conclusion, I think that the Incubator should not become equivalent to 'Purgatory', and suggest we work in the future to keep the projects there viable so that they can become TFs or Special Projects. Kges1901 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cities attacked during WWI - effective duplication of WWI TF, apparently created by a Mayors for Peace account years ago with no other activity, suggest archive
 * 2008 South Ossetia war - Now covered by the Post-Cold War TF, no activity since 2011
 * Belgian MILHIST - is active, but this topic doesn't seem to be attracting much interest, though essentially similar to our current Dutch TF
 * Early Modern warfare task force article drive - Apparent idea for a TF-specific article drive, no activity since 2011 (Archived)
 * Fighting Family - Impossibly idiosyncratic, no activity since 2013
 * Egyptian MILHIST - Two active editors, perhaps promote as similar activity level to our less populous TFs
 * Tanks - Redundant to Land vehicles TF, WP:TANKS failed months ago (Archived)
 * Ongoing conflicts - Has some activity and a useful scope.
 * Rolling Fortresses - Overlap with land vehicles, Tomandjerry211 is regrettably inactive (Archived)
 * WWII anniversary - Overlap with WWII, though I'm sure there is enough interest to improve articles before the WWII centenary comes around (70th has passed)
 * Vietnam War anniversary - Overlap with Vietnam, though could be useful and many of the 50th anniversaries have not passed yet
 * Women - has much potential, perhaps joint project with Women in Red?
 * Meteorology - too specific
 * Napoleonic fiction - Many of us like Sharpe, but not enough edit there enough to justify a full TF IMO
 * Special operations and Submarines both seem viable, but lack interest on the incubator pages.
 * WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Rugby union internationals killed in WWI and WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Keeping the Castle are one man initiatives so far, no comment


 * I created Ongoing conflicts before the Post-Cold War TF came to be. It is currently used to track the activity of low level insurgencies across the world.--Catlemur (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that sub-projects shouldn't be in the incubator forever. Some are just ways for one or two editors to keep track of articles within a sub-area or intersection of TFs, much like WP:BORA (which is one I and a few others continue to work on regarding WWII Yugoslavia). There seems to be a few that may have legs, but also a few that could probably be archived. Maybe if we start by contacting the proponents/members of each one and establishing what they see as the future for their sub-project? If no response in, say, four weeks, we start archiving those ones, and then take a good look at the ones that still seem to be active to see if they could be converted into a TF or Special Project? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have boldly archived GermanGamer77's two incubator projects, Fighting Family (whose sole participant is also indeffed), and Cities attacked during WWI. I don't think there is much benefit in contacting users who are no longer active for long periods of time. Kges1901 (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * KCVelaga responded on that he would be fine with turning Indian milhist into a task force. Would you kindly implement that, as I've never moved something out of the incubator before? Kges1901 (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll need to have a wider discussion about creating a new taskforce, and I'll need some help with the syntax from some older hands, but I agree this should be progressed as a proposed breakout from the South-Asian TF. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also archived Waterloo Bicentennial as auntieruth was fine with it. PM, would you be willing to start the discussion about the Indian TF on the MILHIST talk page? Kges1901 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Xeeron has recently edited, so I've contacted them about the 2008 South Ossetia war one. Thanks for starting the conversation about the Indian TF. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tanks can be archived, neither editor is still active on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting Xeeron, I have archived both Tanks and Rolling Fortresses. Can a category for archived incubators be set up? Kges1901 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created Category:WikiProject Military history incubator archives and updated WPMILHIST Incubator banner to automatically categorize pages into it if it's invoked with an extra "archive" parameter (e.g. ). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have archived the South Ossetia War incubator as Xeeron has been inactive. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto for meteorology. Kges1901 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And WWII anniversary, after contacting Nick-D. Kges1901 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else want to voice an opinion about the merits or otherwise of promoting some of these incubator projects?

July to September 2018 reviewing tallies (Bot version)
Here is the Bot version of the July to September reviewing tallies. I haven't checked it against the human-generated one. We now need to look for any major anomalies. MilHistBot (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * G'day Hawkeye, this is coming along well. Thanks for all your work thus far. It needs to be tweaked so it only counts those that did at least one Milhist ACR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if it is also picking up coord closures on ACRs and counting them as reviews? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not happen with A-class reviews, because the coordinator does not directly update the review page. However, it can happen with FAC. I will have to add an instruction to ignore the closing FAC coordinator. It has also credited itself with 29 reviews; I have ordered it to ignore bot edits.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like the report to be published on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards instead of here, although the Bot can put a notice here if that is desired. The Awards page is patrolled by the Bot, which can issue the awards as they are approved, as it does for other awards.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to that, but could you run it again taking out those that didn't do an ACR and re-post? Just so we can easily do a gross error check against the manual version? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. I missed that. I have to restrict it to editors who have performed A-class reviews. Will do.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have replaced with the latest bot run, which includes changes to (1) remove entries where no A-class review was performed (2) remove the FAC closing coordinator (using a modified version of the code in the fac run) (3) post to the awards page (but posting here for test purposes).

Note that the Bot does not follow the same procedure as the human reviewer. It works this way: The report takes several minutes to produce. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The Bot looks through the announcement pages, which it updates daily (so there are 90 of them) and compiles a list of all the A-class, FAC, GA and PR reviews. (There is a possibility that a GA review that is closed on the day it was created may be missed.)
 * 2) It then looks through the change histories of the reviews in the period concerned and finds all the reviewers, excluding bots, nominators and the closing FAC coordinator
 * 3) These are added to the running tallies; those without an A-class review are excluded.
 * 4) The report is then produced, tabulated and posted for review.

Just from a quick look at this top ten against the top ten on the manual version, it is apparent there are some quite big discrepancies, as well as a few that are very close. For example, it has me doing 6 FACs when I did 10, it has Nikki doing 14 FACs when she did 21, and it has Rupert doing only 11 ACRs when he did 17. I am very confident about the manual FA figures, because I did them myself. Ian Rose has 11 FACs, when he only did one (understandable give he's a FAC coord, which might explain that glitch). I wonder if it is still picking up some nominators, coords etc? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't expect the list to be exactly right. The six FACs that the Bot credited you with are: Can you give me one of the ones that was not credited? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Looking at Ian's set:
 * 1) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Halmyros/archive1' reviewed by 'Peacemaker67' (1)
 * 2) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Elsass/archive1' reviewed by 'Peacemaker67' (2)
 * 3) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Wettin/archive1' reviewed by 'Peacemaker67' (3)
 * 4) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO/archive1' reviewed by 'Peacemaker67' (4)
 * 5) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U-1-class submarine (Austria-Hungary)/archive1' reviewed by 'Peacemaker67' (5)
 * 6) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Falklands War/archive1' reviewed by 'Peacemaker67' (6)
 * Featured article candidates/Army of Sambre and Meuse/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Bougainville counterattack/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Hyūga/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Yeomanry Cavalry/archive1
 * Okay, I get the picture here. Your reviews were in June, so the Bot has not tallied them. What we need is reviews that were promoted, failed, kept or demoted in the relevant quarter.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Muhammad I of Granada/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (1)
 * 2) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Basil II/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (2)
 * 3) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lawrence Weathers/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (3)
 * 4) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)/archive2' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (4)
 * 5) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Wettin/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (5)
 * 6) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Army of Sambre and Meuse/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (6)
 * 7) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philip I Philadelphus/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (7)
 * 8) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian occupations of Beirut/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (8)
 * 9) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (9)
 * 10) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Falklands War/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (10)
 * 11) 'Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Retribution (1941)/archive1' reviewed by 'Ian Rose' (11)
 * Okay, I have checked all eleven. (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10) are coordinator comments; (3, 11) are reviews; (9) is a border case.
 * So yes, it is because he is a FAC coordinator. The Bot correctly identified the closing FAC coordinator in every case. I had expected that the FAC coordinators would take on certain reviews; but Ian comments on reviews that he does not close. I'm not sure how to proceed here. Suggestions welcome.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we only tally from those that were closed in the relevant quarter, not when the review was done. Ian usually comments that he is "recusing" himself when he does a review, I wonder if the bot could identify that word and only count Ian when he uses it? That may be hard for the bot to parse though? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the Bot parsing it, it getting Ian to do it consistently. I might just have the Bot flag FAC coordinators and we can double-check them manually.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like great work, Hawkeye, and would save a lot of manual effort. It seems to be picking up false positives however, as I do not remember doing an FAC in that quarter. Kges1901 (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Will investigate. The Bot produces a log, so I can double-check every decision. It doersn't need to be exactly right, just near enough. But the Bot takes only minutes to do this, and the amount of work it saves us is potentially large.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it doesn't have to be perfect, but the above significant discrepancies are an indication that something isn't quite right yet. The work involved is substantial, so having the bot do it seems highly desirable to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Date checking consumed plenty of CPU cycles, as the Bot had to determine when each review was closed. I have incorporated this, and the results now align more closely. The FAC coordinator problem remains. I'm not certain how to fix it. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If when the results are tabulated, the Bot flagged Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1 (assuming they did at least one ACR) when they appear on a FAC review page outside of closing, we could manually check theirs if we had a list of the review pages they appear on. From memory, it really is only Ian that reviews ACRs and recuses FAC coord duties to review Milhist articles at FAC, and I can't remember handing out a reviewing award to Laser brain or Sarastro1 in the last few years, as I don't think they review at ACR. I did a quick check of the last two years and that checks out. So, having said all that, we are probably really just talking about getting Ian's tally right. Can the Bot just parse when Ian uses the word "recusing", as he almost always does that now, and we can ask him to try to remember? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The Bot can look for Ian posting the word "recusing", but while Ian does that in (11) above he doesn't do it in (3). If we are going to ask his to post a message in future, the Bot's preference would be for a template like:
 * This would be easy for the Bot to spot, and completely unambiguous.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can't think of any reason why a template couldn't be used. If it makes it easier for the bot, I doubt would mind. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, sorry it's taken so long to get here. There are times I comment on FACs when I'm still wearing my coord hat; generally I only recuse when undertaking a major copyedit and review, and of course if I support or oppose. Then there are times I might take care of a source or image review and won't recuse unless there's some dispute about them, IOW I might do a source or image review and still close the FAC. I'd prefer not to use the template because I think it draws too much attention, but can certainly continue to use the word "recuse" or "recusing" ("recusing as coord" is my standard phrase I think) when I'm acting a a reviewer rather than as a coord. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ian, instead of putting "recuse" or "recusing" in the review, would it be possible to have it in an edit summary? This would be much easier for the Bot to find and parse, and will save time-consuming i/o.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Hawkeye, I'd still put "recuse" or "recusing" in the FAC page to ensure other participants know the score, but happy to add it to the edit summary that accompanies that declaration. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That would be great. I will instruct the Bot accordingly.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day Hawkeye7, does this also capture FLC reviews? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just checking you saw the above query. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I had not seen this. I could have modified it to do so. It's a major addition though, and a bit late now. I will have it for next quarter.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No dramas. It would be great to include them for completeness, but as you say, a job for next quarter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A passing query, if you will forgive the intrusion. A number of reviewers will do a normal review and an image and/or a source review for the same article at ACR or FAC. As I understand it, this would count as two, or three, credits if tallied by a human. Would the bot pick this up? I don't see this as being terribly consequential either way, but I thought that I would throw it in there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it only counts it as one, Gog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Werner Mölders FA delist/A-Class status
G'day all, given the recent FA delisting of this article, I think we should re-assess whether it meets our A-Class criteria. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for re-assessment here WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Werner Mölders, and moved the 2009 ACR to WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Werner Mölders/archive1. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Award deliveries
Hi folks, I'm taking a year off from coord duties but I've noticed the excellent work Hawkeye has been doing with MilHistBot. Just one thought, though. In my experience, awards have more "meaning", especially to newish editors but also to old hands, when they come from a person rather than appearing to come from a computer programme. Is there some way we can restore the 'personal touch', perhaps by using a coord's signature or the bot adding a note like "delivered by MilHistBot on behalf of <coord's name>? I have no idea how difficult it would be to programme something like that? <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?  12:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I will add that to the to-do list. The programming involves the Bot sifting through the change history until it finds who approved the award. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing A-class review for Fall of Kampala
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fall of Kampala has obtained three comprehensive supports, one all comments addressed, and passed a source review. Therefore I think its ready to be passed. Also, the table listed under the A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators heading on the A-class nom list page should probably say something about the requisite source review. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, just for info, there is a slot for listing ready-to-close ACRs further up the page, which the coords check regularly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I'd though I'd seen that before and I scrolled right past it! My bad. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Handbook addition
G'day all, I've tweaked the Handbook instructions for ACRs to include what to do if an article has already had a ACR, as follows: "If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, move the existing A-Class review page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Article title/archive1 (increasing the number if there has been more than one review), then delete the original review page, which is now a redirect. This will make way for the normal A-Class review initiation process, so advise the nominator to initiate per the instructions. You will also need to adjust the article assessment history to reflect the new target page for the old review."

Have I missed anything? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see, although I would be tempted to remove "delete" and replace with "rewrite" since delete implies you'll need admin help to do this correctly. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, you need to either nominate it for deletion per the usual, or delete it yourself (if you are an admin). Am I missing something, ? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "currently undergoing" link from the talk page won't work properly if the page exists, I think. Admins and page-movers can move it without leaving a redirect. I think we changed the instructions for reappraisals a few years ago to "ask the coordinators" because people were struggling with it; maybe we should do the same for second nominations? In the longer term we could maybe change the format so that all reviews are on a subpage like FAC but that would take careful planning to make sure we didn't mess anything up. <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? 17:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry, that's a good point. This is the coordinator' instructions though, and we can't assume all coords will know how to do it without laying it out somewhere. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Yes, in the coords' instructions we can go into detail. But if we want the link in the WPMILHIST banner to work as it does for a first nomination, the existing page (which is where the new review will be conducted) needs to be a red link, so it needs an admin or page mover, who can move the old review without leaving a redirect. Alternatively, you can copy and paste the boilerplates over the redirect and get the nom to fill in the blanks. <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? 21:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Helmut Wick GAR delist/A-Class status
G'day all, Helmut Wick has been delisted via a GAR. I've opened WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Helmut Wick for a re-assessment of its A-Class status. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Annual drive
The project has traditionally run an article editathon/assessment drive in March. Last year we ran it in April to tie in with a WP:Women in Red editathon. Any thoughts for this year? - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to be discussing March drives in December/January so we can better coordinator them. Not that we can't run them here, but if we actually had the extra time we could cross with other projects and see if they would be interested in joining us. Thats on me, too: I could have said something about this sooner but in between doctors appointments and tax paperwork it got away form me. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Tally ho
If we are doing this in 2019 we need to mobile fast, otherwise we will miss our window. Sound off for or against the march madness 2019 proposal, if you would please. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * S/O/N: 4/0/0
 * I have nothing against it, but will not have the time to do any set-up or participate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support drive proposal. Kges1901 (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We need much action on this if this is carried out. Drive pages can be set up fairly quickly, so right now there is still enough time, if a quorum can be obtained. Kges1901 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Zawed (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Are we doing this?
There seems to be support to run a drive, this can only be of benefit to the project. Should we look to do something in the next few months? Say June? - Dumelow (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually the summer months are a bad time to run a drive because a lot of people are out on vacation, but if that is the consensus we can do that. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We should definitely run a drive and this can still be done in May if we set up the pages now. Kges1901 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day I've been a bit distracted with RW stuff over the last month or two, and obviously March fell by the wayside, but do you support running a drive this year, and if so, when is best?
 * We should still definitely do one this year, June seems best for now IMO. Kges1901 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Historically, May, June, July, and August are usually bad months because of the summer vacation that occurs in Europe and the Americas. If we want to do this in 2019, then at this point it would be best to aim for September or so in order to get enough people to make a drive effort worth while. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Uni exam periods factor in later in the year, so September does seem sensible. It coincides with the coord election, but I'm sure we can cope with both. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , with the above couple of threads taken together, it seems there is enough support for a drive (in September?). Anyone opposed? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC):
 * September or any month nearby is good. Arius1998 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll start setting up the pages, if I can remember how. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ask, I assume we're going for one like WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2017? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was also wondering about including GAN reviews, as there is a bit of a backlog developing. Anyone think that is a bad idea? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK I've set up the main page at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai using the April 2018 backlog drive as a template, and have added points for doing a GAN review per my suggestion above. If you don't like the title, we can always move it to something else. I'll set up the worklists page shortly. Could you all have a look and make any tweaks you think are necessary? Perhaps if we discuss matters to do with the drive on the drive talk page? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi just a reminder of this.  Do we need to start publicising the drive? - Dumelow (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggest sending a mass message out within the next few days. Kges1901 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, and noted on the announcements page as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

January contest
I've awarded the second-place winner his barnstar; if someone could be so kind as to handle the one for the winner, it would be appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Congrats, Kges1901 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

February contest
I apologize if I'm impatient, but could someone close the MILHIST contest? I would have done so myself, but I don't want to disrupt as I'm not a coord. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 03:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have closed the contest. Kges1901 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Joachim Müncheberg A-Class Review
Joachim Müncheberg recently failed a Good Article Reassessment, so a reassessment of its A-Class status is in order as well. Is there a way that I can start that process or is this notification sufficient? –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can do it yourself,, all you have to do is follow the process laid out at WP:MHR. Just be aware you need to move the old review page first without leaving a redirect, per the instructions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I thought that was probably how it worked, but it wasn't immediately clear that a delisting review would follow the same process. Thanks! –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

March Contest
I've closed out the contest, updated the tally box and have awarded the second-place finisher his barnstar. I'd be grateful if someone could do the same for the winner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Congrats, Kges1901 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing tally
Hi, and thanks for the WikiChevrons for quarter 1 reviewing. I like to have a look at how many reviews I have done each quarter and at which levels. Mostly so that I can check that I am putting in enough reviews to cover the reviews that others are doing of my work. Any chance of a link to the table showing the breakdown? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quarterly tallies are here. Kges1901 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

David Scott
Is there anything more I need to do on this nom for promotion? It's been a decade since my last, not counting the one I had to pull, so I'm not certain on procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, nothing you can do. I see image and source reviews, but only two content reviews. I'll try to get to it today when I need a change from plowing through the USS Hornet article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there are three but your comments would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI regarding T-AKR-287
Happened to be in Astoria during the first week of April and saw this ship entering the river on its way to Portland. The last comment I found about this ship was that it was in reserve. Moving to yard for modification?

Patrick Armstrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:121B:C58F:19F7:6D8D:919E:66FC (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A-Class reassessment process
Hi coordinators,

I find these two recent rulings, see Hans Philipp (delisted) and |Hans Waldmann (kept), a bit asymmetrical in outcome. While the Hans Waldmann was kept at A-class with a vote of 5 keeps versus 4 delists (including the nominator), the Hans Philipp article was delisted following a vote of 3 keeps versus 3 delists (including the nominator). Although I disagree with the motivating arguments for delisting and alleged unreliability of the sources, I accept both decisions. However, I am wondering what the guiding principles in the decision making are? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They were closed by different coordinators, for a start, so you are going to get different perspectives of the value of the different comments in support or against. It isn't just a bare vote. I am entirely open to my close of Philipp being reviewed if anyone wishes to do so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry PM, it's not often we disagree but I think there's an error of process here. First of all, you've closed the review saying there's no consensus to promote. As far as A-Class is concerned, the article is already "promoted", the review is to determine if it's kept at A-Class, or demoted from A-Class. That leads us to the A-Class reappraisal guidance, which states that we close such reviews as "demote" if there's clear consensus to demote, or "keep" if: a) there's clear consensus to keep, or b) no consensus. I can't see how the discussion could be read as consensus, clear or otherwise, to demote; at most the review could be closed (as you've indicated") as "no consensus", but this means no consensus to change the current listing, which is A-Class. I agree that having been open three months (!) it should be closed, but it can only be closed as no consensus, defaulting to "keep". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm happy for that to happen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have re-opened the re-assessment, removed the article history additions by Milhistbot and changed the A-Class=fail to A-Class=kept. will Milhistbot pick up on this and make the necessary adjustments? Anything I've missed? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. I noticed that the review page was not closed, is that correct? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've marked it as kept, but I'm just waiting on advice from on how to proceed so Milhistbot doesn't hit any hurdles. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Bot does many steps, and they all have to be reversed. I have done so, and everything should proceed correctly.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that was the case. Sorry about the cock-up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have just stumbled across this. I had put quite a bit of time and thought into my vote and was, umm, upset about how it was closed. My view was much as Ian's above. However, it is good to know that such things can be, and are, picked up, discussed sensibly and, if appropriate, decisions reversed. Good stuff. Please all keep up the good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I had a brainfart, so say the least! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

September Coordinator Elections
In approximately six weeks we will commence nominations and voting for the forthcoming coordinator tranche. Accordingly, I wanted to convene the current tranche to discuss the issue of the election and to determine the following:
 * How many coordinator spots should we open for election in September, and should that number include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, and
 * When do we want to start the nomination process?

Last year, we returned the 14-day nomination/14-day election format, if we wanted to keep that format then it should be ok to open the nominations on the 1st and let'em run to the 14th, then do the voting from the 15th to the 28th with the new term to take office starting the 29th. If however we wanted to drift back into the 10-day nomination/10-day election format, then we'd need to take a look a the calendar and figure a day to start the nomination process.

In addition, I would propose reaching out to both the nominees from last years historian and newcomer of the year awards as well as those who have placed in the milhist review tally since this time last year and see if any those editors would be interested in serve a term as a coordinator. It would also behoove us to send out a mention of the September elections in The Bugle, just to remind our editors that its almost time to elect the new tranche so they can start thinking about it too. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks Tom, you posted just in time to allow me to get a note into this month's Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should repeat last year's schedule, which seemed to work well, and limit it to ten coords including the lead, with the usual scope to adjust if there is a tie for tenth position. I'm happy to create the election pages again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I've gone ahead and created the pages, the main one is here. We can always adjust the parameters if we decide to go with something different from last year. Thanks for flagging this, Tom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left two additional messages with Pendright and CPA-5 since they've had high review numbers based on our quarterly tallies, extending an invitation to run for a coordinator's spot. I'll take a look at the Military Historian and Newcomer of the Year awards in a little bit and see if anyone there hasn't served, if not then we can reach out to them too. Can anyone else think of editors that we could reach out to? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left messages with the last of the editors I can think of to reach out to, if anyone has any other suggestions as to who we may reach out to for coordinator consideration please do act to get the word out. Hopefully, 1 September will be an interesting day for nominations. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, Tom. You beat me to several of them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

GANs

 * Hey, I was wondering, could we have a cleanup in the GANs here? I mean most of them are almost two months old. Some of them like the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and the Brooklyn Army Terminal GANs are almost a year old. I think it's time to have a cleanup. This also could be the perfect end goal before the next co-ordinators' election will start in September. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

On this note, Pacific Pathways and Anglophone Crisis are in need of reviews. Since we've been able to reduce the ACR backlog to less than a month-old reviews, we should be able to take the GA backlog down to that as well given that GAs only need the effort of one reviewer. Kges1901 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, also the backlog drive will also be awarding points for GAN reviews, so hopefully that will also reduce the number outstanding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
It is very early to be considering this, however I want to bring up the concept of a 2020 March Madness drive because I want to see if it would be worth our while to reach out to other projects like the GOCE and WP:TRANSPORTATION on a collaboration drive with three goals: 1) Tagging and assessing articles, 2) updating the projects incomplete B-class templates, and 3) clearing out the backlog of GA, FAC, and other higher rated reviewed articles that have languished in review hell for what seems to be life plus forever. I want to start feeling this out now so we can hit the ground running in late winter/early spring with the pages and the notifications and such. Note that at this time nothing in concrete, I just want to get some sense as to weather it'd be worth going forward with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I struggle to be available at that time of the year, but it sounds worthwhile to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I initially wondered what role you envisaged for GOCE in the proposed collaboration. Then I reflected that a number of the older GANs may be perceived as having poor prose by potential reviewers who feel unequipped or unmotivated to tackle this. I assume that the nominators would need to agree before any such were tagged for GOCE attention [?] but that this is likely to be forthcoming if it greatly enhanced the nomination's chances of a speedy assessment. I am unsure as to what GOCE's view might be, but given that their backlog is at an all time low it is possible that a suggestion along these, or some other, lines would be favourably received. Could I suggest an early contact with the GOCE coordinators? who are a friendly and cooperative bunch. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doing this in conjunction with GOCE sounds like a good idea, but WikiProject Transportation seems pretty inactive. Kges1901 (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Two big reasons. First, our higher assessment rated articles - particularly those whose main contributors are no longer around - end up with a lot clutter added in good faith but this has the net effect of degrading the article's tense, sentence structure, etc. The other reason is that if you look at the talk page template for the main milhist page you'll see several thousand articles needing attention just with spelling, grammar, and other editorial related issues, which is specifically what the GOCE does. Networking with their people does cause some headaches vis-a-vis milhist specific language and terminology, however the overall benefit is a net positive for both projects. As for transportation, I suggested that since most milhist related articles are built on things that move, but if they are inactive perhaps best to leave them out. The other project I may consider reaching out to would be the biography project since a lot of milhist articles are on noteworthy people, but again that is subjective and depends on overall interest in the idea her first. (BTW I'm in the middle of rearranging my house again, so my computer's been disassembled - again - to facilitate a move. I've gotten it put back together but I'm not sure if I'm gonna leave it where it is, so I may bo offline again for a while soon-ish. Maybe :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I (a GOCE coordinator) think it's a great idea. Please keep the Guild posted. All the best,  Mini  apolis  13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I (another WP:GOCE/COORD) am also interested in an inter-WikiProject drive with Milhist. March is one of our drive months, with about 20 copy editors completing 250 copy edits.  This is split about 1:2 between requests (including FA and GA) and copyedit backlog articles (B-class and below).  A couple thoughts:  (1) It would be helpful if there were a way to guide editors to articles of a quality/assessment level that they can handle.  We'd like to have at least some lower-quality/assessment articles for our newer copy editors. (2) I hope that some patience can be shown with our newer copy editors if you decide to invite us in. Like any other WikiProject, we don't have any control over who joins and how they choose to edit, but we try to guide them in the right direction. (3) Please check if Manual of Style/Military history needs any updating, as we'll probably be using that as a general guide to the subject matter. Please keep me posted and let me know if there's anything I can do to help! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the Guild and MILHIST look up to the challenge of a drive. I'd also consider reaching out to the biography project  and seeing if they are interested in joining us. I'd also consider reaching out to the...women in red project I think its called(?) and see if they have any interest in joining us for the drive. They're interested in women's articles in general, and I've seen some stuff on their talk pages concerning military related articles for women. They may be willing to throw in with us - if there's interest in reaching out to them.  The info looks up-to-date by my drive through pass, however one noticeably absent element there would be the use of terms like "decisive" and "tactical" and so forth to describe a victory or defeat in the milhist infobox. Right now we've no clear consensus on how to address the issue as it relates to the infobox, its come up periodically but its not mentioned there because its dealt with somewhat on a case by case basis here. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left messages with Wikiproject Biography and Wikiproject Women in Red, we'll see if we get any bites. Is there any other project anyone can think of reaching out to? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Women in Red is currently involved in your September drive "Backlog Banzai". See also Women in military history. I hope you,, and any others reading this page will find time to take part. Let's see how successful it is before we plan anything for the spring. Personally I think one major focus on Milhist per year is sufficient for Women in Red unless we can combine it with any other relevant priorities or anniversaries. I think you should decide among yourselves whether to make collaboration with WiR an annual event for the spring or autumn. We would nevertheless appreciate your including our pertinent redlists in your spring drive even if we are not fully involved. There is ample room for coverage of many more Milhist women. In any case, please keep us posted on how things evolve.--Ipigott (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A-Class reviews
Hey guys there is something wrong with the WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review. Sinds the 45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) and older there is something really odd going on. Anything below 45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) has a line through. Has anyone an idea? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Errant strike syntax. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Six Million Articles
According to the main page's statistics counter, we are closing in on our six millionth article and it is likely that we cross that threshold in the next 24-hours or so. It'd be a good chance on the outreach perspective to find out whose got the first milhist article and hand out a chevrons for starting us off on the other side of 6,000,000 and making a mention of both the editor and the article in the Bugle. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible. Is there a mechanism for identifying when an article is tagged as MilHist, or more specifically when a new article is published with a MilHist tag attached? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a bot report here that tracks potential new MILHIST articles. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Election done and dusted
G'day, I've tidied up the election pages, handed out the stars, and updated the coord page. Welcome to the new coords and welcome back to those who were re-elected. If someone could hand out my lead coord stars, we'll be done. Here's to a great year! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead coord stars have been dished out as requested. All the best for the next 12 months everyone, looking forward to working with you all! Zawed (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Likewise Zawed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the notification system's been updated, did everyone get the ping? Also, In the interest of openness, does anyone have any long term plans for the project this term? If we can find some cross project support I'd personally press forward with the proposed March Madness drive, but outside of that proposal I don't have any long term tranche plans. I could use some help from the new coordinators though (if anyone's interested in lending their two cents) in identifying and either updating or adding material judged to be lacking or for want in our Become a coordinator Academy page. The returning veteran coordinators have done this enough times that we know what to expect, but you new guys may have a better sense for what the essay lacks that others in your shoes may appreciate knowing about in the lead up to and through the election process. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Reporting for duty per Becoming a coordinator - "Ask the lead coordinator how you might best contribute."
 * I have no long term thoughts, per "Take a pause".
 * I'll put reviewing the new coordinators guide on my to do list. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Good question Tom "Do not be afraid to ask questions before the elections and after if you have problems with an article or so to the coordinators." that'd be my answer to your question. Cheers.
 * Right now I do not have future plans/ideas for the Project. September was a busy month for everyone here. Speaking of September the drive is still ongoing and my eyes found out that more than 10 participants who signed their names in the "Participants" section didn't put an article or something else about MILHIST in their Worklists. Shan't we warn them, the drive is almost over and if they want to take part in the drive then they have to react now? Or is there a bot who warn them tomorrow on the last day itself? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)