Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

A-class is suffering

Here's the data: I haven't been supporting at A-class for a while (but I'm always available when the article gets to FAC). Recent A-class promotions have taken longer to garner supports, if any. The oldest article currently at A-class is already A-class; the second oldest has a support from Anotherclown, who hasn't reviewed at A-class since then (which he warned us about). No. 77 Squadron RAAF has a support from Sturm, but then, Ian is always going to get supports. AustralianRupert has continued to review and support, but he indicated during coord elections that he has commitments now and he's going to have to cut back. Other than that ... there isn't a single support for any of the current A-class articles, though there are a few reviews that may turn into supports, and auntieruth, Sturm, and Ian have been doing a lot of reviews ... much obliged. Still, this level of activity is a big drop from what we've seen the past few years.

In light of the data, my vote would be to give it a little longer and see if a new crop of devoted reviewers shows up, or if more people who nominate start sharing the workload. If that doesn't happen, then we should let nominators know that A-class is slower these days, so that they don't get a false sense that they're doing something wrong, and so that they know to go to PR or FAC (or GAN, if applicable) if they're looking for a quicker response. Needless to say, I'm not assigning blame here ... everyone's a volunteer, and people are busy doing other useful things. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Tks Dan, I think this reminder might well be helping to get things moving again... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the backlog drive has contributed. I've personally been focussing on GA Cup for the last month, but will have a look at a couple over the weekend. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bot error report

We had a problem with the MilHistBot. An ACR article that was failed was listed on the review page as a redirect. The Bot was unable to find the assessment page on the review page and remove it. As a result, it kept finding the assessment on the review page and attempted to fail it every time it ran (every hour). I have made two corrections:

  1. The Bot now recognises this situation and handles redirects on the review page. It was already following redirects to check their assessment pages, but was not removing the redirect from the review page. It now does so.
  2. If the Bot finds that its attempt to remove an entry from the review page was unsuccessful, then it will immediately halt and notify me. Although this is step 4 in our manual procedure, it is the first step performed by the Bot. This is so that subsequent error cannot therefore cause a looping condition like we had.

Therefore, this error should not recur, and errors of this type should not recur. My apologies for the inconvenience. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all mate, redirects are always an issue, and the amount of time the bot saves us in general more than makes up for any teething troubles! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Here, here! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

sikorsky h34

There is information missing from Sikorsky h34 page, specifically on the Incidents section, that maybe isn´t important to many people, but here in Uruguay it is to many, and it is an incident that must not be forgotten, i was there when I was 7. Many people died and lots were mutilated, and there was a cover-up of this because the sale of this old machines from the U.S.A. was done in a corrupt operation, and when they failed later at an air show full with civilians, there were huge efforts to cover it up. Yesterday 14th of november was the 43th anniversary of this. I think I don´t have the skills needed to add this info to a Wikipedia page so that´s why I´m asking for help. A documentary was recently done. More info here: http://helicesdoc.com/ Thank you.

Maverick528 (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)maverick528

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Could a coordinator please close the World War II article infobox RfC?

The discussion at Talk:World War II#Request for comment: WWII infobox appears to have concluded. Could an uninvolved coordinator please close this discussion and implement whatever they judge the consensus to be? Thanks Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Total Military Service

I am doing a small research project, and I need to know the total number of people who have served in the military forces of the United States of America from 1776 to present. I haven't been able to find this info anywhere so far. Do you have this info or can you tell me where I might get it. Thanks. BuzzWe (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Approximately 40 million, per United States Armed Forces#Personnel. ~16m of those were in WWII and ~4m in WWI. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The relation of the Allies with Hungary at the Paris Peace conference

In the article Treaty of Trianon I found the text below:

The treaty was dictated by the Allies rather than negotiated and the Hungarians had no option but to accept its terms.[11] The Hungarian delegation signed the treaty under protest

Aren't the above facts self-implied? As far as I know, after any military conflict the winners dictate the terms of the peace treaties to the losers (and don't negotiate with the defeated sided when taking the decisions).

So, is it necessary to include the phrase above? Undecand (talk)

Yes. The case where the winners dictate the terms of the peace is relatively rare. The more common case is a negotiated peace. Treaty of Paris provides a good list of examples. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
this question was posed elsewhere and I answered it there too: This treaty and the ones that the Germans signed, were done under protest. It was an armistice, not a surrender: 11th hour, 11th day 11th month...etc. Only after the German army had gone home did the Allies start to call it a surrender, and to treat it as such as far as peace terms went. This is where Hitler got that "stabbed in the back" argument. auntieruth (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Signpost interview

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: It looks like the Signpost is getting ready to run another article about MILHIST. This is potentially a good opportunity for us to recruit more participants, so I'd encourage anyone with the time and inclination to respond to the interview questions. Kirill [talk] 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Tks Kirill, echo that. I notice it was posted to the main MilHist talk page as well so hopefully some non-coords will respond as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I did my part :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well look at that

It appears that Operation Majestic Titan has officially crossed the tranwiki barrier, as according to the project now has a page on the Russian Wikipedia.

Also, a look through our talk page suggests that it may be time for a little archiving. We got talk page material going all the way back to April, hence the suggestion :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty impressive effort. Not easy to crossover to the other side. Operation Bora had a regional and language advantage. A rich mine of en WP material from OMT for other language WP. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

End of the year awards

We are a little more than a week out from December 1, which for us means that its time to start thinking about setting up the nominations sections for the military historian and newcomer of the year. Based on previous years, I would propose that the nominations run for roughly a week, then voting for roughly a week, then the award ceremony. Are there any objections? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

sounds fair, I assume that's the usual drill? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
More or less. We could expand the time line a little to better account for the impending departure of the people for holidays and such, but I am unsure that such a move is necessary and/or wise. In addition, as an off the topic but on the subject note, it wouldn't hurt to tool through the assessment archives and see who here has earned other awards of note (like the FA medal or the ships barnstar). TomStar81 (Talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Kirill [talk] 13:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Since its December 1st, I would propose we adopt one of the two following time lines for the awards process:

  • Option A: 10 days We would open the process for nominations December 7-17, and for voting December 17-27. In this way the awards are open to three extra days of nominations and voting by the community
  • Option B: 7 days We would open the nominations on December 7-14, and for voting December 14-21. In this way the process moves quickly, and no one gets left out of nominating or voting due to Holiday plans.

I'll move to set up the nominations and election sections myself, but in the interest of transparency I'd like to keep some feedback on which of the two timelines the rest of you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Tks again for running with this, Tom. Just FYI all, last year noms for MHOTY and NOTY ran 16–21 Dec, and voting 23 Dec – 5 Jan, so almost a week for noms and almost 2 weeks (but with holidays) for voting. I’d be inclined to get it all buttoned before Christmas this year if people don’t think that’s rushing things, so for me option B is probably best. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Ian, and thanks Tom. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Also agree, a lot of people will have other things to do with their time after the 25th - Dumelow (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm for Plan B. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Hawkeye for Plan B to get this done before the winter solstice and kick off to another year --Molestash (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree, Plan B is a good choice MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We're live

I'm not in New York, and its not quite Saturday night yet, but we are live for the end of the year awards. Now all we need are the people to nominate the editors and we are set. To affect that last part, perhaps a mass message announcing the opening of the nomination period would be in our best interest. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, how do you do a mass message? Is there a trick to it, or does it require a bot or auto tool? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tom, since the demise of EdwardsBot, MassMessage is the standard tool (we use it for the Bugle now). Assuming you have access, the draft messaging page is here, and you just put "User:The ed17/sandbox3" (without quotes) in the address field at the top. I have to run now but should be able to get to this tonight unless you or anyone else beats me to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't want to use my sandbox for that; it's the Bugle mailing list, which isn't 100% Milhist members. I would go with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active, which I formatted for MassMessage in September. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, of course, I forgot about that -- tks Ed! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Too late. Its already been sent. I suppose we can double send, but that does mean some of us end up with reposts of the same message. We ought to have an academy course for this so as to avoid the confusion for those moments when we need to mass message our members for stuff. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but now you've sent it twice. Had you waited, I would had noted that the amount of overlap between the two lists is enough that you really don't need to do that... sending out multiple mass messages to 90+% of our membership will make people unsubscribe. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Case in point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least the second message noted that it might be a duplicate -- lesson learnt I'm sure, and at least no-one can say they weren't informed... ;-) Cheers all, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Lessons learned the hardest are those remembered the longest, so hopeful this experience will be a good teacher. As far as the messages are concerned, it'll be an inconvenience for most, but I'd rather an inconvenience than a case of double trouble, hence the reason why I doubled down :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa (talk · contribs) has been double nom'ed, I see. I've no idea what to do about it so for now its just something to watch. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I noticed that too. I don't see a particular problem with someone effectively seconding a nomination -- I guess that's two sure votes for her later! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
They can say they weren't informed, Ian Rose . It won't be true, but...nothing stops them from saying it. auntieruth (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, in a little more than 24 hours the voting phase opens for the military historian and newcomer of the year awards. To make sure I get this right the second time around, to notify our members that voting is now open for these two awards I send a mass message to the members using the list "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active" (sans the quotes). Is that correct? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've archived the nominations and opened the voting, however I could use an extra set of eyes to ensure that I got everything right. In particular, I trimmed the editors to declines to be considered for the awards, and combined the two nominations for Dianna into one nom. I did not see that the newcomer nomination for the professor had been resolved, so I removed him without prejudice until the question on a Wikipedia account can be answered. I also sent out a mass message - again - and THIS time I got the right list on the first try. Is there anything else that needs to be done, reformatted, added, subtracted or otherwise tinkered with here? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For the future

Can we have a more formalized nomination statement that includes the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on? I can't tell very easily who has done what, and I suspect that will lead many people to vote for names they know or not at all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: – I am seeking guidance from other Military History Coordinators to my involvement of several "GA-class" assessed articles in WikiProject Military History. In my opinion some paragraphs require a {{citation needed}}, some editors have responded to my original re-assessment of these articles. They of course, do not think my request is basically non-sense. The claim that all of the paragraphs have been cited (which of course is incorrect). If these paragraphs were cited then they would place the citation from the following paragraph to the end of the paragraph. It's very little work and of course I do not have any resources or intentions of improving those articles, I am looking at the articles in a view of there should be a citation there and there. I know my article of Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher went through hell and back at "GA-class" as well as being correctly cited as a WP:Military History article for that assessment which of course every article that goes through that here in WP:Military History (and no other WikiProject, if it meets WP:MH, GA-class I would bump up all the others) ... why should these articles be any different? Adamdaley (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Noting for other coords that there is a current discussion at WT:GAN that elaborates on the concerns raised by other editors - not sure if there's any on individual articles, Adam? In any event, I think the correct approach might depend on how many problems the article has. I wouldn't advocate a GAR for one or two citation-needed tags, but for more or for those in combination with other problems it would be warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No other Coordinators have input into this? Adamdaley (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier, Adam. I only had a chance to look briefly at the discussion but in principle I think Nikki has nailed it -- I would not be going for a GAR on the basis of one or two fact tags alone (if the tags are not actioned for a while that might be different but article watchers need time to action issues raised with articles). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, if a pic was not ok, but there was a good infobox, I would just delete the image. If one or two citations were needed, I would see if a reliable source was available and fix it, and if it appeared it had been effectively eroded by poor editing, I would revert it to the last good version. If I couldn't easily fix it, I would notify the main editors and ask them to fix it. If not fixed in a couple of weeks, I might GAR it, depending on the extent of the issues. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Ordinarily, on AGF grounds, I interpret the right thing to do as adding a citation needed tag the information, then notifying the editor, then waiting no less than 30 days and no more than 90 for a reply. If I get none then I take upon myself to remove the uncited information and place it on the talk page, along with a note explaining why the material was removed and when it can be readded. If the article is more than 2 years out from the original review date, or if more than about 30-50% of the article is missing citations, then I would consider going directly to GAR for reevaluation of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting an old idea

I realize that this is rather out of the blue, but I got to thinking about some discussions we had a few years back about reorganizing our task forces. Given that the glory days of Wikipedia editing seem to be over insofar as we've been losing editors on site more than we have been gaining them I wonder if it would be worth revisiting the idea again. I remember that the discussions did result in the merging of two or three task forces, and I recall that I had advocated for geographical task forces to be reorganized under a continental system, with a subcontinental system for nations or regions that were in questionable areas. Just as a testing the water exercise, would anyone here care to revisit the issue, or should we let sleep soundly in our memories? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth rehashing the discussion again, considering that we didn't really accomplish much last time. At this point, I would suggest leaving the task forces as is until we have some ideas for improving them—perhaps something interesting will come out of the "WikiProject X" research that we can consider—rather than rearranging them within the current structure. Kirill [talk] 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
TomStar81s suggestion kindled an idea I have been thinking about. Our project, as Wikipedia in general, is very much centered on the concept of people contributing where they want to. Over time, a few editors in our project established themselves subject matter experts. It is very difficult for a newcomer to Wikipedia to “compete” in these areas with the old experts that seem to dominate these areas. Our own quality standards have also evolved over time and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to push an article up the quality scale. I can imagine that this is very frustrating for a newbie to Wikipedia. I think we need to give newbies a better chance to learn and evolve and at the same time encourage them for the contributions they make. I sometimes fear that our current review system can often be perceived as too much negative criticism, neglecting the positive contribution of the editor in the process. To counter this, I suggest that we as project advocate relative white spots in our article portfolio for "special attention required", and offer to newbies only, very special kudos. The idea is to offer newbie awards to project newcomers who take an article from Stub to B-class as an example. We could limit the B-class award to newcomers who have been registered less than 12-months. Maybe a Newcomer-Task force could address this idea? Having said that, I am not very fond of statements like "I'm not sure it's worth rehashing the discussion again", especially if made a very senior coordinator of the project. It is a statement which can stop a necessary discussion dead in its track before it even started. The issue of losing editors by the pound, which TomStar81 addressed, cannot be denied. Anyway, this is my personal opinion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
...I am not very fond of statements like "I'm not sure it's worth rehashing the discussion again", especially if made a very senior coordinator of the project. Perhaps I should clarify that point a little: What I mean is that we have discussed this matter I brought up at length previously, however we failed to find any consensus to move forward with it at the time as so it was tabled, and eventually archived. Rehashing an old idea that gained no consensus previously isn't necessarily a bad thing if it can be demonstrated that the topic is once more relevant, its just that in this specific case the issue would be reconciling any kind of task force reorganization with both our current project needs and a new system for which the community would need to weigh in and approve or disapprove on - and that assumes that any discussion we have on the points actually reaches a point where we firm up something enough to seek community consensus on it. In short, its not that I am diametrically opposed to rehashing the discussion, its just that I'm uncertain if I can put enough locomotives on this train of thought to actually move it out of the current station and down the line toward my shining idea station. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. To clarify, I certainly have no objections to discussing problems with editor retention, ideas for getting newer editors involved, or any other issue that may be of interest to us as a project. I simply think that repeating the specific discussion on task force organization we had previously may not be a very productive starting point; if we're concerned about task forces, then I think we should ask ourselves a broader question (e.g. "How do we make task forces useful?") rather than a narrow one (e.g. "How do we combine task forces?"). Kirill [talk] 14:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment from a non-coordinator...While I no longer consider myself a newbie in the project, I can recall some hesitation to contribute to the project articles when I was a newbie. There was no particular guidance as to how things were done or helpful hints from others in the know. At the outset of my participation in the project I had several edits reverted, but had not a clue as to why. As I look back on those reverted edits with some experience gained through "toughing it out", I can see why they were rightfully reverted. The point is that there is very little mentorship in the project for a newbie to latch on to and succeed. Edits are reverted without explanation in some cases and the newbie attempting to understand why something is done one way and not another has not a clue as to why. Everyone of the current members of the project from the old hands on down to the "B"-class editors have been in the same position at the beginning of their Military History Project career. Some beginning editors on this project succeeded without much guidance, but there are beginning editors that have the potential to be successful that need some mentorship and guidance. If we are to increase interest and participation in the project, we as a group have to provide the beginner with encouragement. If you have to change something in a beginner's article, provide a reason for that change, or better yet, suggest the change and the reasons behind it and let them do the work. The project has some very good guidance as to why things are done a certain way and yet I doubt many users are aware of that fact, because they aren't pointed to those project pages as a part of a mentorship program. Don't encourage them to enter the monthly contest, and then beat them with ten entries of your own just so you can add yet another award to your already overloaded trophy case. In my opinion, the monthly contest should be divided into to groups, the experienced editor could compete with those equally experienced editors, and the beginners could write and enter in something of a "B"-class level for perhaps a year or so. After the initial period, the editor would move to the senior level contest. This could encourage more participation in project activities through recognition by the project with junior level awards. I am not saying that we need to coddle beginners, but I do think that some sort of recognition for beginning achievements should be in order if we are concerned as a project about participant numbers and project member retention.
I can recall in my earlier editing days on the project being very discouraged with my ability to participate in the project, and asked an experienced editor what he thought the problem was. This editor was concerned enough to help me see that it wasn't all my doing and that there were things that I could do to get back on track. To this day, I consult with the same editor about other problems that I have on an article; ever mindful that he has a life also. Fortunately, I consider myself versed enough now in the ways of the project that I only have to consult with him only rarely. My point is, that someone took the time to reach out and give some badly needed guidance at just the right time in my Military Project career that it made a difference in whether I remained a participant or closed up shop. This comment is just my own opinion and I sincerely hope that it will help and not hinder the goals of the project. Thanks, and to my "Aussie" mentor...Cheers. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The complexity of article writing has steadily increased over time. So while the old hands went through a gradual learning experience, newcomers faced an ever-steeper learning curve. The problem with mentorship is that it also suffers from the same problem with finding particular guidance as to how things are done; namely, that there is no obvious means of finding a mentor. From the perspective of someone who has been around for a while (but not a really long while), it is not so easy to spot a newbie either. Normally, I expect to see some demonstration that they know what they are talking about before I'll offer any help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

archive please

Will the person responsible for archiving this page please do so (judiciously of course)? It's incredibly long and my computer crashes if I try to add something. auntieruth (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, could we do something about the contest page? Whenever I try to help with the verification of the previous month, computer also crashes--that section is too big for my computer to edit. I cannot be the only one with this problem. Perhaps we could put the old monthly contest results on a different page, or put the previous month in its own section...or....auntieruth (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Ruth, I don't remember anyone raising this issue in the last three years. Maybe your computer...? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
possibly. Computer is two years old. If you don't want help with verifying the entries, then that's okay. auntieruth (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It is probably an issue with your computer, mine is over 5 years old, and I have never had any problems at all with WP pages, regardless of size. Perhaps you should have a look at your computer? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 17:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Gotta be your machine. My tower is a few weeks shy of turning 7, my laptop is almost 10, and in both cases they are running an outdated OS, yet I still manages the Wikipedia site at or near expectations. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Didn't someone else report having problems with the contest page? Ruth, it might also be an issue with your internet browser (which seems more likely than your PC given that Wikipedia isn't at all resource-intensive). Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Firefox? And google chrome.....sometimes. This is the only site that gives my computer fits. auntieruth (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I run Chrome, have never had a drama with WP. I'm using W8. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Joining

I would like to join the WW1 Task force and I don't know what to do, can you help me out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Skywalker01 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Coord opinion sought on a newcomer of the year nom

Hi all! I recently nominated user User:Saxum as a newcomer of the year, but they are active in the MILHIST area for a week or two more than a year. I would appreciate coord feedback if the nom is inappropriate before the voting starts just to prevent any avoidable misunderstandings and give the project coords heads-up if some other form of recognition for Saxum's considerable achievement in their first year of contribution to the project is in order. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say no if he wasn't a November addition, so under the circumstances I favor a yes just because it seems silly to expect that someone would have moved mountains in a six week period of time. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, especially seeing as the first award kind of set a precedent that we are flexible on what a newcomer is. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

MilHistBot Summer timetable

Because my access to the server will be limited during the holiday season, I am reducing the frequency of the MilHistBot's A class run from hourly to daily. This will give me more time to fix any problems that may occur in the transition from 2014 to 2015. It will run a few minutes after 0000Z. Depending on when you make the triggering update, it may take up to 24 hours top process the request. All other runs (such as the announcements update) will run daily as usual. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Hawk! We'll all be on "Fiji time" during the Christmas period, I expect... BTW, your work on bringing this bot into action has really made a difference to the workload of the Milhist coords. Returning coords may not remember, and new coords may not appreciate the difference, but having been in the role over the cusp, I certainly do. It is greatly appreciated, mate. Takes out a huge amount of what I would call "hackwork". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Der Bügel

I do enjoy it! Especially the pictures, which are amazing. I have no idea how anyone can clean them up so well! And seeing all we've accomplished in the month, too! auntieruth (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

ACR quick-fail

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day all, a very new user has nominated M14 Half-track for ACR. IMO it is a quick-fail, and I'm planning to do just that. I have gently advised the nominator about Milhist assessment, have invited them to join Milhist, and have offered help if they want it. Any repechages on the quick-fail? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Tks PM, no issue -- article would need some work to reach B-Class. Tks also for communicating with the nominator. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I also agree (as a non-coordinator, of course). I was considering posting an 'oppose' review, but it seemed a harsh thing to do. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bot Error Report No. 2

The MilHistBot script that updates the announcements page suffered a failure due to a page with a corrupt Talk page. The page has been corrected. A fix has also been developed, but I cannot implement it at the present time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Hawkeye! Hope it wasn't my FUBAR... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

World War II in the Pacific

I note a genuine hole in most WWII coverage on Wiki. It seems as if WWII in the Pacific was Pearl Harbor, a few Marines taking beaches against impossible odds and then we dropped the bomb, the end. Nothing else happened and no one else was there.

A good example of this is PUC site which does not mention a single bomb group from the 5th Air Force. Even your entry on the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, for which the 43rd BG received their PUC, you have units mislabeled on the Order of Battle.

Another example. You have nothing on the 4 raids on Balikpapan. This was the Ploesti of the Pacific. The first 2 went in with no fighter cover and got chewed up. The 3rd raid featured Chas. Lindbergh's modification to the P-38 allowing for limited fighter coverage. He actually flew this raid and is credited with a kill. The 4th raid had enough cover that effective damage was done.

I realize that Lindbergh getting a kill and B-24's flying raids over the largest Japanese held oil field and refinery isn't worth mentioning when compared to a Tiger tank commander somewhere in Russia. You might want to at least mention Battles in the Pacific like Huggins Road Block (the entry on Buna-Goa is like making one entry for the entire Italian Campaign, the parachute drop on Dobadura witnessed from the air by McArthur in his B-17, etc.

Michael La Vean Historian 43rd Bomb Group Association [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavean (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is paid to write anything here, so people only write about what interests them. And it appears that nobody's done much with the air war in the Pacific. So I invite you to join up and start writing to fill in the lacunae that you've noticed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - Michael, DIY is always the best way to fill any gaps you see (and goodness knows there are a lot of them). The official histories of the USAAF, RAAF and RNZAF in World War II are freely available online, and are excellent sources for people wanting to write about the air war in the Pacific (sadly, there are few other comprehensive works on these topics in my experience, though there are a lot of specialist works). Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, the parachute drop witnessed by MacArthur was at Nadzab, not Dobodura. You can read about it in Landing at Nadzab, a featured article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Did someone actually mail Michael LaVean about his post? Or did we assume that he will check back here? If no one has written him, I will do so. auntieruth (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I wrote him too. auntieruth (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

FAR: Amphetamine showing up on MilHist list....what's that about?

The article Amphetamine appears on the list of Mil Hist articles under FAR. Although I'm sure there is use of amphetamine in various militaries, it doesn't appear that this is a legitimate MilHistory article, nor could I discover any coding within the talk page that would cause it to appear on our lists. I tried to review it and quite honestly could not understand its concepts. This is not a good sign for FAR; I think articles should be at least accessible to a smart undergraduate (which I am not). Whatever it's merits, I'm wondering why it is showing up in MilHist articles? Any ideas? Ruth auntieruth (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The bot added the Amphetamine FAC to the MilHist announcements in this edit. I am familiar with the article and you are right—it definitely doesn't belong in MilHist announcements. I looked at the article & talk page as of the date the bot added it, but see nothing to explain the bot's mysterious choice. I could remove it from the announcements, but the bot might put it right back in tomorrow if we can't figure out why. Hawkeye7? Maralia (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
LOL aren't we having fun. Bots are wonderful, when they work. Of course, they do what they are told, it's just very weird about this particular little quirk. auntieruth (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The Bot figures out that an article is a MilHist one by looking at the talk page. In particular, it looks for the MILHIST template. Unfortunately, I told it to look for MilHist when it should be looking for {{MilHist. Without the two curly brackets, it responded to Ian Rose's mention of MilHist on the talk page. For now I have adjusted the talk page so it does not appear anymore, using a trick to change "MilHist" to "Mil​Hist" which looks the same to us but not to the Bot. It will have to wait until January for a permanent fix. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WW2-CBI; Korean War

My father passed away in 2010, a veteran of WWII and the Korean War. Several boxes of documents and photos were recovered from his last home and given to me. Now I too am old and cannot sort these things out. Is there anyone who would value them enough to review the material and determine whether any of it might be archived or even published? Today I found a book about "Stilwell and the American Experience in China" with an inscription to my father, George D. Bottoms, Captain US Army Combat Engineers,written by Maj. General Haydon L. Boatner, who is mentioned in the book. There is correspondence and a book autographed by Girsham, the "Burma Surgeon" and many slides and photographs. Please advise soon as my wife wants to trash everything, Regards, G. Daniel Bottoms III 128 S. Western Ave. Aurora, IL 60506 cell: 630-306-1728 email: [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.216.39 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sending this via email to MrBottoms: Dear Mr. Bottoms, You have a wonderful resource, and I hope you'll find a good home for it. I suggest contacting the National Archives for suggestions about the best repository for these items: here is the link. Depending on the service branch, there might be a specific repository for your father's collection. Please ask your wife for patience while you sort this out. Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
He might also try reaching out to the Aurora Historical Society; I have known them to be quite active. Would you mind tacking that suggestion on to your email, Auntieruth55, if I'm not too late? It's very kind of you to follow up with emails to these folks, but I'd rather not confuse them with too many correspondents. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Last awards of the year

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All awards have been handed out as of the date stamp on the end of this message, which officially concludes our 2014 Year In Review Award review. Thanks to everyone who participated. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: After an exhaustive 7.5 hour review of the FA-Class material from our project for the year, I've compiled a list of editors who I think we should honor before the end of the year. Some of these guys may have earned numerical awards (like the FA ribbon), others we can take the opportunity to check and award Barnstars or other awards that they may have earned but not yet recieved (IE: ships barnstar for nautical related work, wiki-wings for airplanes, etc).

Note that there is unfortunately some built in error to this, as we have no formal automated system to track all the people who would get awards this list only takes into account the 2014 tally's, and because its was done manually some material may have slipped through the cracks (though I've taken as much care as I can to see to it that such occurrences did not happen) Additionally, as we have no formally recognized system for tracking featured media, I've listed those FPC and other such materials on grounds of whether or not they were relevant in a the given primary article.

This list is as follows:

FA Articles / FA medal Award candidates

For every editor listed, I would recommend an Epic Barnstar be given for "...particularly fine History and Events- related contributions." As to the rest of the awards for the individuals listed here, I've sorted them by editor and the area of contributions. To keep size down, the awards are listed with "nowiki" parameters, but you can use the master WP:Barnstar page as a cheat sheet to find the associated award and its description, or alternatively edit to remove the "nowiki" code to glimpse the award itself if you're better with visuals. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66

  • Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō - Sturmvogel 66
  • Russian battleship Retvizan - Sturmvogel 66
  • Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū - Sturmvogel 66
  • Japanese battleship Nagato - Sturmvogel 66
  • Russian battleship Poltava (1894) - Sturmvogel 66
  • Russian battleship Peresvet - Sturmvogel 66
  • Andrea Doria-class battleship - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy
  • HMS Indefatigable (R10) - Sturmvogel 66
  • Nagato-class battleship - Sturmvogel 66
  • Russian battleship Pobeda - Sturmvogel 66
  • HMS Formidable (67) - Sturmvogel 66

Ian Rose

  • Frank Headlam - Ian Rose
  • No. 34 Squadron RAAF - Ian Rose
  • Elwyn Roy King - Ian Rose
  • No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF - Ian Rose
  • Roy Phillipps - Ian Rose
  • 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision - Ian Rose
  • Henry Burrell (admiral) - Ian Rose
  • No. 1 Squadron RAAF - Ian Rose
  • Garnet Malley - Ian Rose

Hawkeye7

  • Silverplate and Paul Tibbets

Parsecboy

  • SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm - Parsecboy
  • SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II - Parsecboy
  • SMS Emden - Parsecboy
  • SMS Wörth - Parsecboy
  • Andrea Doria-class battleship - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy
  • SMS Scharnhorst - Parsecboy

Cliftonian

  • Air Rhodesia Flight 825 - Cliftonian
  • John Plagis - Cliftonian
  • Caesar Hull - Cliftonian
  • Ian Smith - Cliftonian

Wehalt

  • Judah P. Benjamin - Wehwalt
  • Franklin Pierce - Designate (talk), Wehwalt (talk)
  • John Tyler - Designate (talk), Wehwalt (talk)
  • John Hay - Wehwalt
  • Oliver Bosbyshell - Wehwalt

HJ Mitchell

  • Operation Flavius - HJ Mitchell
  • Death on the Rock - HJ Mitchell

Khanate General

  • Battle of Caishi - Khanate General
  • Jin–Song Wars - Khanate General

Peter Isotalo

  • Kronan (ship) - Peter Isotalo
  • Hemmema - Peter Isotalo
  • Battle of Öland - Peter Isotalo

Dudley Miles {{subst:The Biography Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

  • Æthelstan - Dudley Miles
  • Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians - Dudley Miles
  • Æthelwold ætheling - Dudley Miles

Hch2009 {{subst:The Biography Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

  • Henry III of England - Hchc2009
  • Empress Matilda - Hchc2009

Singles Those in this category receive the epic barnstar for history related contributions. Where two editors are present for the same article the left and right side of a barnstar will also be presented.

  • James Hogun - Cdtew
  • McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II - Sp33dyphi
  • Natchez revolt - User:Maunus & User:Jsayre64
  • Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) - TonyTheTiger
  • Audie Murphy - Maile66
  • Tadeusz Kościuszko - Gwillhickers
  • Paul Tibbets - Reedmalloy (talk)
  • South Carolina-class battleship - The ed17
  • Mahan-class destroyer - Pendright
  • Carl Hans Lody - Prioryman
  • William Beach Thomas - Sitush
  • Ford Island - TParis

FA Lists

For each person listed here, a tireless contributor barnstar for working on a large body of work without sacrificing quality in addition to any other awards judge to be relevant to the body of work in question. In the event that two editors worked on a list a left and right side of a barnstar will be issued to recognize the efforts of both parties.

Paresecboy {{subst:The Featured List Medal|message ~~~~}} {{subst:WikiProject Ships Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

  • List of light cruisers of Germany - Parsecboy
  • Battleships of Germany - Parsecboy (automatic promotion from GT)
  • List of unprotected cruisers of Germany - Parsecboy
  • List of cruisers of Germany - Parsecboy
  • Cruisers of Germany - Parsecboy

Maile66 {{subst:The Featured List Medal|message ~~~~}} {{subst:The Biography Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

  • Audie Murphy honors and awards - Maile66
  • List of songs written by Audie Murphy - Maile66
  • Audie Murphy - Maile66

Singles

  • Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95 - Tomobe03
  • Petropavlovsk-class battleships - Buggie111, Sturmvogel 66 (Automatic promotion from good topic)
  • Four Freedoms - TonyTheTiger

FA Photos

For each contributor here, a wikiproject barnstar for photographic work. As we've a limited supply of barnstars for visual related work, I'd propose one additional award based on any common theme for the images in question be presented to the editors when applicable (ie: a biography barnstar for portraits of people, a ships barnstar for ships, wings or aircraft, etc). As always, if there are two people in the nom the left and right half of a barnstar for each.

Godot13 File:Barnstarnumismatics.png - an unofficial barnstar design for WP:numanistics for the the USA, CSA, and IJA monetary sets promoted to FP status

Tomer T

Crisco 1492 {{subst:The Biography Barnstar|message ~~~~}} - several people pictures

Adam Cuerden I'd be of the mind to entertain the idea of either a milhist chevrons or perhaps a chevron w/oak leaves fro this amount of work, there are a bunch of images in these noms.

{{subst:WikiProject Ships Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

Yakiki

Yerevantsi

JJARichardson

Brandmeister

Singles

  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Odiham Castle - Tractor Tyres
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NROL-39 - HectorMoffet
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SMS Ägir - Armbrust
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Platoon Sergeant - Theparties
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Westfaelischer Friede in Muenster (Gerard Terborch 1648).jpg - Godhulii 1985
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Miranda en la Carraca by Arturo Michelena - Wilfredor
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Starved Vietnamese man - GamerPro64
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunita Williams.jpg - Bkouhi
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mother and child in desert - EtienneDolet
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alhambra from Mirador San Nicolas - Slaunger
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grace Hopper portrait - Pine
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Training in the waters - EuroCarGT
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Nash, Paul - Sunrise, Inverness Copse - Google Art Project.jpg - Hafspajen
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spanish Civil War - Mass grave - Estépar, Burgos.jpg - Mario modesto

Comments and Discussion

Wow, Tom. Bloody good effort. I'm a bit lost as to what the next step is, should we prioritise awards in any particular order? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Peacemaker: Then next step, which i am working on, is making sense of the data vis-a-vis the avalible selection of barnstars, awards, and honorable mentions. I'm going to work on it, but understandably, my fingers need some down time in between chucks, since as I said, this had to be done manually. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright then, having waded through this colossal mess to organize the data the issue now is how best to recognize the material. For the 3+ crowd, a Featured Article Medal or Featured List Medal will suffice, so that leaves us with the 2 and under crowd. I'd suggest a teamwork barnstar for duo nominations, and would recommend that we look into what awards the editors set to receive an award have so as to avoid repeating anything unnecessarily. For the two and under crowd, perhaps the chevrons for one article/list and a wikiproject barnstar for the two article/list crowd? Also, we need to work out what the photo people should get. There is no ribbon for such submissions; we have a photographers barnstar, but that may not cover everyone. In Adam's case I am considering a Titan's Cross nomination, but that still leaves the media area open to award interpretation. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
OMG! that is incredible effort. REgardless of how this works out, cuddos to you for the time and effort to do this. May I suggest for next year that we set up a page and as articles are passed, etc., they are added by an appropriate coordinator appointed for that month? (Since we have an appropriate and convenient number of coordinators).....! auntieruth (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to go ahead with this as a project, I have a couple of queries as to how we might approach these non-project-specific awards within Milhist, especially numerical ones. If someone has already been awarded the FA Barnstar, for example when they first got to three FAs, do we award them another one? Quite a few of the above editors may have already been awarded one years ago. Not to say they were ever awarded one, (I didn't know it existed until it was raised here), but just to clarify. I would prefer it if we treated it as a one-off "encouragement" award for those who get 3 FAs up, rather than keep awarding them for every three FAs, which seems a bit of overkill to me, especially as we have a graded scale for our ACMs, which are very close to FA, where we require three per award (and five at A-Class Cross level, when someone gets there). But there is no graduated scale for FA Barnstars. Secondly, I personally consider the WikiChevrons quite a high award for our project, so I don't think it would be appropriate for one FA. I'd be interested in the views of the whole @WP:MILHIST coordinators: team on these ideas. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. A lot of these articles will have been through ACR before FAC and counted towards A-class medals. But it would be nice to provide some sort of recognition and a bit of encouragement to write some more excellent content in 2015. It would also be nice to recognsie people who have made a significant contribution to MilHist in other ways, like reviewing/assessing/making suggestions on the project talk page/contributing to the Bugle etc, especially if they're the sort of contributions that otherwise go mostly unnoticed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
With regards to the ribbons, I would be of the mind to bundle the articles altogether into one ribbon award like what we would do for a WP:MILHIST assessment or backlog drive. In that way, we give one ribbon award to one editor and mention all the articles they worked on to get it, with perhaps an additional award or two to recognize the area covered. For example, with regards to the articles, we could bundle all the articles Sturmvogel 66 worked on for the FA ribbon, then award a ships barnstar for work on nautical related articles here. In the case of Maile66, an FA list ribbon could be awarded along with a biography barnstar. And HJ Mitchell is right, there are others who deserve recognition as well, but the FA stuff is the only easy [sic] material to sift through for data. You'll note that the GA and GT material isn't here, as I was unsure how to locate and add that material. We spoke to Hawkeye7 about maybe modifying milhistbot to track and report on a variety of other good and featured quality articles and media, so perhaps next year this process will be easier. (PS: Happy New Year All, its not quite years here, but I'm certain at this point at least some of you have rung in 2015; Hopefully, with a bang :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: In the interest of time and if there are no objections, I would be happy to determine the awards and hand them out for the above editors. I feel as though time is a factor here, and it is generally a fact that one person can get a job done faster than several people working to find an implement a consensus to recognize these editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
My objection is regarding awarding the WikiChevrons for one FA. I think it is overkill and devalues the award. Could we award the generic WikiProject Barnstar instead? My second query is whether these awards can be awarded on behalf of the project when we really don't have a consensus of Milhist coords to go ahead. That usually means the attitude is pretty lukewarm, but maybe it is just the Xmas break? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking ribbons to those who earned them, then individual awards for subsections of the overall project rather than the chevrons (ie a ships barnstar to those who had worked with ships, a armored barstar for those who had worked on armored warfare pages, wiki wings for those who had worked on planes, etc). I concur that the chevrons would be a bit odd to award here accept as a either a last resort or to those whom no other award inside or outside the project really fits the criteria (for example, the photos recognition would likely have to be chevrons since we've no really good photo awards), and even then I would be of the mind to hand out the generic barnstar or editor's barnstar, or perhaps the working man's barstar to recognize a lot of those contributions. All I'm asking if there is any objections to mind putting an awards chart together so you guys can look it over and offer your two cents, then if its ok let me move ahead with handing out the awards. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that Tom's plan for awards make sense and is fair. Seeing what awards would get sent out would at least allow for some consensus. Maybe a new award for photos? --Molestash (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Tks Tom for your colossal effort putting this together, and everyone above who's commented. I also think it makes sense for Tom to proceed with the next stage, i.e. a table with suggested awards for the coords to agree on before anything is handed out. I'll admit I haven't formed a clear opinion myself yet, except that I would particularly like to see newbies to Featured Content recognised in some way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright then, I'll assemble the awards for the users and place the proposed awards schematic here for input. I'll see about getting it up sometime in the next few days. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've arranged the awards sections by editors and added the awards I think should be issued to each for the work done over the year. I am open to any additional comments or suggestions about what should or should not be handed out, otherwise I'd like to hear back on when we should consider consensus reached and hand out the awards :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Tom, I'm happy with your proposed awards. I agree with Ian that in future we should try to monitor when new members of the project get their 1st and 3rd FA/FL/FP, and award it in a timely manner. Featured status is still a big deal for new editors, and we should try to recognise early successes, not just at A-Class. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've suggested to Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) that it may be in our best interest to see if MilHistBot (talk · contribs) can track project related FA, A, and GA articles, list, and photos and list promotions on a page here so we can more accurately cover and award these things in a timely manner, but at the moment since it has to be done by hand its easier for me to simply wait until the end of the year and then double back to check over the material and move from there. Not the best system, I concede, but its better to be recognized late for excellence in contributing than to not be recognized at all :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I am testing it this week. I need to reconcile the figures the MilHistBot has come up with against the ones below. It would probably be easier to run it on a monthly basis instead of quarterly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be great Hawk, I've hit a brick wall with the assessment log, which is the only way I know to tally the GARs. Monthly would be fine, we'd just combine the scores to come up with the quarterly review tallies. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If there are no objections, concerns, suggestions, or complaints, I'll move to hand these out sometime in the next few days. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oct to Dec 14 review tallies

Username GAN Oct–Dec 14 ACR Oct–Dec 14 PR Oct–Dec 14 FAC Oct–Dec 14 Total Oct–Dec 14 Awarded
User:ÄDA - DÄP 0 2 0 1 3 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Adam Cuerden 0 3 0 1 4 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Anotherclown 3 6 0 0 9 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Auntieruth55 3 8 0 4 15 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:AustralianRupert 4 18 1 2 25 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Brianboulton 0 1 0 3 4 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Dank 0 16 4 13 33 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Djmaschek 0 1 0 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Dudley Miles 0 4 2 0 6 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Hawkeye7 0 4 1 0 5 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009 3 3 1 0 7 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose 3 6 0 2 11 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Ironholds 0 1 0 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Lineagegeek 0 1 0 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:MisterBee1966 4 4 0 1 9 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Nick-D 4 2 0 3 9 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria 0 2 1 14 17 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Parsecboy 3 2 0 2 7 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Peacemaker67 16 6 0 2 24 Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Protonk 0 1 0 1 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Sturmvogel 66 10 5 0 2 17 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Tomobe03 0 1 0 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Zawed 3 1 0 0 4 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, I've started the review tally for this quarter - could someone please count GA reviews and distribute review awards? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki, I'll do the GAs sometime today. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: the way I have got the GA data in the past was to go to the Labs Assessment logs and run a query, then go through the list counting how many have been done by each editor. But there is something wrong with the Labs Assessment logs thingie ATM, it isn't recognising "Military_history" as the project... Anyone got any ideas how else it can be done? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I'm afraid I don't have a simple answer to this -- anyone else? I take it, PM, that Labs Assessment (which TBH I'm not familiar with) is still down? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep. I've been directed to someone who might be able to help, but no response as yet. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Aren't the MilHist GA listed as "warfare"?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No, this is the log I'm talking about. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, if we don't have a solution to this at the moment, perhaps we should just calculate awards without GAs for this quarter and then hopefully work out a new method for the next? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made a stab at the GAs by going to the history of WP:GA and counting those who listed articles under Warfare in Oct-Dec. Perhaps not foolproof but may be the best we can do at this stage. Unless any objections I think we might wrap up the tally now, as I'd like to publish the figures in this month's Bugle, and while I get onto that perhaps someone could hand out the gongs...? :-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, you have more patience than I have. I'll start on the gongs tomorrow. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The awards scheme is Chevrons for 15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It might be useful if I created a page for the quarterly reviewing awards. I'll have a look at that after I do the gongs. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a page I'd read :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Awards done. Yes Dan, a sure cure for insomnia... ;-) Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I have now added a Quarterly Reviewing Awards procedure in the Handbook, my thanks to Ian, Nikki and Rupert for their help with this. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for initiating that, PM -- very useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A potential project

Hey all - you may or may not know that DANFS recently updated the links to their articles (see the discussion here). We not have a lot of dead links that need to be fixed. I was thinking we might be able to put together a drive to fix them all, similar to the backlog reduction drives we've done in the past, since this does not appear to be a task that can be easily fixed with a bot (see Trappist's comments in the above thread). Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This could be the perfect subject for a "March Madness" drive, if anyone is interested. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Trident replacement

I'm gathering material for articles on the British nuclear weapons. According to the article on the successor to the UK Trident system, a decision is not expected until next year, but if anything happens, could someone let me know? Similarly, the US is considering an Ohio Replacement Submarine. Apparently, it is going to cost a shipload of money even by American standards (About $95 billion and change), so they are probably going to take it off-budget. Again, if anything happens, could someone let me know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye, have you set up a Google news alert for these programs? I use them to track some topics whose Wikipedia articles I work on, and they work quite well. No replacement for local knowledge from editors in the country of interest though, of course. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No, but that's a good idea. I will do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
A glance through the US Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service suggest that they may actually be looking to reduce the US nuclear expenditures, beginning with existing nuclear programs. Not withstanding differences in citations for the unnamed class (I've seen SSBNX, SSBN-X, SSBN(X), etc) your next generation SSBN is most recently mentioned here, about half way down the page. I'd keep my eyes out for this years National Defense Authorization Act, as it should have some information about the program - even if all it notes is that we can't afford it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to note that trident is not being replaced the subs are. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Veterans editing Wikipedia

Hey all, who do we have in the project who is also a veteran? I'm writing up an interview with Pendright, a WWII vet, and wanted to seek out a second person's thoughts on editing articles about things they've served on or campaigns they've participated in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The two who come to mind immediately are the deceased bahamut0013 and Husnock, and now that I'm thinking about it Marine 69-71 (aka Tony the Marine) is also a vet. There have to be others, I know I've seen them, but at the moment I can not think of any. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Parsecboy and Cliftonian come to mind. Swatjester too but haven't seen him around in ages. From the member list, try Gaarmyvet. From the very out-of-date Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch, try Dainomite. Maralia (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
et moi. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Parsecboy is probably going to slap me for forgetting about him; it's not like I've ever worked with him or anything... ;-) That said, thank you all for the suggestions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There was a fairly decent OPED written by a former co-ord a few years back on this topic - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/November_2013/Op-ed. Also User:Don Brunett is a fairly new editor but I believe he served in the First Gulf War. Unsure if he would be interested in an interview but it might be interesting to get a new editors perspective. Anotherclown (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Also User:Georgejdorner - I seem to recall he may have served in Vietnam with the US Air Force (pls check though - I'm not closely acquainted with him or his service and wouldn't want to get this wrong), again though I can't speak for whether he would be interested in being interviewed. Anotherclown (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I had already been on Wikipedia a couple of years when I enlisted in the Israeli forces. I made an informal rule with myself not to edit anything related, which so far as I remember I stuck to pretty faithfully, though this didn't stop one editor from launching a "boycott" against me on the grounds that I am, he says, a "fascist terrorist" (oddly, if I recall correctly he made this announcement during a totally unrelated discussion on the Somme). I've peeled this rule back a little bit since becoming a civilian again and have made some contributions on relevant topics, though I'm always very careful with wording, sources etc. My main contribution to this field in my view has been getting Israel's lack of a state religion to stick in the infobox. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Like Cliftonian, I have largely avoided editing articles on the wars in the former Yugoslavia (where I served in the mid-90s), but I POV-Watch quite a few and I've reviewed quite a few of Tomobe's GAs on the Croatian War of Independence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I am indeed a veteran of what is generally called the Vietnam War. However, of the 33 months I spent in Southeast Asia, 18 of them were spent in covert operations in Laos. I am now covering the Laotian theater in a series of articles contained within the general field of the Laotian Civil War. How the "secret War in Laos" became WP's Laotian Civil War is a tale onto itself.
In my case, it has been so many years that I have achieved a sense of objectivity—serenity, even—about my service there. However, I do "patrol" my writing output rigidly to keep it NPOV. I am willing to be interviewed. Sounds like it could be interesting.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Remembering how well-received AustralianRupert's Bugle op-ed was just over a year ago, I'd very much look forward to a vets' interview at the Signpost, and I'm sure many others would too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So I've realized that this is a much bigger topic that I first thought. For that reason, I'm not going to include anyone else in this interview, but I'm going to revisit it with a completely separate article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Your interview with Pendergast was one of the best features ever in the Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm just seeing this, but thank you Dank! Much appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

New job

I've got a new job, I'm writing the daily Main Page paragraphs for Today's Featured Article ... co-writing really, since I aim to keep as much of the original text from an article's lead section as I can. I was hoping that the job wouldn't be too much of a time sink, but the more I do it, the more uncomfortable the status quo feels. There's even less wiggle-room at TFA than at FAC; things are supposed to be "right", but 10 copyeditors would produce 10 different paragraphs. I'm not going to assert that I'm The Decider on prose questions, but when I step back and let people slug it out, some feel that I'm shirking my responsibility, and the more people fight over something, the worse things get. So, I need to do a lot of work asking people about prose rules and documenting those decisions. If anyone wants to participate in surveys, drop me a note on my talk page. I'm going to have to pull back a bit at A-class and FAC: if I'm finding that copyediting is an effort, then I'll do what I can with the lead section (I work from the lead at TFA) and give a quick opinion, and stop there. @Anotherclown, AustralianRupert, Ian Rose, Nick-D, Hawkeye7, Hchc2009, and Nikkimaria: Thanks for keeping A-class humming, I wouldn't feel right about slowing down there without your tireless efforts. And thanks to all the noms for making this job such a pleasure. This new documentation project won't take forever, but it will be a while. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries Dank. At one stage I was going to volunteer for that TFA role, so please ping me if you ever need another opinion on a blurb ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll do that! - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No worries, Dan, good luck. Thanks for your efforts at A-class, too. Cheeers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Great job for you, Dan. Hope you enjoy it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Much as we may miss Dan's focus on ACR/FAC, it's good to know the TFA blurbs are in such safe hands. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks kindly guys. I'm pretty sure I can cover at least half the A-class articles and most of the FACs, I just won't be doing all of them like I used to, and I don't want people to think it's because I disapprove of their work or something. One thing I'll need is the freedom to continue to do my thing and walk away ... if I give a support and list a few potential problems, it's up to the reviewers and the closer (as always) to decide whether the problems are a big deal or not ... and of course, if the article has gone to crap between the time I supported and closing time, that's your call too, I'm not going to have time to keep up with developments after I support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

FOB Salerno Discrepancy.....

Good Morning. My name is Jerad Bane. Previously with the Assault and Barrier Platoon, 307th Eng Bn, 82nd Airborne from 2000-2004. One tour Afghanistan, one tour Iraq. I am contacting you because a battle buddy recently reached out to me and couldn't believe there was no mention of the origin of FOB Salerno. A detachment of combat engineers and operators from my platoon (A&B) along with a small mechanics detail (muse stick) were the first boots on the ground in 2002 for months. The only ones that proceeded us is a SF team which stayed in a small building. While being airdropped building supplies like hescos we took incoming mortars and small arms fire nightly, but never during the day. We contracted local vehicles and workers to assist in filling the hescos for the perimeter. We cleared acres of marijuana that grew freely like weeds and constructed a giant burning pit the dump trucks would deliver piles from the clearing for incineration. We also established relations with the local war lord and townspeople to try and work out a beneficial relationship. I personally dug all the drainage ditches by hand with my battle buddies, and after one surprise flash monsoon, drainage failed, base flooded, and we had to adjust the drainage by hand with piss and shit water up to our chests...... which in turn gave several of us dysentery. The one medic we had with us was only able to give us motion sickness pills to assist while we struggled through the sickness. We ate goat stew with the locals and wild chickens when we ran out of MREs. After months of being there solo, a small unit of infantry then showed up. One of our mechanics actually spent 3 days in their only water source, an old pump house powered by a model t engine, and repaired it restoring water to the region for their crops for drinking/bathing.

I have several photos of us and the unconstructed area. Along with several photos of it slowly coming together. Additionally some of us have ARCOMS/AAMs that were awarded for being the first there securing the area and building it. We built the only dirt runway in that entire area, and have a photo of some of us standing in front of the very first C-130 landing on it.

I don't know how to use Wikipedia, or know anything about editing it, and respect those of you who have taken your time to put this information together on the FOB but hope that someone reading this can please, please help me in giving credit to my unit.

If there is anything I can do to assist you further don't hesitate to contact me. Thank You 12.144.110.131 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Jerad Bane12.144.110.131 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC) [email protected] 262-496-2724

Assessment logs FUBAR

G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Task forces (periods and conflicts). I think this is related to the issues I was having trying to use them for the quarterly GAR tallying. Who is responsible for these widgets? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a template parser problem; in simple terms, the combined assessment tables for all of the task forces are bigger than the maximum size allowed by MediaWiki, so they don't get displayed. I've changed the templates to link to the tables rather than transcluding them; this isn't quite as pretty, but doesn't break. Kirill [talk] 00:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill. I had an idea you might be able to fix it... Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Good Article Reassessments

Gday ladies and gentlemen. I know this isn't really a function of the MILHIST co-ordinators but as you guys are amoung the more active in the project and take the lead on administrative aspects I'm hoping one of the co-ordinators might be able to finalise a few open GARs, or at least provide some advice.

Firstly, Omar Khadr and Mars (mythology) have both had open community GARs since 21 Nov 14 - discussions are here [1] and here [2]. As far as I can see discussion on both seems to have ended (although I participated in both so I'm involved so I guess it might seem I have an agenda here so pls consider this a COI disclaimer). According to the policy any "uninvolved registered user" can close the discussion if the discussion has run its cse - pls see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment. Unfortunately it doesn't seem there is much interest so I think there is a possibility these will just sit there unless someone steps up and closes. Is there a co-ordinator that would be willing to have a look at the discussions and decide whether these are ready to close and then implement the consensus (if you decide there is one)?
Secondly, Spanish Civil War has had an individual reassessment open since 01 Feb 14! This is a problematic issue in my opinion and I actually do not believe the correct process has been followed here by the editor that conducted the GAR (discussion is here [3]). The BLUF is that in my opinion an individual GAR is not uncontroversial in this case, so a community GAR would have been more appropriate. I have posted a comment here about my concerns - Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#Pseudo-GAR; process help needed. Another editor also posted some concerns there three weeks ago but there doesn't really seem to have been much response. Wondering if any of the co-ords would be interested in having a look at the discussion and possibly suggest a way forward? This really needs to be finalised one way or the other (a year is really far too long for a GAR to be open). Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - unsure if anyone has seen this. Closing a GAR really is quite straightforward and the instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment. I'd do it myself but I'm involved in the discussions (for Omar Khadr and Mars (mythology)). If I don't get a response re Spanish Civil War I'm just going to be bold and close it as a keep (or "withdrawn" if that option even exists) as the editor that initiated it hasn't edited in nearly a month and hence hasn't responded to my post, nor have I received any response to my query at the GAR project page. I was however hoping to establish some sort of consensus from other editors on a way forward rather than doing something quite so bold (not even sure there are any rules for another editor closing someone else's GAR). Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I had a go at Mars, never having closed a GAR before, so hope I got it right. If no-one complains I might get on to the others tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, much appreciated. I've closed Spanish Civil War, although I'm not sure there is really any policy which justifies me taking such an action (my reasoning is here [4] if anyone wishes to conduct oversight). Anyway that just leaves Omar Khadr if someone is able to have a look at that one pls. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry mate, Khadr fell off the radar for a while but I just reacquired.. ;-) Closed/delisted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete/missing B-class checklists

Is there any way have start-class articles that completely lack a B-class checklist show up in Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists? 67.239.119.192 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, assess them as B-class but leave the list incomplete and it will add the article to the category, if I am not mistaken. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Just for clarification, what would be the benefit of seeing all articles rated as start with no B-Class checklists? --Molestash (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Well for starts it would help to clarify just exactly how many articles haven't had the B-class checklist added, which would allow the categories tracking the start, b, and start with incomplete/missing b-class checklist to more accurately reflect the number of articles that fall into each category. Then there's the occasional drive benefit in that if we establish this information more accurately we can organize a 30 day assessment project to get the numbers down by offering barstars and such to the people who help us locate, fill in, and assess the articles in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks --Molestash (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for source cataloging and tracking

I've been staring at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for the last few months think about how we may be able to replicate the page in some manner, however I had an idea this morning about how such a process may be applied to our project. I was wondering if it would be possible to set up a bot to automatically track and add sources from any article tagged as being within the scope of our project to sourcing section to create a source library from which members who may be looking for information to improve articles that they are working on can come to and browse through to see which sources have already been added to or otherwise on Wikipedia for military history related material. In this manner then both online and offline sources can be compiled in place for our members, and as an added bonus we can track the sources used against reliable sources lists to identify and remove anything added from unreliable sources. This idea of mine is still in its infancy (there are some issues that need to be hammered out for certain), however I think there is some potential here and I am interested to here what the rest of you have to say about this idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Anyone? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
good idea. Would this replace or use what we started with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics#Personal libraries? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
In my mind's eye this would be an independent series of pages that would use the material from our personal libraries collection only when the bot located such a reference in an article. In that way we could separate sources that we have sources already in articles, such as when a coach differentiates from the players on the field and the players on the bench. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Question: how would a bot distinguish between "military history" sources and unrelated sources that happen to be used in a MILHIST-tagged article? For example, if we were to look at an article on a soldier that later became a baseball player, a source-scraping bot would presumably give us a list that contained both the military-related sources and the baseball-related ones; I don't think a bot would be able to perform sufficiently fine-grained context analysis on the citation itself to determine whether a source was relevant. It seems like the resulting list would require a lot of manual curation to be useful, which might be too much effort for the benefit it provides.
A slightly different approach that might provide more immediate value for effort spent, incidentally, would be to run a (relatively simple) source analysis across all MILHIST articles and come up with a ranking of most-used sources. We could then look at that list to come up with a (manually curated) listing of high-value/high-profile sources that we could use for various purposes (e.g. cross-referencing with members who have access to those sources, etc.) as well as checking for any widely-used but inappropriate (e.g. unreliable, etc.) sources that we need to address. Kirill [talk] 05:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually I did put some thought into that. Most of our BLP articles, for example, have a section exclusively dedicated to the person's military service. If the bot could be programmed to look as a section through the use of a template such as we have for our popular culture sections then we could conceivably run the bot and get only military history related sources from the run. Now I grant that any such bot would have to be very well programmed to handle this kind of thing, but it is still one possible solution to the problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This would also require us to go through and add this template to all of the articles in question, right? That strikes me as a rather substantial manual task, given the number of articles involved; it certainly is, as you say, a possible solution, but I'm not sure it's one that we can implement with any degree of speed. More generally, I think it comes back to a cost-benefit question in this scenario; given the level of effort required to set up and maintain the system, is the value we'll get from having the list of sources going to be commensurate with that effort? Kirill [talk] 15:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

12th Armored Division (United States) article revisions

Hello @WP:MILHIST coordinators: The article for the U.S. 12th Armored Division (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Armored_Division_(United_States) has a boilerplate notice dating from 2008 that the article lacked appropriate inline citations. In addition, the article was very incomplete, sections were lifted verbatim from the article for a former regiment which became one of the tank battalions within the Division, ignoring all of the other Battalions and omitting key details. There was a single linked reference. This article was extensively revised, more than tripled in length, increasing the verifiable references to 33 and adding 12 external sources and then posted on 3 February 2015. Please consider removing the notice of the need for additional citations. I would be happy to add any other historical details or references to bring the article up to standard. N0TABENE (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi N0TABENE, thanks for your work on this article! If you think you've fixed the problem flagged by the tag (as I think you have in this case), you are welcome to remove the tag yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Thanks Nikkimaria. Can you tell me exactly how to remove the tag? It doesn't show up in the EDIT page. N0TABENE (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I got it. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Adminship Notification

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: A member of this project, Buggie111 (talk · contribs) is currently a candidate for adminship. All interested members may weigh in on his adminship request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buggie111 2. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have left my comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Buggie111 2#Canvassing. I don't see how this could not be construed as anything but the following: "votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." especially since the candidate was a member of this small group. If the RFA was still open, this would have likely been to the detriment of any participation of the other coordinators, whether they were alerted or not by the message (they were pinged using {{@MILHIST}}), as well as to the candidate. Please refrain from this conduct in the future. Mkdwtalk 23:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mkdw:, @WP:MILHIST coordinators: On at least two separate occasions ([5], [6]), project members notified project participants on the relevant primary project talk page that project member was a candidate for adminship. The basis for this was this discussion in January 2008, in which this standard operating procedure for this project's members undergoing an rfa was agreed to by the MilHist Coordinators at the time. In the past it has been acceptable to both our project and the RFA people for us to place a single, neutrally worded message on the primary talk page to allow for editors, participants, and other people who do not generally monitor RFA or its associated candidates the chance to offer opinions on the candidate - in point of fact an rfa notification template was created specifically for the Coordinators to do this. While in the past this was done in the spirit of AGF, in lew of the above comments from Mkdw (talk · contribs), perhaps the time has come for MILHIST to revisit this practice. The matter before us then is whether or not notifications of this nature should be considered canvassing as they relate attempt to draw contributors in to participate in the process, or if they should be construed as a timely notification of a current event concerning one of the project's many members. Does anyone have an opinion on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
TomStar81, I think it's admirable you're willing to re-evaluate this practice. In honesty though, the next time this occurs and it's brought up at RFA, it's going to be there where the decision as to whether the action is seen as a violation of WP:CANVASS regardless of what has been decided here. I doubt anything actionable will occur but having spent quite a bit of time at RFA, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that recent (within the last 2 years) candidates and nominators have faced intense backlash for lesser actions that have the seeming perception of canvassing-like behaviour. I think a decision here would perhaps be seen as representing a conflict of interest because a decision to continue the practice would be to the presumed benefit of the current 15 or so active Coordinators plus the immediate WikiProject community around them. If you really wanted to continue the practice, you'd likely want to host the poll to this question at the Village Pump, WP:RFC, or at the RFA talk. Mkdwtalk 04:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to observe here (rather tangentially), that the RFA process is so aggressive and insular that I understand completely why a Milhist coord might want to give other Milhist coords a heads-up about a member of the project (who we probably have far more dealings with (good or bad) than other editors), might be at RFA. I have no idea whatsoever why anyone would nominate to be an admin. I used to watchlist RFA, but I was so appalled with the character assassination that I quickly removed myself from it. Just stalking the talk pages of Milhist coords who are admins makes me shudder with what they have to put up with. And that's after going through RFA... Sheesh. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
...and things at RfA are better than they used to be! That said, I think that most of the coordinators of this project would sail through a RfA (hint, hint), but the downside is that you do end up dealing with troublesome - and tiresome - editors on a fairly regular basis once you start using the admin tools. The positive side though is that you can respond to troublesome conduct directly, and do your own housekeeping. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been bugging certain people for years about running for RfA, like Cplakidas. It's definitely a brutal week, but once you're through it you can (like Nick says) do your own housekeeping and help take pressure off other admins. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I definitely do not have the necessary temperament... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
After that last RFA I lost whatever lingering respect I had for RFA. Its no wonder no one wants to go through the process, its not a dmv line anymore - its a fraggin firing squad. I sued for peace with the RFA regulars, and under the terms I offered I will not be returning to the page until those bastards come of their high horses. Its a process for God's sake, not a meeting to appoint new heads for the Yakuza... TomStar81 (Talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see this as a violation of WP:CANVASS. If the MilHist wikiproject was perceived as a heavily politicised group on the Wikipedia, I might feel differently, but I think that the very small risk that someone might decide to politically support or oppose a candidacy based on the candidate's interest in Military History is hugely outweighed by the convenience of informing their fellow editors that a RFA is in the pipeline, who can then comment on their suitability or not. I'd add that I wouldn't have been aware of Buggie's RFA without Tom's note here. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly why I brought this up: no one watches the RFA page, its a null zone, so anyone in our group - by which I mean any one of our nearly 3,000 editors total - would otherwise be unaware of the nomination. Its not like we are saying "vote or else", it's neutrally worded statement and it is intended to allow for those who have an opinion to voice it. Given this fact I see no reason to change to conform to any preconceived notions of "canvassing" when the reality is that nothing of the sort exists here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a case of Canvassing. First line of the guideline says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". The concern would be it's a case of going for a votebank on the grounds that because we have a common interest we would vote for "one of our own". I'd argue that it's perfectly valid to post here; if opinions are needed on an RfA, why not those who have been most likely to have had a chance to observe the editor's edits and interactions and be in a position to evaluate their suitability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree its not canvassing and is going to result in obtaining a more informed opinion about a candidate's suitability (or otherwise). I don't watchlist RFA so wouldn't have a clue if anyone from the project was running for Adminship unless a notice was posted. Likewise, I don't contribute much (if at all) outside of this project so (if I went completely crazy one day and actually decided to donate what scant bit remains of my sanity to volunteer to apply to be an Admin) the only people that would really have much of a clue about me, including whatever strengths or weaknesses I might have relevant to the role (and those that aren't), would be people who have worked with me here. That said I also see that the type of editors that are likely to take exception to such things wouldn't really care what the MILHIST co-ordinators (or former co-ordinators for that matter) think about it either. Not really sure where that leaves us... Anotherclown (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, now I'm feeling quite "Balkan" about this canvassing accusation against TomStar81. Mkdw has presented zero evidence that alerting the Milhist coords is a negative issue at RFA, yet has "warned" Tom not to canvass. That strikes me as quite strange... to the uninitiated, this might seems to be an attempt to maintain the aggressive and insular RFA cabal... the cabal of editors that has supported and encouraged the character assassination that has happened there over the three years I have been on en WP, at the very least. Perhaps what really should be happening here is a close examination of every edit Mkdw has made in relation to RFA's. Every single one. In nauseating detail. Reaching back to when they joined WP... How's them apples, old mate? Squeaky clean, are we? I bloody well hope so... Never hit the enter key too early? Sheesh... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Notifications of RfAs involving project members at WT:MILHIST or similar have regularly been attacked for being "canvassing" over the last few years. I agree that this is silly given that the readers of these boards are often the ones who are best qualified to comment on the nominee's suitability for the role. Back in the "good old days" (when there were lots more admins flowing through) such notifications were routine and uncontroversial, and I think they worked well. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I see that most of you do not agree with my interpretation of WP:CANVASS and I won't take this any further. I hope you'll take my word for it that I did not come to attack the editors here. If that was how it came off then I apologize as that was not my intentions. I brought this discussion here, as opposed to the main RFA talk, because I thought bringing it up at the main RFA talk would not have been to anyone's benefit. I also wanted to have this conversation directly with you rather than in the pit of RFA; I didn't want to see other future MILHIST candidates burned by canvassing accusations. For the record, I agree much of what you have all said about the conceptual merits of having those most familiar with an editor participate in a review process. The problem inherently lies in the process at RFA and how canvassing is perceived. I've seen some great candidates experience intense opposition over lesser notifications about their RFA on a much smaller scale than at a WikiProject. If you decide to proceed with the notifications, may I recommend you ask the candidate first if you may do so, as any negative opinions about the action will ultimate affect them the most. Respectfully, Mkdwtalk 18:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I've left some comments above that I hope you read. I wasn't here with ultimatums and I didn't report Tomstar81 or bring this up at RFA talk because I wasn't here for blood. If you're insistent on going after me, then I invite you to review my contributions at RFA, since the beginning. I've made mistakes on Wikipedia. I think we all have. I'm not here pretending to be squeaky clean and I don't think that's a rationale to why I can't come here and express concerns about something. This may not mean much to you coming from me, but I'm actually very proud of my conduct at RFA. I'm not saying I don't oppose candidates, but when I do I leave constructive feedback and always focus on areas of improvements rather than the content of their character. I'm probably one of the more moderate and less outspoken participants at RFA. As for belonging to an "aggressive and insular RFA cabal" or "supported and encouraged the character assassination", I think if you took the time to examine my conduct at RFA, or got to know me, a different picture would be painted. Regards, Mkdwtalk 18:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

AnnalesSchool

If any of the coordinators who is also an admin remains WP:UNINVOLVED regarding User:AnnalesSchool, could they please look into their conduct and consider whether to institute a block? Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've fully protected the two main pages the editor has been working on. Hopefully, this will inspire a little cooperation on consensus based editing, however if that doesn't happen we can move forward with a block. Incidentally, this could be classified a Username for Admin Attention since the "School" part does suggest a larger group behind the editor, however I do not see that it has until now been an issue with the community. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Flodden

Someone want to take a look at this? It'll be within our scope apparently because its about a battle, however I've never seen a portal devoted to just one battle. I'm therefore on the fence about how to approach this. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the decision about this? Isn't there a way to lump articles together when they are on the same subject, perhaps not a category, but not a portal? auntieruth (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 15 review tallies

Username GAN Jan–Mar 15 ACR Jan–Mar 15 PR Jan–Mar 15 FAC Jan–Mar 15 Total Jan–Mar 15 Awarded
User:ÄDA - DÄP 0 1 0 1 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Adam Cuerden 0 2 0 0 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Anotherclown 0 10 0 2 12 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Auntieruth55 0 2 0 5 7 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:AustralianRupert 1 15 1 3 20 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Cinderella157 0 1 0 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Dank 0 19 6 9 34 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Djmaschek 0 1 0 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Dudley Miles 0 2 1 3 6 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Hawkeye7 2 3 0 1 6 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009 1 4 0 1 6 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose 2 7 0 6 15 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Keith-264 0 1 0 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:MisterBee1966 0 3 0 0 3 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Nick-D 0 5 0 3 8 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria 0 2 2 20 24 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Parsecboy 6 4 0 1 11 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Peacemaker67 14 3 0 0 17 Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Sturmvogel 66 11 5 0 5 21 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Wehwalt 0 1 0 3 4 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Zawed 3 1 0 0 4 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, I've started the review tally for this quarter - could someone please count GA reviews and distribute review awards? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Nikki, tks for that -- I'll try and take care of the GA tallies during Easter if no-one gets to it first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Tallied GAs based on revision history of Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare and totalled all reviews accordingly, feel free to check my arithmetic... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Question, I noticed that Jonas Vinther reviewed at least one article during this review period. Should he be listed here as well? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi MB, reviewers don't get credited for GANs/PRs/FACs unless they've reviewed at least one ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I've tweaked my FAC total from 19 down to 9. From now on, I'd prefer to exclude those FACs (just for me, no one else) that I had already largely covered at A-class or that I didn't cover from top to bottom at FAC. There's not a huge amount to do, often, in a second prose review for one article. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Dan, is there an easy way for us to distinguish which should or shouldn't be considered in tallying? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not giving myself credit if I looked at a diff at FAC rather than at the article, or if I looked at only a few sections at FAC (which rarely happens) and opposed or gave up. I can tally these next time if you like, Nikki, and anyone can check my work. Thanks for doing these btw. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If we're done, I'll get on with awarding. Any last repachages? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WWI - Gallipoli Edit-a-thon.

A Gallipoli focused Edit-a-thon will be held at the National Library of Wales on the 23rd of April. Please spread the word and, if you live in the UK, consider attending.Jason.nlw (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with a minor AusEng-ish prose issue

Constance Stokes (not a Milhist article) was on the Main Page yesterday, and started off "... was a modernist Australian painter working in Victoria.", until this edit yesterday changed it to "... who worked in Victoria". The same change was made to the TFA text at exactly the time it was coming off the Main Page, so I reverted. That editor has just left a message on my talk page here saying that who was working in Victoria "would not make sense" (and I guess working in Victoria didn't make sense to that editor either.) My position is those two phrases mean the same thing (one is short for the other) and aren't ungrammatical in any flavor of English, but I think I've seen the "ing" in this context more often in AusEng Milhist articles (it's not as common in AmEng), so if any Australians want to weigh in on my talk page on whether it sounds right or wrong, please do ... or else similar language (which I've seen in a lot of Milhist articles) may get challenged again at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan, speaking as an Aussie, I have no issue with the original phrasing but I suppose it might sound odd to someone who sees "working" as purely present tense and therefore not applicable to someone who's died. I don't think it was a problem in the context, but of course the new wording works too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't "fix" the text on the MP because I saw nothing wrong with it (as a Canadian). "Working" in this situation came across the same as "active", and it was fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

April contest

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: if someone has a few lazy minutes, T&J and my entries in the April contest still need checking and the tallying and awards done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That's done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard

C/p'd from WT:MILHIST, sorry. Hi all, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people are going to be making some very significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ed. I went ahead and voted. Not that it much matters, nothing ever changes, nor will anything ever change. Its an endless cycle of stagnation, always has been, always will be. I will concede though that it is fun on some simplistic level to make believe that our vote actually matters worth a damn. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

B-Class objective

I just noticed that the project surpassed its objective "10% of all articles rated B-Class or better: 100.3% complete"! Should we change the target, increasing the goal to 12 or 15%? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wacko! I reckon 12%, as it does tend to fluctuate a fair bit due to new lower class articles being created all the time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)
I would lean towards 15% simply because it's a round number—12% seems a bit random—but either one is fine. Kirill [talk] 11:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to 15% which puts us at 66.9% complete. This is in the same order of magnitude as the other goal completion rates. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. It seems like a big ask, but let's stretch ourselves... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Joining

Hiya, my names Luis,

Is there a process to gain membership or join the Task Force? I in particular enjoy WW2 Articles. and i would love to help in any way i can!

Thanks!

--Luis Santos24 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Luis! To become a member, just add your name and interests to the main member list, and to any task-force participants list you like (perhaps this one)? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia is our oldest ACR. It has been open since 7 March, has attracted a couple of supports and an image review, and seems to travelling pretty well. Just wanted to see if anyone could jump in with a review. I reviewed at GAN and made quite a few edits what with c/e etc, so I don't think I'd be considered completely uninvolved. I also try to steer clear of ACRs on the recent wars in the former Yugoslavia, as I may be too close to see the wood for the trees. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Date format for articles on US military personnel

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel? for a discussion on which date format should be preferred for articles on US military personnel. —sroc 💬 09:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Announcements problem

Hey all, I noticed that Milhistbot isn't updating the FP section in Template:WPMILHIST Announcements - the nominations listed there as "current" were all closed in February. Anybody know what's going on? Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The reason for this is that FP section is not updated by the MilHistBot. And the reason for that is that it has no way of knowing whether a FP candidate is a MilHist picture or not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

articles created by a banned user

I'm going through the backlog of unassessed articles and have just finished assessment on a dozen articles on the tunnelling companies (this one, for example: 257th_Tunnelling_Company. These articles are fundamentally the same, using the same sources and the same text. I suspect, at this point, they would be better off as a list, but am not sure how to proceed. I'm willing to do the list, although I'd prefer someone with better wiki skills at charting etc do it, but I'm not sure if I should do this given that ViennaUK and Occultzone are no longer with us, for various reasons (was ViennaUK one of oZ's puppets?) Any suggestions? auntieruth (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Ruth, there is a parent article here: Tunnelling companies of the Royal Engineers. This includes a list currently, which could potentially be used as the basis of something else. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI topic ban thread needing an uninvolved admin to close

Hi, could one of the admins who watch this page please close WP:ANI#Topic-Ban of User:Middayexpress from all Somalia-related topics (which relates to this project) and implement what they judge the result to be. There appears to be a clear consensus, and several editors have asked for it to be closed so it should be a straightforward job. Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. In light of the alleged sock/meat puppets I've added a 1RR discretion for admins to enforce the decision. Finally, I have added Middayexpress to the list over at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I hope that helps, from what I read you guys really need the assistance on our Somalia related pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Trekphiler

May I ask for arbitration in context of Trekphiler (talk · contribs). He keeps deleting cited information from the articles Günther Prien and Heinrich Liebe. I tried explaining to him here that the situation is somewhat unique as the information in question pertains to Prien and Liebe (and a few others). I want to avoid an edit war over the subject. His rather rude remark on my talk page does not indicate that he understands why this information is important or is willing to engage in a discussion. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Somewhat rude comment"? I took yours to be saying I didn't understand the issue. And, as said, I disagree with your proposition this is appropriate for the pages of the people receiving the award, rather than for the decoration's own page. If anyone doesn't already understand the "highness" of the Oak Leaves (& I'll leave off if you think this also applies to Swords & Diamonds, IDK), use the link. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A veteran’s Wikipedia edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars

Hi coords, I'd love your feedback on this: WT:MILHIST#A veteran’s Wikipedia edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars. Thanks! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Away again

Next week I am going to depart the country for two weeks for the 2015 International Wheelchair Basketball Federation (IWBF) Women’s U25 World Wheelchair Basketball Championship in Beijing, China. In addition to the host nation, Australia, Canada, Germany, Great Britain and Japan will be competing. According to the Signpost, I may or may not have access to Wikipedia. The MilHistBot will therefore be running unattended. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 15 review tallies

Username PR Apr–Jun 15 ACR Apr–Jun 15 GAN Apr–Jun 15 FAC Apr–Jun 15 Total Apr–Jun 15 Awarded
User:Anotherclown 0 9 1 1 11 Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Auntieruth55 0 3 0 1 4 Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:AustralianRupert 1 10 0 0 11 Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Dank 9 13 0 7 29 Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Dudley Miles 0 1 0 2 3 Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:EnigmaMcmxc 0 1 0 0 1 Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Freikorp 0 1 1 1 3 Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Gecko G 1 1 0 1 3 Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GraemeLeggett 0 1 0 0 1 Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Hawkeye7 0 2 0 2 4 Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009 0 1 1 0 2 Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose 0 5 10 1 16 Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Maury Markowitz 0 2 0 2 4 Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:MisterBee1966 0 3 2 0 5 Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Nick-D 1 3 1 2 7 Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria 2 7 0 20 29 Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Parsecboy 0 7 6 4 17 Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Peacemaker67 0 4 3 1 8 Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Sturmvogel 66 0 3 16 2 21 Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Tomandjerry211 1 2 5 2 10 Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Made a start on this, though GANs still need adding. Dan, per your comments last quarter, I've left your FACs to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thx Nikki. Not counting the ones I had already done at A-class, I get a total of 7, so that's what I put. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Tks Nikki, I should be able to check GANs in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
All awarded except mine, congrats/tks Dan and Nikki who shared top honours! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
All now done, thanks Ian. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool

Could an uninvolved admin pls have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool? Given the renewed disruption at Talk:Greco-Italian War I've opened another investigation; however, there seems to be a back log at SPI so these investigations seem to sometimes take several weeks to get any attention which pretty much defeats their purpose (there is never a cop around when you need one it seems...). Anyway if an admin is available to review the evidence I have presented and make a ruling that would be greatly appreciated. If more evidence is req'd pls let me know and I'll try to provide it. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. The person was hardly even pretending to be someone else. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look at this. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

June contest - last checks needed

G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , if someone could check my entries, I believe the June contest log is otherwise wrapped up and awards can then be issued. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay that's all done, tks PM for verifying them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"USS Stark Incident" vs. Talk:"USS Stark (FFG-31)" and reference to add: http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/uss%20stark%20basic.pdf

The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident needs references, and the official military history of the incident is at: http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/uss%20stark%20basic.pdf as an unclassified document but with many names only referenced by a code, such as B1. Instead under the heading notes it seems to contain a published report combining 3 ship attack incidents but the link doesn't work.

The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)should reference the many other articles on the USS Stark and perhaps be combined with the aforementioned incident report at some point.

I also suggest adding a page on the inefficiencies of war. There seem to be many more related articles than those shown that can be found in Wikipedia just with a search of Wikipedia "USS Stark" which brought up 9,070 entries. This would be a good project for a few history classes to do as a set of assignments or for someone with greater interest in military history than I have. I only came across this looking up a reference for an alleged Iranian attack on a US warship and that lead me to the actually Iraqi attack on the USS Stark by links.

My father was in the USAF but I never was into military history. but I would like to see an article on unnecessary war expense and waste that lets those still living past the statute of limitations report without fear of prosecution in wonton waste. I for example heard from an ex-Navy man that when the river gunboats in Vietnam could not replenish their Sterno to cook with they burned C-4, more than a 1,000 times more expense and just reported it exploded. Today's self heating ready to eat meals probably eliminate this problem as long as they provide a way also to heat a drink like coffee. The obvious solution would have been to oversupply Sterno cans but what those higher in the chain of command don't even know is rarely corrected in wartime and no one wants to be criminally held accountable for clear misuse of government property, but it happens with every war and could be fixed by the next war. SeniorMoment (pen name) (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)SeniorMoment (pen name)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_50&oldid=1232550657"