Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Remaining batch list for February 2021: check an old one |
→Remaining batch list for February 2021: check another one |
||
| Line 1,225: | Line 1,225: | ||
* [[Diet Eman]] |
* [[Diet Eman]] |
||
* [[Diyarbakır Fortress]] |
* [[Diyarbakır Fortress]] |
||
* <s>[[DMS Maritime]]</s> Start-class. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> [[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]</sub> 23:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[DMS Maritime]] |
|||
* [[Du Sengming]] |
* [[Du Sengming]] |
||
* [[John Lyons (Royal Navy officer, born 1787)]] |
* [[John Lyons (Royal Navy officer, born 1787)]] |
||
Revision as of 23:46, 20 April 2021
Welcome to the discussion area of the Military history WikiProject's coordination department! This page is mostly used by the project coordinators, but everyone is welcome to participate! If you have a question, concern, or suggestion for the coordinators, please feel free to leave us a note! |
Handbook
- Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.
Coordinator tasks
- These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
- Assessment
- Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
- Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
- Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
- Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
- A-Class review
- For each ongoing A-Class review:
- Determine whether the review needs to be closed and archived, per the criteria here.
- If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~
- If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, follow the procedure below for creating an A-Class review or reappraisal. This will make way for the normal A-Class review initiation process, so advise the nominator to initiate per the instructions.
- Quarterly Reviewing Awards
Quarterly Reviewing Awards - manual process
|
|---|
|
Quarterly reviewing awards are posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards page by the MilHistBot. As with other awards, change the status from "nominated" to "approved" to approve the award.
- Member affairs
- Invite editors to join the project, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:MILHIST/MILHIST Invitation|signed=~~~~}} - Welcome anybody who joins the project, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}}
- Miscellaneous
- Vote on any open proposals to award the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and approve any A-Class medal or A-Class cross nominations.
- Update the monthly newsletter with new developments within the project.
- Verify entries in the monthly article writing contest, hand out prizes, and update the monthly scoreboard and the newsletter accordingly.
- Fix the {{WPMILHIST}} invocation syntax on any articles in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging.
How to...
| Create a new task force |
|---|
Before a task force can be created, it is necessary to decide on a name for it. The process requires both a full name (e.g. "French military history" or "American Civil War") and a one- or two-word or acronym shorthand used for some template parameters (e.g. "French" or "ACW"). The instructions below use the "Fooish military history" task force (shortened to "Fooish") as an example; when creating an actual task force, remember to substitute the correct name, rather than actually creating the example pages.
|
| Creating an A-Class review or reappraisal | ||
|---|---|---|
Creating a new A-Class review or reappraisalIf an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, a new version has to be created manually. Find the archive page
Find the last review
Move the review page
Update the talk page
Update the archive
Create the new review
|
| Establish coordinator election pages | ||
|---|---|---|
Under the current system used by the Military history Wikiproject, coordinators are tasked with handling certain project-specific operations such as closing A-Class reviews. Because coordinators are held accountable to the project an election is held once a year to determine who among the community's members will serve as a coordinator. While the election itself is a simple approval vote, creating the pages needed for the election can be tricky. Therefore, this Academy page will serve as a walk-through on how to correctly set up the election pages. Before the electionBefore any election pages are created, the matter of the coordinator election must be brought up with the current coordinator tranche. Ideally, this should be done sometime between mid-July and early August. The reason that the coordinators must first discuss the matter of the election is to settle on the finer details of the upcoming election. Three key aspects should be decided. The first detail relates to the project's activity level: as the activity level in the project rises or falls, the number of coordinators judged to be needed to effectively run the project increases or decreases. Accordingly, then, the coordinators need to establish how many slots should be opened to the project members. In general, the project currently operates efficiently with roughly 8–11 coordinators, although the exact number settled on for the upcoming tranche must understandably be decided based on the workload and the efficiency of the current coordinator tranche. The coordinators must also decide if the total number should include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, which can cause the total settled on to fluctuate by one. The second factor that needs to be discussed is the election format. Historically, when the system was introduced, the format was 14 days for nominations followed by 14 days of election, which worked well for the community but created an illusion that the process was "slow". As a result of this perception the community approved a change in the process that now sees the election format using a 10-day nomination period followed by a 10-day voting period. This process is marginally faster than the older two week system, which helps speed the process up. While the coordinators have used this option for several years, they also have the option of introducing or implementing a new nomination/voting scheme if one is judged to be needed. Accordingly then, the coordinators will need to settle on which of the three options they feel will work the best for the upcoming election. The final matter that must be discussed is the exact date of the election. Ideally, the entire election should take place in the month of September, but as there are 30 days in September the coordinators will need to officially designate a starting day for the nomination period. Once this day is decided, the format the coordinators have agreed upon can be used to determine when the nomination period will end, and by extension when the voting period will start and end. Collectively, these three points once settled will provide the information needed to establish the election pages. Creating the election pagesWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)replacing the MONTH and YEAR with the month and year in question. Once you have the correct red link the following information should be added to the page verbatim: {{WPMILHIST Navigation|no-banner=yes}} {{/Tally}}
{{TOC limit|3}}
== Overview ==
This election is to appoint the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|project coordinator team]] for one year, from (ADD THE DATE OF THE INCOMING TRANCHE HERE USING DAY MONTH YEAR FORMAT) to (ADD THE ENDING DATE OF THE UPCOMING COORDINATOR TRANCHE HERE, USING DAY MONTH YEAR FORMAT). Coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. All of the coordinators, and especially the lead coordinator (or lead coordinators), serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and focus on specific areas requiring special attention. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.
=== Responsibilities ===
From [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators]]: <blockquote>The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group. <br/><br/> The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.</blockquote>
Practical information on coordinating may be found [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|here]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Being a coordinator|here]].
The current coordinators are:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! Position
! Standing for re-election?
|-
| Add the name of the first current coordinator as shown on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinator's page]]
| The current position the above named editor holds. By virtue of the currently used system, this slot will always be "Coordinator" with the exception of the editor who holds the position of lead coordinator, whose position box should be filled in as "Lead Coordinator"
| This slot MUST be added to for each coordinator and should be left blank since only the listed coordinator can decide if he or she wants to stand for reelection.
|}
=== Election process ===
* '''Nomination period''': (Add the day and month the nomination will begin and the UTC time, day, and month the nomination will end here. For example, "8 September to 23:59 UTC 18 September")
* '''Voting period''': (Add the day and month the election phase will begin and the UTC time, day, and month the election period will end here. For example, "19 September to 23:59 UTC 29 September")
* Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the [[#Candidates|"Candidates" section below]] by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:
<pre>
=== Name ===
{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...
==== Comments and questions for Name ====
*''What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?''
**
*''What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?''
**
==== Votes in support of Name ====
#
</pre>
* The election will be conducted using simple [[approval voting]]. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the lead coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); this position may be shared in the event that multiple candidates receive the highest number of endorsements. The remaining candidates with twenty or more endorsements will be appointed as coordinators to a maximum of eleven appointments (including the lead coordinator). The number of coordinators ''may'' be increased or reduced if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.
* Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.
== Candidates==
{{/Status}}
<!--
As per long standing consensus both new candidates and returning coordinators are listed alphabetically below, so add your user name accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation.
-->
}}
Create the status templateThe second page that will need be created will be the status template. (A completed example can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017/Status). This template uses a set of established parameters to inform editors, readers, and other interested parties when the nominations will open, when the voting will open, and when the elections have concluded. The template itself resides at the top of the Candidates section, and will be present in the page you just created by virtue of the its presence in code copied from the preceding section. To access the template, add/Statusto the current election page so that the election page looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)/StatusIt should give you a red link, click it and then add the following to the status page: ;{{#switch:{{CURRENTYEAR}}
|2015={{#switch:{{CURRENTMONTH}}
|8=<big>The election has not started yet. Please do not edit this page.</big>
|9={{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} < 8|<big>The election has not started yet. Please do not edit this page.</big>|{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} < 19|<big>Please <big style="color: red;">DO NOT VOTE</big> yet; the voting phase of the election will open at 00:01 (UTC) on 19 September.<br>If you wish to run, please sign up by 23:59 (UTC) on 18 September.</big>|{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} <= 29|<big>Voting is now open; project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September.</big><br>(This is a [[approval voting|simple approval vote]]; only "support" votes should be made. All other votes will be discounted.)|<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>}}}}}}
|#default=<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>
}}
|#default=<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>
}}
Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, [[{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}]] [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]''' (UTC)
Once the above has been added take care the you change the year and the days to match the current election year and the days for the nomination and voting periods. Once the information has been updated save the page, this will result in the template on the election page being created and if done correctly should automatically switch messages to notify interested parties when the nomination and election phases open and when the election concludes.
Tally Box/Tallyto the current coordinator election page so it looks like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)/Tallytaking care to replace the MONTH and YEAR tabs with the current election month and year. Once you have the red link, add the following to the page verbatim, taking care to not that MONTH and YEAR in the example below will already reflect the current election month and year: {| class="plainlinks sortable" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="2" style="width: 200px; background: whitesmoke; margin-left: 15px; float: right; border: 1px black dotted; "
|-
|+ <big>'''Tally'''</big> <br/> <small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/MONTH YEAR/Tally|action=edit}} edit]</small>
|-
! Candidate !! Votes
|-
|}
After adding the section save the page, this will result in the Tally Box being created and added to the election page proper. With this done all three pages for the coordinator election should be created and no further action should be required on your part. With all three pages now live, the current coordinators and the editors of the Military history Wikiproject will be able to edit the pages to announce their candidacies or their decision not to seek reelection. Notify the project that nominations are openSee Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification for details on how to send a mass message. The relevant list should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active, as this ensures everyone active within the project is alerted. Suggested heading is: Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! Suggested message form is: Nominations for the upcoming [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]] coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator|here]]. If you are interested in running, please sign up '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2024|here]]''' by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|current coord team]]. ~~~~ Notify the project that voting is openTwo weeks later. Suggested heading is: Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! Suggested message form is: Voting for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]] coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|current coord team]]. ~~~~ After the electionClose the voting{{archivetop|The election is now closed. ~~~~ }}
to the top of the election page and {{archivebottom}}
to the bottom of the page. Notify the winnersFor the newly elected coordinators, a suggested form is {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:US-O11 insignia.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} |Coordinator stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! ~~~~
|}
For the lead coordinator, a suggested form is: {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:US-O12 insignia.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} |Lead Coordinator stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your re-election to the position of Lead Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Lead Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! ~~~~
|}
For a coordinator emeritus, a suggested form is: {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}#Nomination for Coordinator Emeritus (<editor>)|Coordinator Emeritus stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | It is with immense pleasure that I pass on the unanimous decision of the members of the WikiProject Military History that as a mark of the great esteem in which they hold you and your judgement you be appointed a Coordinator Emeritus of the Project for as long as you should choose to remain one. Congratulations and many thanks for all that you have done for the Project. ~~~~
|}
Update the coordinators listEdit the lead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators to reflect the current list. Update the notification templateEdit Template:@MILHIST to reflect the current list. Update the categoryEdit the coordinators' user pages to add Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators and remove it from coordinators who are no longer active. Update the BugleAdd the election results to The Bugle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2024/Project news |
| Establish military historian and newcomer of the year election voting | ||
|---|---|---|
Under the current system used by the Military history Wikiproject, coordinators are tasked with handling certain project-specific operations. This Academy page will serve as a walk-through on how to correctly set up the election pages for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year elections. AboutThese elections are conducted between 1 and 30 December each year. Before the electionCreate the election pagesSubstitute the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history page before 17 November: {{subst:WPMILHIST Nominations for military historian of the year}} ~~~~
{{subst:WPMILHIST Nominations for military history newcomer of the year}} ~~~~
Notify the projectSee Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification for details on how to send a mass message. On 17 November, notify the project that nominations are open. Suggested form is: Nominations now open for the [[WikiProject Military History]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|newcomer of the year]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|military historian of the year]] awards for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military historian of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. {{subst:Currentuser}} via ~~~~
On 1 December, notify the project that nominations are open. Suggested form is: Voting is now open for the [[WikiProject Military History]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|newcomer of the year]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|military historian of the year]] awards for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military historian of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. {{subst:Currentuser}} via ~~~~
After the electionClose the voting{{archivetop|Voting is now closed. ~~~~ }}
to the top of the election page and {{archivebottom}}
to the bottom of the page. Notify the winners on their talk pagesFor the winners of the Military History Newcomer of the Year, a suggested form is: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Goldenwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: #fdffe7;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Golden Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected as the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the coveted '''Golden Wiki'''; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. ~~~~
}}
For runners-up, a suggested form is: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:WikiprojectBarnstar.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: WhiteSmoke;
| text = '''{{font|text=The WikiProject Barnstar|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} You have been selected as a runner-up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], please accept this token of gratitude and appreciation on behalf of the project; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. ~~~~
}}
For winners of the Military Historian of the New Year: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Goldenwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: #fdffe7;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Golden Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected as the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the coveted '''Golden Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
For second place: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Silverwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: WhiteSmoke;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Silver Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected in second place for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the esteemed '''Silver Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
For third place: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Bronzewiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: NavajoWhite ;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Bronze Wiki|size=x-large|color=maroon}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected in third place for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the esteemed '''Bronze Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
Update the winners listsThese are located at
Update the BugleAdd the election results to The Bugle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2025/Project news The suggested form is: The [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2024_are_open!|Military Historian of the Year]] awards have been distributed, the Golden Wiki going to {{u|gold}} for third year in a row. The Silver Wiki was awarded to {{u|silver}} and the Bronze wiki jointly to {{u|bronze}} and {{u|bronze}}. {{u|runner up}} and {{u|runner up}} were runners-up.
The [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2024_are_open!|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] awards have also been handed out, with {{u|gold}} receiving the Golden Wiki and {{u|runner-up}} and {{u|runner-up}} the WikiProject Barnstar.
Congratulations to all members of the project on your achievements last year, and best wishes for 2025!
|
Boilerplate and templates
| Public boilerplate notices |
|---|
|
| Hidden structural templates & boilerplates |
|---|
|
| Military history awards |
|---|
|
| Coordinator userboxes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open tasks
Topics for future discussion
- Collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, universities, and various other institutions (e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM)
- Article improvement drives
- Notability guideline for battles
- Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks
- Using the "Results" field in infoboxes
- How far milhist's scope should include 'military fiction' (possible solution, see scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force)
- Encouraging member participation in the various review processes (peer, GAN, ACR etc)
- Recruiting new members (see User:The ed17/MILHIST, etc.)
- Improving/maintaining popular pages
- Motivating improvement from Stub to B-Class
- Enabling editors to improve articles beyond B-Class (possibly utilising logistics dept, also see WP:FAT for related ideas)
- Helping new members (possibly involving improving/deprecating welcome template; writing Academy course)
- Recruiting copy-editors to help during ACR
- Recruiting editors from external forums/groups/etc.
- Simplifying ACR instructions (old discussion)
Missing academy articles
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using different reference formats (partially written/needs expansion)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Image restoration (partially written)
- Using supporting materials (possibly not needed/covered by other topics)
- Image quality and accuracy (possibly not needed/covered by other topics)
Open award nominations
Nominations for awards are made and voted on by coordinators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. An A-Class Medal nomination needs at least two coordinators' votes to succeed, and the Chevrons with Oak Leaves a majority of coordinators' votes. All coordinators are requested to review the following:
ACRs for closure
All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either promotion or non-promotion, by any uninvolved coordinator. The closing coordinator should check the review page carefully to ensure that there are three general supports and supports (or passes) for both the image and the source reviews, and that there are no outstanding points to be addressed. A guide to manually closing A-Class reviews is available, but normally the closing coordinator just needs to change A-Class=current in the {{WPMILHIST}} banner to A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of orders of battle for the British 2nd Division- buidhe suggests moving this straight to FLC, rather than going through an A-Class review first.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- As requested, I have failed this. Good luck with the FLC. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Little Blue Riverlooks good to go - three supports and passed image and source reviews (my nom). Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: - Anything further that needs done with this one? Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- All good, just needs an uninvolved coord to promote. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cut loose the bot. Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Saint-Malo- three supports, as well as image and source reviews (my nom) Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Zawed (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment- looks ready to pass (my nom). Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Have got the bot rolling. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
The final frontier
Now that the MilHistBot is doing most of the work, our backlog of Articles that need assessment or tagging is nearly gone. We have one last backlog in this area: Military history articles with no associated task force . Of which there are 940 at the moment. My proposal is that the MilHistBot be ordered to clean up this backlog too. Using some heuristics, it will allocate task forces to these articles. example. This should drain away the backlog, leaving only the weird cases. If this proposal is acceptable, I will create a Bot Request for Approval. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Great idea. Could we do a test run of 50 or something once approval has been given? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Thanks for taking these projects on, Hawkeye! Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hawkeye is doing a magnificent job. Sounds like a plan, and a trial 50 per Peacemaker would be sensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- The idea sounds good, and I'd like to see a larger trial than just one, but I'm skeptical of the bot's ability to handle the task based on the one you showed. It seems that the bot tagged 36 Medium Regiment, a regiment of the Indian army, with WWII and South-Asian. I would have tagged as Indian, National, and if we're gonna include conflicts, might as well add Cold War as well. Hawkeye, you do great work and I think this has real potential, but we should be careful not to sacrifice quality for speed-- I'd rather have users get it right slowly than a bot do a sloppy job quickly, because once there is any task force it's highly unlikely that it will be re-checked. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC) (I should clarify that I don't think Hawkeye's bot will do a sloppy job-- I'm sure it will be great, but just that we should be careful here Eddie891 Talk Work 22:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
- G'day Eddie, this is why I want a trial. We can go through and see how it does, and if necessary, oversee the process in tranches until we are happy the bot is getting all the relevant TFs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Thanks for taking these projects on, Hawkeye! Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The humans are generally sloppy when it comes to tagging, so the Bot may well be just as good. The catch is that when it makes a mistake, the error needs to be reported so it can be corrected.
Here is the result of a test run over 20 articles today
|
|---|
|
Some explanations here. The Bot skips draft articles partly because it is hard for it to assess them, and partly because it is assumed that they are incomplete.
- Thanks Hawkeye, looks a bit scratchy, tbh. Better than nothing, but I reckon we'll need to check the ones that don't get a TF at the very least. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are some interesting cases on the list:
- Alley of Angels in Donetsk was marked as belonging to the Russian task force. An editor angrily protested that it was Ukraine, not Russia. Leaving that issue aside, it appears to me that articles on Ukraine are covered by our Russian task force. Opinions sought.
- Definitely Russian, covers all former Soviet Union countries. I understand the pushback, but that is how we roll. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Arria formula meeting I have no idea what task force this one belongs to myself.
- Given it started due to the Yugoslav Wars, I've added Balkan, but the bot should feel free to use
no-task-force=yesif needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given it started due to the Yugoslav Wars, I've added Balkan, but the bot should feel free to use
- Bombing of North Vietnam would seem obvious on the face of it, but it is a disambiguation page, so there was nothing for the bot to go on.
- Bidaxsh The Bot correctly tagged it as Middle Eastern, but had nothing to go on to correctly guess the period task force
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- A couple of comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are some interesting cases on the list:
Another test run over 50 articles today
|
|---|
|
13:56 26 September 2020 started Draft talk:Andrey Davidovich Gorshkov: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Draft talk:Arleigh Burke Trophy: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Assessment centre Talk:Assessment centre: No task forces found Draft talk:Battle of Kafiristan: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Draft talk:Battle of Vikramgad: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Brien S. Wygle
Draft talk:Canadian Army Tactics School: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Draft talk:Central intervention in the Russian Civil War: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Chaland de transport de mat?riel
Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope Talk:Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope: No task forces found Charles Collins (British Army officer)
Draft talk:Charleston Malkemus: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Chemical bombing of Sardasht
Chesney Gold Medal
Chief of Materiel (India)
Chief of Personnel (India)
Chief of the Air Force (Somalia)
China Beach Surf Club
Chiriguano War
Chizbatron
City of Labour Valour
Civil defense of the GDR
Draft talk:Clancy Quay: invalid namespace 'Draft talk' Coalition casualties in Afghanistan
Coastal Command Anti U-Boat Devices School RAF
Commander of the Ukrainian Ground Forces
Commando (role-playing game) Talk:Commando (role-playing game): No task forces found Common Infrared Countermeasures program
Company clerk Talk:Company clerk: No task forces found Company Level Intelligence Cell
Confederation of Cologne
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
Conscription in the United Arab Emirates Talk:Conscription in the United Arab Emirates: No task forces found Constantine I of Kakheti
Constantine II of Kakheti
Council of Ministers for Defense of the Reich
Counter-Guerrilla
County of Emp?ries
Cr?nica particular del Cid
Cross for Courage and Fidelity
Crowds Running for Shelter When the Air-raid Alarm Sounded
Cyborgs (defenders of Donetsk airport)
Czech Republic?Poland border
Dagshai Central Jail & Museum Talk:Dagshai Central Jail & Museum: No task forces found Day of Remembrance and Sorrow
Dead Troops Talk
Decent interval
Defence district
Defence Explosive Factory Maribyrnong
Defence Housing Authority, Islamabad
|
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Here is the output from the latest Bot run. If this is acceptable, the Bot Group will clear the Bot to run unattended.
Another test run over 25 articles today
|
|---|
|
$ mono AutoClass.exe -f -n=25 17:02 11 October 2020 started 2nd Infantry Division (Belgium)
6th (Caernarvonshire and Anglesey) Battalion, Royal Welch Fusiliers
43rd Armoured Regiment (India)
116th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery
Among the Dead Cities
Andi Depu
Army Act
Assessment centre
At Ready (statue)
Ataul Hakim Sarwar Hasan
Babak (Sasanian officer)
Bard Cottage Cemetery
Bondgate Tower
Cabbage tactics
Chaland de transport de mat?riel
Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope
Chemical bombing of Sardasht
Chesney Gold Medal
China Beach Surf Club
China's Defense White Paper
Chiriguano War
Chizbatron
City of Labour Valour
Civil defense of the GDR
17:04 11 October 2020 done |
- 2nd Infantry Division (Belgium) Just only need National and WWII.
- The problem is the categorisation of the article under "Battle of Belgium". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Understandable, it's just the British and French have really small minor roles in the article.
- 43rd Armoured Regiment (India) Also needs "Post-Cold War" era.
- Listed as "Cold War" because of when it was formed; nothing to indicated activity after 1989 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- 116th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery Don't need WWI.
- But it is categorised in "Regiments of the British Army in World War I" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at a first glass it doesn't mention any events of the WWI even the infobox doesn't say that.
- Among the Dead Cities Also needs Culture.
- Army Act Couldn't find WWI; I believe we don't need it? Maybe also add Early Modern?
- WWI is correct. Early Modern is not.
- Assessment centre Add German, British and WWII.
- Article needs recategorisation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
At Ready (statue)Needs ACW.- Corrected. Odd that that war has its own category. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ataul Hakim Sarwar Hasan Needs Cold War and Post-Cold War.
- Nothing to indicate this. Article needs categorisation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Babak (Sasanian officer) Needs an Asian.
- I'd categorised Iran as being in the Middle East. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Asian military history task force says "This task force covers the military histories of all Asian states, as well as military activity in Asia by non-Asian powers. The military activities of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, Russia and the Soviet Union all fall under both this task force and the European task force." thus it also should have "Asian".
- Bard Cottage Cemetery Since there are Commonwealth soldiers like Canadian, Indian, South African (Africa), British and both Australia and New Zealand. It also needs WWI.
- WWI is addressed by recategorising the article in Category:World War I cemeteries in Belgium; added special rule for the CWGC
Bondgate TowerNeeds Fort and Medieval.- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cabbage tactics Needs Post-Cold War.
- Nothing to indicate that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope Is a redirect do we really need to assed it? But it needs British if have to.
- The Redirect has its own talk page. Looks like an artefact of an AFD followed by a merge. But that should have been noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Chemical bombing of Sardasht Needs Asian.
- Iran has been categorised as the Middle East. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- As above.
- Chesney Gold Medal Needs Memorials.
- Only use that for structures. Given it "Culture" instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- China Beach Surf Club Needs US and Culture.
- Can be addressed by recategorising the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- China's Defense White Paper Doesn't need Biography and National - it needs Strategy.
- Biography corrected. The article is categorised as belonging to "People's Liberation Army". Hence, national. A more sensible classification is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
ChizbatronNeeds Culture and Asian.- Added Culture. Israel categorised as part of the Middle East. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- As above.
City of Labour ValourNeeds Culture.- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Civil defense of the GDR I think it also needs National here.
- Not sure. Article is too vague. Usually I only apply national to units and formations.
- It looks like the same as the "China's Defense White Paper". I think national is the closest we ever would be (since it is a defence organisation) in this example unless a new project would be organised one-day which would work onto defences.
Hey Hawkeye it looks like the bot needs a little bit more work before it's perfect which is okay. But I could find a lot of wrong or missing task forces is it possible to teach the bot another lesson? I haven't changed the articles I believe are missing or have wrong task forces. Will do it soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: The Bot has been taught some lessons. It gets smarter with every run. I have struck the cases where the Bot has been corrected. Always better to report than attempt to correct. Your review of the run is much appreciated, and your opinion on the comments above is sought. Then we can run against another 25 articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Indeed, I'm happy that a bot is a thing; this makes it much easier. Anyway I've commented some of the small disputes. I'd be grateful if the bot can learn about these (maybe) small mistakes. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Bot has learned to handle some new cases. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Voronezh–Kharkov Offensive
Dates are inconsistent. March 3 and March 14 on same page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh%E2%80%93Kharkov_Offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:4081:7210:65F0:A0D:53D5:52E5 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Nostalgy question
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: It's still nine days left before our new team would be organised and the new terms would start. As always it's the time of the year we add the new team in the Coordinators timeline. However I've been passing by and reading to the past elections and one of them is an intresting one. In the 2010 elections (which is already ten years ago and was the first election we started to use one-year terms) the election got a tie between Parsecboy and AustralianRupert with both having 46 supports. However by the Coordinators timeline only Parsecboy became coord lead which raises the questions is there a reason why AR wasn't coord lead? Or if he was coord lead together with PB why wasn't he added in the timeline? This might be interesting to ask; I hope the back then coords like Tom and Ian can help us. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I recall, we talked about having both of us be co-leads that term, but AR wasn't interested in the role, so it just went to me. Parsecboy (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- If he did decline shouldn't we add a footnote to note this? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Parsecboy is absolutely correct: with this comment AR turned down the role. Harrias talk 11:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like he indeed has declined the job but doesn't answer my question should we add a footnote to note this incident? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I've added a footnote [1], AustralianRupert can you check you're happy with the wording? If not, feel free to reword it, mate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- G'day, all, yes I'm ok with that note. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Another MilHist year rolls around
G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: as Peacemaker is on holiday and enjoying themselves - this is despite my pointing out a guideline depreciating such behaviour - Harrias has tidied up the election pages and I have handed out the stars and updated the coord page and the @MILHIST ping. If I have broken anything, could someone leave a loaded revolver and a bottle of whisky in my room; if I haven't, perhaps someone could do the business with my stars. Welcome to the new coords and welcome back to those who were re-elected. Here's to a great year! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've done the latter. Thanks, Gog the Mild. Hog Farm Bacon 17:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild I believe that Ian is now a coord emeritus? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- He is, yes. I am trying to find a volunteer for the traditional human sacrifice, and researching deep in the MilHist archives as to the correct procedures. I shall get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gratz on another successful election. The table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators needs a new row. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- He is, yes. I am trying to find a volunteer for the traditional human sacrifice, and researching deep in the MilHist archives as to the correct procedures. I shall get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Last day
Hey everyone, since I'm still a coord until tomorrow per the Co-ordinators' timeline. Just wanna say thanks to my (former) fellow coords to leading me the way to becoming a coord. I admit I haven't done my coord duties that much mostly because I've reviewed most ARC to close them. I know a little bit ironically but still I've kept those sweet ARCs rolling.
I've started with my first term as an inexperienced coord and of course, we need to recruit inexperienced coords to keep the households rolling. If I could be honest my first term was stressful and hard to deal; I've sometimes felt side-lined with the other people. Why you may ask? Because I'm a reviewer and am not in a financial situation to buy the sources to expand my favourite topics. My goal is to improve MilHist and promote one day my first FA; but again that's a goal and not a plan. If I somehow can search for my books then I still the motivation to do so. Some of you know I'm pretty much a pessimist and an attack or negative incident could shut down myself from both online as off. Some could say I'm depressed and that's one of the things which holds me back. An example is my English; I hate it. I'm not near to the level of a native speaker. Anyway, in that year I've worked with great coords from the big chief PM to the lesser coords. I am happy that our bot is doing more than we've asked in the last few terms. I hope, it will make you all easier in the future, and I also hope the new team would find out how to organise a new backlog since the bot has taken the jobs of the regular backlogs. I'm happy to serve this project and it was an honour to work with you guys.
Since the past two months were the harsh of my term. Because of real-life stuff I first got a shutdown and later took some weeks off on holiday in Mother Nature. Which is really great I highly recommend people to do so. Anyway since real life isn't that positive at the moment I wouldn't be that much active for some time. That's one of the reasons why I'm not nominating myself (even though I wanted) and am happy to see some new coords. Anyway that's everything I believe so I'll be back around begin October maybe sooner or later. If I've time then I'll be online but as far as I'm considering I am sadly not gonna review or work on future projects in the coming weeks or even months. Anyway this isn't a farewell but it feels like it is. I hope some will know the feeling I am bearing today and I wish the team much luck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- CPA-5, thanks for the message and for your contributions to the project. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing you all the best for the future and hopefully we will see you back here soon. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your coord contributions (and reviewing efforts) in the last year, CPA-5! And all the best with the RW challenges. Looking forward to seeing you back here when you can. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi CPA-5, it is good to hear that we are still in your thoughts and that you will be popping back in occasionally. Your contributions have been extensive: many of "my" articles have greatly benefitted from your detailed and knowledgeable reviews, and they are not the only ones. I have come to suspect that Wikipedia is an enterprise which is truly greater than the sum of its parts, and you have more than pulled your weight in contributing to that. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've always looked with interest at your reviews, CPA, and will miss your contributions. Thanks also for your time as a coord, I hope all goes well for you and we see you back before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Best wishes. Your contributions, both as reviewer and coordinator are greatly appreciated. Take care. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've always looked with interest at your reviews, CPA, and will miss your contributions. Thanks also for your time as a coord, I hope all goes well for you and we see you back before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi CPA-5, it is good to hear that we are still in your thoughts and that you will be popping back in occasionally. Your contributions have been extensive: many of "my" articles have greatly benefitted from your detailed and knowledgeable reviews, and they are not the only ones. I have come to suspect that Wikipedia is an enterprise which is truly greater than the sum of its parts, and you have more than pulled your weight in contributing to that. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your coord contributions (and reviewing efforts) in the last year, CPA-5! And all the best with the RW challenges. Looking forward to seeing you back here when you can. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: It's been a difficult year for a lot of people, so I wish you the best. As for seeking to promote an FA, having reviewed some of your work I have complete confidence that you are able to accomplish this. What you did with Bakassi conflict is evidence of this. If you ever want to collaborate on an African milhist project let me know. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I likewise give my respects on stepping down as coord to the new elected coordinators. I wish you good luck in performing your duties. Векочел (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers Векочел, appreciated. I am sure that our many paths will frequently pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Military History Writers' Contest
I have wrapped up most of the September contest's details. If someone would check my points tally and issue the second place award we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Awarded. What do we need to do with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#July to September 2020 reviewing tallies? Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- G'day Harrias, all you have to do is change |status = nominated to |status = approved on all the entries (except for your own), and ask one of the other coords to approve yours, then the bot will hand out the gongs when it runs. And put a brief summary in The Bugle for October (see the July one for an example). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
A-Class Reviewing Drive?
Feel free to send me to Leavenworth if this is stupid, but what does the idea of trying to organize say a month-long A-Class reviewing drive at some point in the future? MILHIST A-Class is pretty much the only reviewing level exclusive to this project, so it makes sense to me to especially push that reviewing level in the project. Don't know if this has been tried before, or if anyone else actually sees a need or not, but just thought I'd throw that out there. Hog Farm Bacon 20:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Could be a good idea-- esp now that we have tackled most of the drive-able functions with the bot. People (me) also threw around the idea of a destubathon at some point, but I don't know if anything ever became of that. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think since the bot got most of the tagging and such, reviewing may be something to try to coordinate. A destubathon would be a worthy task, too. I guess see what there's any interest in. Hog Farm Bacon 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- One thing I could do is have the Bot re-examine our Stub articles and re-classify ones that are no longer stubs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now there's a good idea! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- yes, please do! That’s a great idea. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you know how to pull that off, Hawkeye, and I also agree that that would be a good idea. From my experience, the project class isn't updated when an article is worked on very often. A couple years ago, I had to take a coding class for my university. I accidentally created an endless loop and crashed the system. Hog Farm Bacon 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I know how to do it! In fact, I already have instructed the MilHistBot on how to do it. But since there are 51,000 stubs, it might be best to file a WP:BRFA. When I was an undergraduate (last century), the Science Department decided in their wisdom that computers would be everywhere by 2020, so it would be a great idea if all Science student completed CompSci 101. I thought it was fun but many of my classmates thought it was sadistic. The idea was abandoned a few years later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you know how to pull that off, Hawkeye, and I also agree that that would be a good idea. From my experience, the project class isn't updated when an article is worked on very often. A couple years ago, I had to take a coding class for my university. I accidentally created an endless loop and crashed the system. Hog Farm Bacon 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- One thing I could do is have the Bot re-examine our Stub articles and re-classify ones that are no longer stubs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is a good idea. When do you think we should run it, Hog Farm? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 - As by far the least experienced coord, I'll defer to others' judgments on this, but I wonder if November or January would be a good time. I'd say December's probably a bad time to run something, as there's probably gonna be a lot of people busy with Christmas and other such holidays. Hog Farm Bacon 23:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- (new coord's opinion) I like the idea of January, sort-of cleaning out the old year's lingering nominations? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Generally we have steered away from scheduling drives during exam periods for uni students in either hemisphere, and from "busy periods" like the Christmas holidays and the election month, but any other time is good. Of course, any time works for me, so I tend to defer to the younger editors who may have preferred months to avoid. Maybe not November, as that is exam time in Australia. January would work AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Works for me. I'm one of those university students with exams, and yeah, November's gonna be weird (exams got moved from December to November due to COVID). Hog Farm Bacon 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if you are keen, why don't you start working on a drive page using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2020 as a rough guide? Happy to give you a steer as you go as needed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll start working on it over the next couple days (I've got time). If I manage to screw it up any, feel free to rewrite it. Hog Farm Bacon 00:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Just let you know, some of us in Europe have exams in January like in the UK and here uni exams are also in January. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- CPA-5 True. If we're gonna run March Madness again, that rules out both that month and the preceding, because running two in a row is liable to lead to reviewer burnout. So we're probably gonna have to bit the bullet and either pick a subpar month or scrap it or push it off for quite a while. Hog Farm Bacon 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, the need for March Madness is much reduced due to Milhistbot, so maybe we could do this instead of March Madness? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea, to me at least. I'll start on creating a project page for it soon. Hog Farm Bacon 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, the need for March Madness is much reduced due to Milhistbot, so maybe we could do this instead of March Madness? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll start working on it over the next couple days (I've got time). If I manage to screw it up any, feel free to rewrite it. Hog Farm Bacon 00:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if you are keen, why don't you start working on a drive page using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2020 as a rough guide? Happy to give you a steer as you go as needed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Works for me. I'm one of those university students with exams, and yeah, November's gonna be weird (exams got moved from December to November due to COVID). Hog Farm Bacon 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Generally we have steered away from scheduling drives during exam periods for uni students in either hemisphere, and from "busy periods" like the Christmas holidays and the election month, but any other time is good. Of course, any time works for me, so I tend to defer to the younger editors who may have preferred months to avoid. Maybe not November, as that is exam time in Australia. January would work AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- (new coord's opinion) I like the idea of January, sort-of cleaning out the old year's lingering nominations? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 - As by far the least experienced coord, I'll defer to others' judgments on this, but I wonder if November or January would be a good time. I'd say December's probably a bad time to run something, as there's probably gonna be a lot of people busy with Christmas and other such holidays. Hog Farm Bacon 23:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Was there somewhere you could post a request for reviewers? Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States war plans (1945–1950) has three supports and an source review, and just needs an easy to do image review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
B-class reviews
- Since we all agree that an A-class review drive is coming, and our bot is running multiple articles at one moment, isn't it a better idea to combine both ideas? If we add all our newly Bs from the bot into a user sandbox and at the reviewing drive the participants review them whether or not they are Bs. Of course like the current ongoing GAN Backlog Drives and our regular backlog drives coords can have a quike double check if it's indeed B. I mean the bot regular add them here review but since there are getting a lot recently in, it might be better to add them in a separate user page. If it's stupîd, I'll throw it away in the bin. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. The original idea was to focus on A-Class, which is getting fairly backed up at the moment, but we could get ambitious and expand it into an overall reviewing drive, with different points for B-class, Ga, A-class, and Fa reviews for project tagged articles, so basically the old March Madness idea but without the project tagging element? Hog Farm Bacon
- That's good idea. At the moment, ARCs struggle to have reviewers but this issue also occurs in the GANs division. But since there is no backlog drive or any contest for GANs at all, but they got covert by the GAN backlog drives some nominates have to wait a half year or even almost a year before they got reviewed. But if they make a GAN backlog drives every half year and we have our backlog drive a couple of months before/after theirs then we surely can reduce our GAN amount and they have the time to reduce the non-MilHist long-waiting GANs. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, either the ACRs have been slower than molasses the last month, or nobody's interested in mine and it's just a figment of the imagination. Most MILHIST FACs generally get enough attention from the project, but GAN can be slow at times, too. Hog Farm Bacon 20:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll say! Albert Kesselring has been sitting at GAN since April, and Lise Meitner since July. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: - I just picked up Meitner for you. I'll try to knock that one out tomorrow. (I'm on quarantine, searching for borderline productive things to do with my time). Hog Farm Bacon 04:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is much appreciated. Hope things are okay where you are. I'm lucky enough to live in a COVID-free bubble. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm also lucky to have a COVID-free bubble. Every one of my family has negative (am the only one who hasn't been tested). Much luck to you. Anyway, I have another suggestion for the drive about the point system. What about giving extra points for reviewing extra long articles and old nominates? I mean in my opinion, it's not fair to give not extra points for those articles. I mean it's possible that everyone will just pick the new GANs, ARCs, or FACs while they're not long and I think older nominates who bearly get attention should also been given more points because in my view the drive is to meant to reduce all of our nominates. wheter or not they are old or new, long or short. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History/March 2021 Reviewing Drive. The points/awards system is currently flawed, as I just put some numbers down for the points and left the awards point plateaus the same from last year's March Madness, so that'll need some work. (Frankly had no idea how to handle that). At the moment, there's no bonus for long articles, but only because I'm still thinking of how to best implement so that logistical hell doesn't result. Gog the Mild - You've been involved in GOCE drives before that weight article length, so maybe you have an idea on how to implement that. Hog Farm Bacon 04:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hog Farm, if the idea is to drive down the ACR queue, then I would make ACR and FAC reviews both worth 20 points; they are about the same amount of work.
- Re bonuses for length - good idea. GoCE just count the words, which isn't going to work for us. Suggestion: 20% points bonus for every complete 2,000 words of the reviewed article's length, capped at 100% (10,000 words)? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be wary of any length bonuses. I tend to quote extensively when discussing prose issues in my reviews. Those aren't my work, but it makes it very difficult to breakout my own comments from my quotes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66, the standard length counter ignores block quotes. Assuming that was your only reason for disliking length bonuses? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are we talking about bonuses for the length of the article, or the review? If the article, then "I tend to quote extensively when discussing prose issues in my reviews. Those aren't my work, but it makes it very difficult to breakout my own comments from my quotes." would make no difference. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be wary of any length bonuses. I tend to quote extensively when discussing prose issues in my reviews. Those aren't my work, but it makes it very difficult to breakout my own comments from my quotes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History/March 2021 Reviewing Drive. The points/awards system is currently flawed, as I just put some numbers down for the points and left the awards point plateaus the same from last year's March Madness, so that'll need some work. (Frankly had no idea how to handle that). At the moment, there's no bonus for long articles, but only because I'm still thinking of how to best implement so that logistical hell doesn't result. Gog the Mild - You've been involved in GOCE drives before that weight article length, so maybe you have an idea on how to implement that. Hog Farm Bacon 04:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: - I just picked up Meitner for you. I'll try to knock that one out tomorrow. (I'm on quarantine, searching for borderline productive things to do with my time). Hog Farm Bacon 04:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, either the ACRs have been slower than molasses the last month, or nobody's interested in mine and it's just a figment of the imagination. Most MILHIST FACs generally get enough attention from the project, but GAN can be slow at times, too. Hog Farm Bacon 20:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I find a GA review harder than an FAC or ACR because for GA you are expected to review prose, images, sourcing, and tick all the boxes, whereas for FA you are reviewing as part of a whole and I might just comment on sourcing or just images or just prose. I think gog's suggestion wrt length works well (it's the length of the article and not the review) and maybe for how old the nom is +25% for every four weeks (ish) the article has been waiting, capping at 100% for four months? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eddie891, I agree, to an extent, re GANs being - sometimes - more work than FACs. It depends what our objective is; if it is to get the ACR backlog down, that is where the points should go. I like the idea of a age bonus, and that could be applied to all reviews. 25% seems a bit high; 20%? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- We always can try it out and if bonuses don't work or are too chaotic or too much work then we can brainstorm for another type of drive next year. If we do length bonuses then I think the scores are a little bit low and should be lifted a little bit. It's just because we use bonuses and the points, in general, are higher than our last backlog drives. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, so I've updated the page to reflect 20 points per ACR review. After thinking it over, I think there should definitely be a length bonus. Reviewing Albert Kesselring and Battle of Roan's Tan Yard are intrinsically different things (the reasons will be obvious once you take a look at the articles). An age bonus would also put some incentive to review where they're needed most. Before I start updating the page, I do have one question: How are the two classes of bonuses applied? It makes the most sense to me to apply them separately, based on the base points total, rather than the length bonus being based off of the sum of the base and age points, but this should probably be codified in the rules for consistent application. Maybe it's just my lazy American mind, but I also think that there's a certain level of ease of calculation that's important, so a 10% bonus sounds the easiest to me, with decimals rounded up for generosity's sake. Hog Farm Bacon 16:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- See, I thought the same. Everyone is sidelining the long nominations especially the GANs. About the age bonus, my idea was most old nominations aren't interesting or are too long for most reviewers. That makes it interesting for people to see there are bonus points for long and bonus for old and since those old nominations are mostly long makes them more worthful than an old 30,000-byte nomination. If indeed follow your 10% then a long and old nomination would gain 20% which sounds okay for me. Also, side note: I've added all of our not-yet-reviewed Bs here for the drive, and Hawkeye is it possible to let the bot add the Bs of the coming months to that page instead of here? If so then we can stake our B nominations for the coming drive. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle October 2020
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Good day everyone, is there a reason why The Bugle's October edition isn't published yet since the last edits were made four days ago? If it's not ready shouldn't we put a little bit more effort to publish it, since it's mid-October, and I believe we are a little bit late with publishing it? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing, but am new enough I didn't feel bold enough to say something. I'm willing to do some work to try to get it ready, if I can get pointed to what needs done. Hog Farm Bacon 15:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is usually published by the 15th at the latest, it depends on Ian and Nick’s availability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- In a way it's gratifying to see that people miss it if it's not there...! Nick-D and I still have a few finishing touches to do but I daresay it'll be done soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ian Rose - If you're ever needing a book review, I recently read Stephen W. Sears's work on the Battle of Chancellorsville and would be willing to hammer out a book review for say next month's or something. I can't guarantee I'll remember much of the finer points after the turn of the calendar, though. Hog Farm Bacon 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- That'd be great Hog Farm, if you want us to see a draft, add a new section at the bottom of the Newsroom talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: - Done, although since it's my first one there may be some issues, particularly on the formatting end. Also, my mother tongue is redneck, so I can't guarantee that the writin' is any good. Hog Farm Bacon 04:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Many thanks - I've posted it. It reads well, though do note that Ian and I are Australian so we're not well placed to judge the proper use of the English language! Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: - Done, although since it's my first one there may be some issues, particularly on the formatting end. Also, my mother tongue is redneck, so I can't guarantee that the writin' is any good. Hog Farm Bacon 04:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- That'd be great Hog Farm, if you want us to see a draft, add a new section at the bottom of the Newsroom talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ian Rose - If you're ever needing a book review, I recently read Stephen W. Sears's work on the Battle of Chancellorsville and would be willing to hammer out a book review for say next month's or something. I can't guarantee I'll remember much of the finer points after the turn of the calendar, though. Hog Farm Bacon 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- In a way it's gratifying to see that people miss it if it's not there...! Nick-D and I still have a few finishing touches to do but I daresay it'll be done soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is usually published by the 15th at the latest, it depends on Ian and Nick’s availability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Cleanup the task list
The coordinator task list currently includes the line If a review has been open for seven days without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page. Given that the median time for a review to be completed is much closer to seven weeks than it is to seven days now, this guidance seems to be a bit outdate and should probably be removed. Hog Farm Bacon 16:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Maybe update it to
three weeks
or some other date? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- We've currently got twelve that have been open over a month (including all three of mine), three of which have been open at least two months. My recommendation would be a month, although, frankly, the posts for additional reviews on the project talk page haven't scared up many reviews. Hog Farm Bacon 17:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- The closing instructions table at the nominations page also says that nominations are closed after a maximum of 28 days. That, too, needs corrected, as it is clearly no longer policy, nor is it feasible for it to be so. Hog Farm Bacon 01:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with both of these comments, but have three editors start a review is different from the completion time, I think a month is a good timeframe. I suggest we go with the following wording: If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate:. As far as the noms page issue is concerned, do you mean the ACRs for closure section of this page or something else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: - At the main nominations page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review there is a collapsed table with the heading A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators. The table includes the statement "Closure takes place after minimum of five and maximum of twenty-eight days"; following the columns over, it says that nominations with less than three comprehensive supports, outstanding criteria-based objections, or no consensus to promote should be failed after 28 days. This clearly isn't followed (although when I was new here and made my first A-Class nom, I saw it and was worried than my nom would be failed after 28 days; it wound up being open for about 2.5 months), so this needs reworded somehow. Since we aren't keeping hard caps on how long a nomination can be open anymore, my instinct would be to just remove the phrase giving a maximum time before closure, and then just leave the rest of the table as is. Hog Farm Bacon 05:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hog Farm: BRD! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Generally we are talking about three months, but some have stayed open for longer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hog Farm: BRD! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: - At the main nominations page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review there is a collapsed table with the heading A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators. The table includes the statement "Closure takes place after minimum of five and maximum of twenty-eight days"; following the columns over, it says that nominations with less than three comprehensive supports, outstanding criteria-based objections, or no consensus to promote should be failed after 28 days. This clearly isn't followed (although when I was new here and made my first A-Class nom, I saw it and was worried than my nom would be failed after 28 days; it wound up being open for about 2.5 months), so this needs reworded somehow. Since we aren't keeping hard caps on how long a nomination can be open anymore, my instinct would be to just remove the phrase giving a maximum time before closure, and then just leave the rest of the table as is. Hog Farm Bacon 05:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with both of these comments, but have three editors start a review is different from the completion time, I think a month is a good timeframe. I suggest we go with the following wording: If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate:. As far as the noms page issue is concerned, do you mean the ACRs for closure section of this page or something else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Maybe update it to
The article's got its OR and uncited tags back again, which means we need to go through it and weed out the uncited, speculative, and original information to get it back to where it needs to be to be useful to the project. I'm gonna try and take a stab at it tomorrow, time permitting, but if anyone in a different time zone gets a chance to jump on it earlier please be my guest. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I went ahead and gutted most of the article, keeping only what was or appeared to be the cited information. Anyone care to look and see if I missed something there? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t have time at the moment, but a ton of the sources you readded when you restored the last version (such as the Army times article and almost everything post WWII) were determined to be fabricated information by OberRanks. I'll take a stab at it tonight, but I’d take a quick look at the talk page there and at Admiral of the Navy for context. Garuda28 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Questions about combinedfleet.com
Many of the naval articles that we manually check assessment on, especially IJN submarine ones, rely on combinedfleet.com. What is the reliability of this source? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- In A recent GA discussion, the justification was "Run by published authors Anthony Tully and Jon Parshall." by Sturmvogel 66, who may have more to add? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- From experience with it, its generally accepted as decently reliable. However, some of these ship articles are sourced almost entirely to combinedfleet, or have only one citation to a non-combinedfleet source. In my opinion, if combinedfleet is the only source, or if 95% of the article is sourced only to combinedfleet, then b1=no due to overreliance on a single source. It's not a bad source; we just need other sources besides it, like with any source. Hog Farm Bacon 18:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with using combinedfleet for the majority of the service section as that's usually poorly or sporadically covered in English-language sources. The description section should be mostly sourced to in-print books as most Japanese warships are well covered in English. And don't be deceived by how often the cites appear as some cover full paragraphs while other paragraphs have practically every sentence cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- We should strive for a standard when assessing articles like Japanese submarine Ro-114 (confirmed by Sturm) and Japanese submarine Ro-115 (downgraded by Indy). Is heavy reliance on this source enough for B1 or not? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed this discrepancy and this is why I asked this question. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Hog Farm. We should not have GAs that are mostly sourced to combinedfleet.com, and use of a single source should mean b1=n automatically, and GA criteria 2b=no. If the vessel is truly notable, there should be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A detail here and there from combinedfleet.com is one thing, but most of the article is another. I appreciate there are sometimes language barriers with accessing sources, but we need to do better than accepting this as the main source for a GA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The editor of Ro-114 used three different sources for the description section and then the rest of the article was from combinedfleet with a torrent of cites as practically every individual sentence is cited. The construction section could have been easily sourced to one of the three books used earlier and at least a few details about the sub's career could have been sourced to Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945. And info on the sub's fate is almost certainly available elsewhere. But those are issues for a GAN, IMO, not B class. Y'all may disagree, but I confirmed Ro-114 as B class because it wasn't just single-sourced, even if the predominance of combinedfleet cites in the construction and career sections is less than ideal. I'm not too concerned about consistency between assessors at B-class level as I myself go back and forth on how an biographical article can be considered reasonably complete if it lacks any and all info on the subject's family life.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Often all I have is the name of the subject's partner. Many of the subjects are uncooperative in this regard, despite providing copious details about other parts of their life. Case in point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figure that as GA requires that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic", and B-class is lesser than that, family life is almost always unnecessary to meet this criterion. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Often all I have is the name of the subject's partner. Many of the subjects are uncooperative in this regard, despite providing copious details about other parts of their life. Case in point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think 114 is just barely diversified enough to be B (although I'd expect more from a GA). However, I'm not sold on 115. There's way more information at 115 than 114, so 115 really feels like an imbalance towards one source to me. Hog Farm Bacon 03:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I can see why all that extra career material for 115 might influence you that way. But both articles use the same exact four sources, so I don't see them as fundamentally different and neither one of them are single sourced, by definition. Y'all can do whatever y'all think is best; I'm not going to get too fussed about it either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The editor of Ro-114 used three different sources for the description section and then the rest of the article was from combinedfleet with a torrent of cites as practically every individual sentence is cited. The construction section could have been easily sourced to one of the three books used earlier and at least a few details about the sub's career could have been sourced to Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945. And info on the sub's fate is almost certainly available elsewhere. But those are issues for a GAN, IMO, not B class. Y'all may disagree, but I confirmed Ro-114 as B class because it wasn't just single-sourced, even if the predominance of combinedfleet cites in the construction and career sections is less than ideal. I'm not too concerned about consistency between assessors at B-class level as I myself go back and forth on how an biographical article can be considered reasonably complete if it lacks any and all info on the subject's family life.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Hog Farm. We should not have GAs that are mostly sourced to combinedfleet.com, and use of a single source should mean b1=n automatically, and GA criteria 2b=no. If the vessel is truly notable, there should be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A detail here and there from combinedfleet.com is one thing, but most of the article is another. I appreciate there are sometimes language barriers with accessing sources, but we need to do better than accepting this as the main source for a GA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed this discrepancy and this is why I asked this question. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- We should strive for a standard when assessing articles like Japanese submarine Ro-114 (confirmed by Sturm) and Japanese submarine Ro-115 (downgraded by Indy). Is heavy reliance on this source enough for B1 or not? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with using combinedfleet for the majority of the service section as that's usually poorly or sporadically covered in English-language sources. The description section should be mostly sourced to in-print books as most Japanese warships are well covered in English. And don't be deceived by how often the cites appear as some cover full paragraphs while other paragraphs have practically every sentence cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- From experience with it, its generally accepted as decently reliable. However, some of these ship articles are sourced almost entirely to combinedfleet, or have only one citation to a non-combinedfleet source. In my opinion, if combinedfleet is the only source, or if 95% of the article is sourced only to combinedfleet, then b1=no due to overreliance on a single source. It's not a bad source; we just need other sources besides it, like with any source. Hog Farm Bacon 18:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Would appreciate some thoughts on this ACR. The nominator has simultaneously listed it at GAN, ACR and FAC. The referencing is well short of what we would expect for ACR, I've suggested closing the ACR and allowing just the GAN to happen. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it is even approaching GA at present, and have left a note on the nominator's talk page to that effect, suggesting a PR first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Given the circumstances and the quick racking up of opposes, I boldly failed the nomination, the bot should handle it. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , if anyone disagrees with this, just revert this and give me a slap with the old trout. Hog Farm Bacon 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Peacemaker - a peer review would be the best option at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going ahead and doing a quick fail of the GA nomination as well. I've left a note on the assessment page encouraging the nominator to go to Peer Review with this. Zawed (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Peacemaker - a peer review would be the best option at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Given the circumstances and the quick racking up of opposes, I boldly failed the nomination, the bot should handle it. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , if anyone disagrees with this, just revert this and give me a slap with the old trout. Hog Farm Bacon 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Awards
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: : seeing as it's now very late in November, I've gone ahead and added sections for the end-of the year awards to the milhist talk, pasting the text from last year and changing dates to fit. If that was out of place or I made mistakes (as I may have), don't hesitate to revert/edit/berate me. Hopefully I did everything correctly without stepping on anyone's (virtual) toes. -- Eddie891 Talk Work 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Eddie, I was going to do that tomorrow. Appreciated. I’ll take a look in a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Peacemaker67. Is it customary to send a mass message alerting people to the award timeline? Eddie891 Talk Work 18:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Eddie, yes it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, sorry for not seeing this until now-- I'm not familiar with the procedure for sending out mass messages-- do you think you could handle that? It might make sense to extend the nomination period to 20 December. Apologies again-- Eddie891 Talk Work 02:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, that's fine mate. I'll do that now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, sorry for not seeing this until now-- I'm not familiar with the procedure for sending out mass messages-- do you think you could handle that? It might make sense to extend the nomination period to 20 December. Apologies again-- Eddie891 Talk Work 02:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Eddie, yes it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Peacemaker67. Is it customary to send a mass message alerting people to the award timeline? Eddie891 Talk Work 18:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
ARCs clean up
- Hey everyone, I'm recently reviewing more ARCs in the past few days and I saw there are some ARCs which needs some attention. These are all older than or almost 2 months old. Which is in my view a really long procedure esspecially if there's no progress for weeks like a few nominations have. I think if we all can help these out then they are cleaned up. Especially now that 2021 is knocking on the door it may be is a good time to clean it up and start the new year fresh.
Needs attention
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Crusader states (since 27 September) This one has no supports but there's a lot of progress in the meanwhile. Currently there are two reviewers thus we only need another reviewer and then an image and source review anyone interested?
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lisa Nowak (since 30 September) It passed the image review and has one support even though there's another reviewer who has not confirmed whether or not they support it. A source review and one regular reviewer is needed here anyone?
- Reviewer has now supported, so only one more support and a source review needed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Revolt of the Admirals (since 3 October) It has two supports and an image review. Only one support and a source review are needed.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Uganda–Tanzania War (since 11 October) It has passed image review and has one support. It also has I assume passed source review even though the reviewer hasn't confirmed that but the discution has been frozend. It only needs two supports.
Getting closer to the two-month mark
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manuel Kamytzes (since 16 October) Has passed image review and has one support. Two supports and a source review are needed here.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Shuttle-Centaur (since 30 October) Like above this one isn't that close to the two-month mark. But it would be great if we promote it before the year ends all nominations after this one would be at least two months old by 2021. It has only passed an image review any help would be grateful. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I know that December is a hard month to make progresses and promotions, but, if everyone reviews a couple of nominations then we are probably done for this year. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Could be interesting if everyone joins the fun here? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly will be picking up a couple here in the next few days, but at least one I have already reviewed has an intractable issue and I can’t support unless it is resolved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- CPA-5: Good idea, but I have done three ACR reviews already this month (plus seven at FAC), so more from me might have to wait. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild Yeah understandable, I'm planning to review Manuel Kamytzes since I'm still struggling to find time or motivation to finish my FAC reviews. Most of them are pretty long maybe after I've finished those FACs I will review one of the long nominations. Since it's mid-December we all have still some time to make a proper review instead of rushing them. If you find a good spot of spare time and the motivation then you are always welcome to review these. Father Christmas/Santa Claus would give us these as great presents if these all passed before the year ends. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am also doing more FAC reviewing than ACRs these days, unless I have more than one article at ACR. I don't think these timelines are actually too bad, some of these noms are a bit stuck for various legitimate reasons, and I usually don't start a review until the previous reviewer's comments are mostly addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- CPA-5: Good idea, but I have done three ACR reviews already this month (plus seven at FAC), so more from me might have to wait. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly will be picking up a couple here in the next few days, but at least one I have already reviewed has an intractable issue and I can’t support unless it is resolved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
MH historian of the year voting
Does one of us need to start a new thread for this soon, based on my reading of the nominations thread? Hog Farm Bacon 20:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hog Farm: I think I started it correctly, based on what gog did last year. And I've managed to send about 25 pings in the process :P -- Eddie891 Talk Work 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Eddie891, well, I can see where you are going wrong there, straight away. ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67: do you think you could you send out a mass-message? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll give it a couple of days. Could you change the message on Template:WPMILHIST Announcements as well? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
How did Hawkeye end up as a nominee for Newcomer of the Year? Did somebody move his entry from the Historian of the Year section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66, It was this edit. I did a bit of rearranging because I don't think Buckshot meant to vote for Hog Farm, but I think everyhting else should be GTG. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just a note that I have extended the voting period of one by a day to coincide with the other, as they were different. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Two nominations at the same time
- Is it allowed to nominate an article for GAN and ARC or ARC and FAC at the same time? Because at the moment Crusader states has been nominated both for GAN and ARC. I would love to hear an answer here? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- CPA-5, it is not allowed to have the same article nominated for FAC at the same time as it is also nominated for either ACR or GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild And how about a GAN at the same time as an ARC? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- CPA-5, I know. You also asked "or ARC and FAC at the same time"; I was responded just to that part of your query. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure that that is disallowed, but I can't find an actual rule. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- CPA-5, I know. You also asked "or ARC and FAC at the same time"; I was responded just to that part of your query. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience having an article at GAN and ACR at the same time is strongly discouraged due to possible confusion it could cause if they are actually being reviewed at the same time, and that the nom might be making changes due to the GAN that contrast with what an ACR reviewer is saying, resulting in obstacles to promotion by either or both. This could occur because there can be a tension between the higher content standard at ACR and the arguably greater focus on style at GAN, although some reviewers like me don't really make that distinction in their reviews. However, it isn't verboten AFAIK, and I'm not sure there would be a consensus amongst project members that there should be a strict policy on it. It could result in the odd situation where an article was A-Class for Milhist but B-Class or lower for other projects, but that is purely a bureaucratic issue IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Having a rule against it seems to be excess standards creep to me, although I would recommend getting the GAN done before nominating for ACR to make sure it was properly prepared. Hog Farm Bacon 21:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see any point to doing either simultaneously, but I don't think that a rule is necessary either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild And how about a GAN at the same time as an ARC? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- The main reasons for GAN are to qualify for DYK or to build up a featured topic. When I started out I nominated US-related articles at GA and Australian ones at A-class, but wound up having to nominate a series of A-class articles at GA. I once accidentally nominated an article for both at the same time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- GAN is also useful for articles where enough sources to build a GA are present, but the full spectrum of sources needed for ACR or FAC is not available at the time. Hog Farm Bacon 21:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, or I don't want to invest the amount of time required to research it enough to bring it up to ACR-level quality.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
ACRs and source reviews
I would like to discuss a more fundamental point, but first a minor niggle. A class criterion 1 reads:
The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
It may be me, but I am struggling to see the difference between "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources" and "are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate." Am I missing something? Or could it be slimmed to
The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, all claims are appropriately verified
ableagainst reputable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge.
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I see a bit of a difference between "are verifiable" and "are supported with specific evidence". The former could be read to suggest that the information just needs to be probable and not cited inline, while the latter and current expectations are for inline citations. I'd prefer the latter phrasing, as verified is more of the expectation, not verifiable. Hog Farm Bacon 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- My concern with “verified” is that this puts the onus on a reviewer to do this. The WP-wide requirement is verifiability, not actual verification. The issue of what needs to be done in source reviews needs to be kept separate from the criteria in my view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see a bit of a difference between "are verifiable" and "are supported with specific evidence". The former could be read to suggest that the information just needs to be probable and not cited inline, while the latter and current expectations are for inline citations. I'd prefer the latter phrasing, as verified is more of the expectation, not verifiable. Hog Farm Bacon 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Last year's contest
Last month's contest still needs to be closed out. As well as the overall totals, etc. If someone could find time, of their kindness, to do all this, that would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66, I think have sorted all this without screwing it up, just need someone to dish out the Writer's Barnstar for second place for the December contest. Zawed (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- I can do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Automated statement quality predictions
Hi, we are working on an AI to automatically identify issues in statements along the lines of neutrality, clarifications and citations. The AI learns from statements in low quality articles that are problematic. We need some help evaluating the predictions to make them better and prepare for community use. I'm providing a few example predictions for neutrality. The statements below were identified by the AI as having minor POV issues (weasel words and inflated/ambiguous language). Please let us know inline if the statements below indeed have NPOV issues. We believe that the AI has potential to ease article quality review and welcome conversations on how to best evaluate and put this to practice for aiding in review of low quality articles. See the discussion on FAR for more information. Sumit (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- On May 11, 1964, in Famagusta, 2 Greek Cypriot officers and a policeman were murdered by Turkish Cypriot separatists. (1964_Famagusta_incident#Incidents)
- Following the murder, Greek Cypriot security forces who were ordered to "Kill 10 Turks for each slain Greek" entered the town to investigate the murder (1964_Famagusta_incident#12_May)
- The cruise missiles strike on Iraq in June 1993 were ordered by U.S. President Bill Clinton as both a retaliation and a warning triggered by the attempted assassination by alleged Iraqi agents on former U.S. President (1993_cruise_missile_strikes_on_Iraq)
- Azerbaijan, which has completely annihilated the Armenian cultural heritage in Nakhichevan and in other parts of the historical homeland of the Armenian people, now throughout the ongoing military aggression against Artsakh is trying to deprive Armenians of Artsakh of their homeland and historical memory" (2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling#Response)
- Scholars have extensively studied the effects of the bombings on the social and political character of subsequent world history and popular culture, and there is still much debate concerning the ethical and legal justification for the bombings. (Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)
- Around 1971 the Naxalites gained a strong presence among the radical sections of the student movement in Calcutta. (Naxalite#Violence_in_West_Bengal)
- The term Naxalites comes from Naxalbari, a small village in West Bengal, where a section of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) led by Charu Majumdar, Kanu Sanyal, and Jangal Santhal initiated an uprising in 1967. (Naxalite#History)
- The book was favorably reviewed by Jóhanna Kristín Birnir (of the University of Maryland), who wrote, "this book combines much of the best that comparative politics has to offer: conceptually clear and rigorous theorizing based on insights from extensive field work, and tested in a methodologically solid fashion on a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data. (The_Logic_of_Violence_in_Civil_War#Reception)
- Since at least the French revolution, we have collected a frightening register of extremely violent events in the context of civil wars, and such apparent massive irrational behaviour among combatants and civilians (a sort of unexpected Hobbesian disease) has been widely examined by the literature. (The_Logic_of_Violence_in_Civil_War#Contents)
- In the 2010s, China has also been engaged in its own War on Terror, predominantly a domestic campaign in response to violent actions by Uyghur separatist movements in the Xinjiang conflict. (War_on_terror#Anti-terror_campaigns_by_other_powers)
Book review if you need it
I've written one at User:Hog Farm/Book review/Perryville. I'm fine with it being used whenever (or never). Not the smoothest writing in the world, but I think it's passable. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: thanks a lot - posted. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021 Military History Writers' Contest
Hi all, I have initiated the Feb table and dished out the award for second place in the Jan contest. If someone could do the honours for the first place getter (ahem)...thanks! Zawed (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Zawed, thanks for sorting that out, and done. Congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
March reviewing drive, revisited
Way back in October, we had a discussion about possibly holding a reviewing drive in lieu of MILHIST March Madness this year, as the excellent bot now does many of the project tagging etc. tasks. Is there still interest in doing this, now that it is around February? I've got a (very) rough draft I kinda started on during the October discussion stashed somewhere I cannot recall, but as rough as it was, if there's interest, it might almost be better to not use that draft. Any interest in possibly doing that this year? Hog Farm Talk 23:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. Maybe triple points, and/or a barnstar for editors reviewing their first B class article, ACR or FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hog Farm Yes, I think this should be run. here's the draft you are presumably thinking of. It looks decent to me, though I think the point thresholds needed for barnstars should be adjusted. What do we need to do in the next four days? Send out a mass message, perhaps? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've created the worklist page, though the headers may need tweaking. We could always push to april if this is too soon. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , what do you all think? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I assume that we are not concerned about running at the same time as the March GAN drive? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say these are more likely to have constructive interference than destructive interference. I don't think the GA drive will draw too many reviews away from ACR, B-class, or FAC MILHIST reviews, and if reviews are getting done, that's the end goal, even if some go non-MILHIST. Hog Farm Talk 17:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I will be rather busy in RL for the next couple days, so while I agree that the points thresholds need fixed, I won't be able to give that issue much attention. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have had a stab at adjusting the number of points required to reach each award level. Intended more as to initiate a discussion than anything I feel very strongly about. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think this should definitely go ahead, and agree with Gog about pumping up the points. Given the imminence of March, and the existing March GAN drive, I suggest making this an April thing. That way we can advertise in the March Bugle and send out a mass message a week before as well as on 31 March. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, April's a good idea. What would be y'all's recommendations on points? Hog Farm Talk 23:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- The one's there now look good to me. I reckon let's get it up and running, making sure it is advertised in the Bugle. If you ping me at the end of the month, I'll do a mass message to project members. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, might be a good time to send a mass message? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- The one's there now look good to me. I reckon let's get it up and running, making sure it is advertised in the Bugle. If you ping me at the end of the month, I'll do a mass message to project members. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, April's a good idea. What would be y'all's recommendations on points? Hog Farm Talk 23:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think this should definitely go ahead, and agree with Gog about pumping up the points. Given the imminence of March, and the existing March GAN drive, I suggest making this an April thing. That way we can advertise in the March Bugle and send out a mass message a week before as well as on 31 March. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have had a stab at adjusting the number of points required to reach each award level. Intended more as to initiate a discussion than anything I feel very strongly about. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I will be rather busy in RL for the next couple days, so while I agree that the points thresholds need fixed, I won't be able to give that issue much attention. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say these are more likely to have constructive interference than destructive interference. I don't think the GA drive will draw too many reviews away from ACR, B-class, or FAC MILHIST reviews, and if reviews are getting done, that's the end goal, even if some go non-MILHIST. Hog Farm Talk 17:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I assume that we are not concerned about running at the same time as the March GAN drive? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why does the Reviewing Drive reward assessing articles from the AutoCheck report but not tagging and assessing against the same criteria manually? If anything the latter is both more laborious and serves exactly the same purpose.--Catlemur (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Catlemur, The aim of the drive is to clear review backlogs. There are about twenty-five articles eligible for what you are mentioning by my count. We could add it, but I'm not sure there's a huge need. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Eddie891 There are dozens of articles that are MILHIST related that are neither tagged nor assessed. I assume the bot is going to tag and assess them at some point but its just going to build up future backlogs since its not very accurate. I have a list of 30-40 of them in a Word document. Now I am going to tag and assess them at some point anyway but getting points for it would be nice.--Catlemur (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Catlemur, added it to 1 point. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The recent Bugle issue
Somehow the Feb 2020 Bugle got double sent recently. Can we fix this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for February
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment. If you have a few free minutes, please check the assessment, strike it once done, and note the rating alongside the article if you have downgraded it from B:
10.5 cm Kanone C/85C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)105 mm Armata wz. 29C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)10th Texas Field BatteryConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)118th Rifle DivisionC-class, some uncited material. Zawed (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)120 mm Armata wz. 78/09/31Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)12th Motorised Brigade (South Africa)C-class, sourcing may be unreliable. Zawed (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)1996 Docklands bombingConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)1st Cavalry Brigade (France)C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)2020 Salvadoran political crisiswould seem more or less B Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)2021 Myanmar coup d'étatConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)5th Royal Lancashire MilitiaB1=no, cites a wordpress site. C Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)6th Air GroupConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)6th Royal Lancashire MilitiaConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)75th Ohio Infantry Regimentb1=no. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)7th Royal Lancashire Militia (Rifles)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)88th Separate Rifle Brigadeb1=no, needs more cites Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Ackerman Boat Companystart, b1 and 2, needs ce Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Adam Ferguson (British Army officer)downgraded to start - needs a significant CE to pass B4. Concerned about sourcing too. Zawed (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Agdaban massacreRedlink.--Catlemur (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Agnieszka Dowbor-Muśnickadowngraded on B2, needs a little of content. Zawed (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Amir Kazim Mirza Qajardowngraded on B1 and B4 to start, may not meet B2 either Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Assassination of Laurent-Désiré KabilaFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)August MyhrbergB.--Catlemur (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Avro Lancaster FM213Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Babakale CastleConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Battle of HumeraIncomplete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Battle of MarielConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Battle of Sondanidowngraded, B1, B2 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Battle of Tampico (1829)LGTM Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Battle-Cry (Milton Bradley game)C, doesn't seem comprehensiveBo VareniusConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Brazilian Military Junta of 1930Fails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Caleb Grafton Robertsconfirm as B-class. Zawed (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Canton OperationIncomplete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Carl von Horn (1903–1989)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Carlow Castledowngraded to C-class, needs more content. Zawed (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Carrigaphooca Castleconfirmed as B-class. Zawed (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Cathcart Wight-Boycottdowngraded to C-class; DOD uncited. Zawed (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Catherine DiorConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Cavalry Barracks, HounslowConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Chang Do-yongdowngraded to C-class, needs more content. Zawed (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Charles BurlingameConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Charles Justin Baileydowngraded to start - structure needs work. Zawed (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Charles Knowles (British Army officer)downgraded to C-class. DOB/DOD uncited. Zawed (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Charles Saunders (Royal Navy officer)confirmed as B-class. Zawed (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Charles SticklandConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Charles ThanaronB1=no; C class Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Charlie HutchisonB1=no; C class Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Château de Germollesb1, B4=no; start class Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Chelsea BarracksConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Chelsea Pensioners reading the Waterloo DispatchB1=no, no inline cites; C-class Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Chen JiongmingB1=no; C class Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Chen Lin (Ming dynasty)B2=no; C class Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Chen TianhuaConfirmed. Short but not unreasonably so Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Cherbourg Naval BaseB1=no; C class Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Chewang RinchenC-class Parsecboy (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Chief Makhanda RegimentB1=no; C class Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Chief of Naval PersonnelStart. Bits of uncited text, not enough information, structure needs work. Hog Farm Talk 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Chief of Staff of the French Air and Space Force Start--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
* Chief of Staff of the French Army Start class. Uncited paragraphs and missing detail. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Chikadibia Isaac ObiakorC-class Parsecboy (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Chilean submarine Rucumilla- Start class. Parsecboy (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Chinese corvette Kwan ChiaStart class. Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Chinese reusable experimental spacecraftC class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Chirag GalaStart class.--Catlemur (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Chiragov and Others v. ArmeniaC class. Citation problems and structure. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Rangedowngraded for coverage and structure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Choe KwangC. The bulk of the article is unreferenced. Biography section only covers career. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)ChongtongStart class.--Catlemur (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Chris Barrie (admiral)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Christian the Younger of Brunswickb1=no. Zero inline citations. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Christmas tree (aviation)Not fully cited--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Christopher Birdwood, 2nd Baron Birdwooddowngraded, doesn't yet meet B1 or B2, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher C. Millerconfirm as B. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher Deverellconfirm as B. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher Middleton (navigator)downgrade to start, B1, B2, not met. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)- Christopher Morris (photographer)
Christopher Pugsleydowngraded to start, not enough content, some of what is there is uncited. Zawed (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher Raymond Perrydowngrade to C, B1 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher Thomson, 1st Baron Thomsondowngrade to C, B1 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher Wallace (British Army officer)confirm as B. Zawed (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Chuck Hornerdowngraded to C class; doesn't meet B class referencing requirements. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)ChuhuivNon MILHIST.--Catlemur (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Ciompi RevoltB.--Catlemur (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Citation Starb1=no. Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)City of London SignalsConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)City of Norwich Aviation Museumstart class Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)City walls of Nurembergb1=no. Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Civic action programstart class Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Civil Actions Medalstart class, IMO. Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Civil Defence ForcesConfirmed Class B. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Civil Engineer Corpsstart class. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Cizre operation (2015)start class. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Clarence Page Townsleydowngrade to C, B1 not met. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Claude C. Blochstart class. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Claude Lecomteb1=no, doesn't quite seem complete, either. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Claude Liardetconfirm as B. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Claude Louis Petietdown to start, referencing, content issues. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Cleante DavidogluB1=no Eddie891 Talk Work 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Cliffs VictoryB1, B2=no Eddie891 Talk Work 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)CMS-2B1=no Eddie891 Talk Work 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)CnivaB1=no Eddie891 Talk Work 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Coastal Forces of the Royal Canadian NavyConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Coffeyville Army Air Fieldzero inline citations, downgraded. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)College of Air WarfareStart--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Colombo RacecourseStart--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Colonel Jesus Villamor Air BaseNeither fully cited, nor complete--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Colquhoun Grant (British intelligence officer)Start--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Column of ArcadiusFails B1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Comanche campaignC class. needs citations. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Combat Logistics Battalion 15downgraded; doesn't meet referencing requirements. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Combat Logistics Battalion 31downgraded; doesn't meet referencing requirements. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Combat Logistics Regiment 27downgraded; doesn't meet referencing requirements. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Combat of the Côastart-class. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Combat Skyspotreferencing problems. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Combat systems officerstart-class. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistanstart-class. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Command at Sea insigniastart class. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Command centerstart, take your pick of problems. Hog Farm Talk 01:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Commander (order)start, Hog Farm Talk 01:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Commander Fleet Operational Sea TrainingConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Commander, Naval Forces VietnamNot fully cited--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Commander, Navy Installations Commandstart class. Uncited text, doesn't seem complete to me, and has a bulleted list that should be prose. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Commerce de Paris-class ship of the linestart class. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Commodore-in-Charge, Algiersstart class. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Compagnie d'ordonnanceb1=no. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Companions of William the ConquerorFails B1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Condottieri-class cruiserFails B1 and B2, Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Confederate Private MonumentB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Confederate States Secretary of WarFails B1 and B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Congress of ChâtillonConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Coningsby Dawsondowngrade to start, B1, B2 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Conrad Lallydowngrade to C, B2 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British ColoniesConfirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Constantin Cristescudowngrade to C, B1 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Constantin Sănătescudowngrade to C, B1 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Constantino of BraganzaStart--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Convoy commodorestart--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Convoy ON 166Fails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Convoy SC 104Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Convoy SC 130Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Cornelius Rea AgnewC class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Corporate Training UnlimitedB5=no; Start class. -Cdjp1 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Cosme Damián de Churruca y ElorzaStart--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Cosmos-class submarineNot complete, C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)CounterattackConfirmed Class B. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)County of EmpúriesNot MilHist at all--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Cowbridge town wallB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Craney Island (Virginia)Not fully cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Crater Lake–Klamath Regional AirportNot fully cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Cubic CorporationC-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Cuirassiers Regiment (Italy)Start--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)- Culinary specialist (United States Navy)
Cyber and Information Domain Service (Germany)B class. -Cdjp1 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Cyprus EmergencyFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)CyriadesDowngrade to start, fails B1, B2. Zawed (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Cyriaque GillainDowngrade to C, B1 not met.Cyril BiddulphDowngrade to start, fails B1, B2. Zawed (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Czechoslovak 11th Infantry BattalionConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Czechoslovak Legion in Italydowngraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Da yuan shuaiDowngrade to start, fails B1, B2. Zawed (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)DagnumDowngrade to start, fails B1, B2. Zawed (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)DalforceDowngrade to C, B1 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Dámaso BerenguerDowngrade to start, B1, B2 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Damen Stan patrol vesselDowngrade to start, B1, B2 not met. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Daniel BurgesDOB, DOD uncited so B1 no, downgrade to C. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Daniel J. MillerB2 no, downgrade to C. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Daniel Knox, 6th Earl of RanfurlyB1, B2 both no, downgrade to start. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Dankwarderode CastleB1, B2 both no, downgrade to start. Zawed (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Daraa Governorate campaignnone of B1 to B4 met; looks more like a list than anything else. Downgrade to a stub. Zawed (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Daraa offensive (January 2015)- Start.--Catlemur (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)DARPA Captive Air Amphibious TransporterB2, B3, both no. Downgrade to start. Zawed (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Darren ManzellaB1, B2, both no. Downgrade to start. Zawed (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Darryl GreenamyerB1, B2, both no. Downgrade to start. Zawed (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)DatisC, fails B1.--Catlemur (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)David H. Huntoonstart class Hog Farm Talk 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)David Henry HamiltonNon-MILHIST. Noncom in CSA with nothing of note, notability comes from being a politician Hog Farm Talk 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)David Inceincomplete, body uses only one source. b1=no, b2=no. Hog Farm Talk 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)David Johnston (admiral)B2 = no, downgrade to C. Zawed (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)David King Murray, Lord BirnamNot MILHIST, noncom in the Naval Reserve isn't enough, military service barely mentioned in article. Hog Farm Talk 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)David Mitchell (Royal Navy officer)B1, B3 both no. Downgrade to start. Zawed (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)David Moore Crookb1=no, b2=no. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)David Poyerb1=no, b2=no, not entirely sure it's even that much MILHIST given the current article content. Hog Farm Talk 03:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)David R. Kingsleyb1=no, and I think b2=no as well. Hog Farm Talk 03:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)David S. Hall (RFC officer)Confirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)David W. Gayb1=no, b2=no Hog Farm Talk 03:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)- Davis Guards Medal
Dawn of Freedom BrigadesConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Day of Daggersb1=no. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)De la Gardie campaign- Start.--Catlemur (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)- Decoration Honor of Naval Merit Commander Peter Campbell
Defence (1735 EIC ship)C. Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Defenders of the Homelandstart. Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Defense Manpower Data Centerstart. Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)- Deir ez-Zor offensive (December 2014)
Demarcation line (France)start. Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Demensio RiveraB1=no Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Deming BronsonDowngraded to C. Lacks references. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Demobilisation of the British Armed Forces after the Second World Warstart class Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Demyan Bednystart Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Denis EadieConfirmed. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Denis EarpB2= no Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Denis MercierB1=no Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Denis Packstart class. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Department of the Gulfincomplete. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Derek LangC class. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Deryck StapletonDowngraded to Start class, fails b2 and b5. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Desmond Morton (historian)B1 +B2 = no --... Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Desmond Smith (general)B2=no Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Destroyer minesweeperFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Deva BandhumasenaStart, needs CE + other language article indicates incomplete Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Dewan Mokham ChandC-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Dholpur Military Schoolstart-- take your pick of issues Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Dhondia Wagh. Confirmed. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Diane E. BeaverC class. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Dick Moore (Royal Navy officer)b1=no, entire unsourced sections. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Diego Ortiz Parrilla. Confirmed. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)- Diet Eman
Ditch (fortification)Fails B1 and B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Diving planestart class. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Divisional generalstart. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)- Diyarbakır Fortress
Dmitry Ivanovich PopovFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Dmitry LelyushenkoFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)- DMS Maritime
Domenico Rossi (general)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Domingo Arrieta LeónFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Domingo FrenchFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Don SteinbrunnerFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Donald ConroyFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Donald EastenFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk)Donald EthellFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk)Đồng Tâm Base CampFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk)Dong XianC-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Dongfeng Mengshistart class. Hog Farm Talk 14:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Doorwerth CastleAlmost completely lacks inline citations, surprised the bot didn't catch that. Hog Farm Talk 05:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Dorset County DivisionB.--Catlemur (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Douglas Hacking, 1st Baron HackingC-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Douglas House, Londonb1=no, b2=no. Hog Farm Talk 05:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Douglas Lowe (RAF officer)C-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Dov YermiyaC-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Downing Street mortar attackB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Draper KauffmanC, b1=no.--Catlemur (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)DRASHStart, b1=no, b2=no.--Catlemur (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Driver-class sloopB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)- Du Sengming
DZ203Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Edmund WallerNot in scope. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Edward Henry Burke CooperFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Erich LoewenhardtFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)First Battle of the IssersFails B1 & B4; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Folke RehnströmB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Frank E. GarretsonFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)French destroyer OuraganFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Garde communaleFails B2 & B4; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Gennady ZhidkoFails B1 & B4; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)German torpedo boat TA24B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Green LeaderConfirmed. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Guards of Honour (France)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Guo MoB1=no. Hog Farm Talk 23:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Hazel Johnson-BrownA couple uncited things about marriage and casue of death, some sources are iffy. Hog Farm Talk 23:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Henry Metcalfe (military officer)b1 and b2=no, IMO. Hog Farm Talk 23:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Henry V. PlummerB1=no; some cites missing. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Hermes programFails B2, C-class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)HMNZS MakoFails B1, C-class. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)HMS Cameleon (1910)Fails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)HMS George (1796)Fails B1, C-class. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)HMS Llewellyn (1913)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)HMS Lochinvar (1915)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)HMS Mounsey (1915)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)HMS Serapis (G94)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)HMS Termagant (R89)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)HMS TremendousFails B3; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Home Guard Medal of MeritDoesn't seem complete to me, C class. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Hossein Gholi Khan IlkhaniFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Hubert AclandB1= no Eddie891 Talk Work 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Imperial Order of the Yoke and ArrowsB2=no; spanish article is significantly longer Eddie891 Talk Work 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)J. J. SexbyFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)James Carnegie, 9th Earl of SoutheskFails B1; C class Eddie891 Talk Work 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)James Wallis (British Army officer)reasonable; confirmed Eddie891 Talk Work 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Japanese military currency (1894–1918)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Japanese salvage ship Kamikaze Maru No. 7 (1940)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)John Doyle (RAF officer)downgraded to C, B1 not met, Zawed (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)- John Lyons (Royal Navy officer, born 1787)
- John Markham (Royal Navy officer)
- John Monahan (RAF officer)
John Stanford (general)b1=no, b2=no, start. Hog Farm Talk 03:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)- Kevin O'Connor (physician)
Kingdom of Kampuchea (1945)Fails B1 and B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Luis de la Puente UcedaGrammar/punctuation errors and missing citations, start class. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)M62 coach bombingB-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- March of the Indonesian National Armed Forces
Messerschmitt P.1103B-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Milinko VlahovićFails B1 and B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Military General Governorate of SerbiaFails B1 and B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)- Nicholas I Drugeth
Object 490Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Operation Davidretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Operation HoradizFails B1, B2, & B4; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Operation SEstart. Stuff in infobox that is neither cited nor mentioned in the article body. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Over Burrow Roman FortLead is not a summary of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)- Pact Ribbentrop - Beck
Protests of US military presence in OkinawaConfirmed Class B after rewrite. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)RAF ElginConfirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Red GroupB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Robyn Clay-Williamsretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Rudolf Reschconfirmed as B. Zawed (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Samuel Brown (Royal Navy officer)B1 = no, some paragraphs not cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Samuel D. Sturgis Jr. (1861–1933)B-class Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Sardar Rafie YanehsariB-class Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Siege of AstarabadB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Soe Win (general)C-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)SS GlitraCharacteristics largely uncited and not fully described, start. Hog Farm Talk 03:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)SS Sagamore (1892)Downgraded to C-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)SS Sagamore (1893)Looks fine. Parsecboy (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)St Mary's Church, TynehamI think this one is fine. Hog Farm Talk 03:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Surrender of General Botho Elsterretained. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)- Swedish Air Force Volunteers Association Medal of Merit
- Swedish Air Force Volunteers Association Merit Badge
- Swedish Federation for Voluntary Defence Education Medal of Merit
- Swedish Federation for Voluntary Defence Education Merit Badge
Tarlan AliyarbayovB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Thomas HopsonnFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Thomas Moody (British Army officer)Looks alright. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Tomb of Charles Spencer RickettsI make this a C-class on grounds of failing B2, although it is marginal. Zawed (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Tony L. WhiteheadFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)TradecraftFails b1, b2, and b3. Hog Farm Talk 03:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Turabay dynastyPassed a GAN earlier this month. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Ugo MazzucchelliSeems fine. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)ULAQ (AUSV)Confirmed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)USS Nina (1865)Start The bot seems to be missing uncited paragraphs--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Vic Mitchellnot really in scope, removed Milhist tag. Zawed (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)War in Uganda (1986–1994)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Waverly B. Woodson Jr.downgraded to C, on basis of B1: not all his awards are cited. It would be a B otherwise. Zawed (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)West Coast Naval Commanddowngraded to start, fails B1, B4. Zawed (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Whitworth Porterconfirmed as B-class. Zawed (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Problems with AutoCheck B assessments
- @Sturmvogel 66: You've noticed it here, for example. I'm also seeing it as well such as here, but it appears the MilHistBot is having some serious hiccups with failing to detect mostly unsourced material. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here is another blatant failure: Dmitry Ivanovich Popov. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am also concerned that the amount of human checking is becoming a bit unmanageable, and that a significant proportion of the bot-assessed Bs just shouldn't be being assessed that way. Perhaps Hawkeye could tighten up Milhistbot a bit so we err towards a C rather than a B? If everyone could note what they have assessed the article as when they strike it, that might help to identify weaknesses in the assessing so Hawkeye can tweak the bot appropriately. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Will do. Obviously, the bot can't really catch unreliable or dated sources or probably bad grammar, but the uncited paragraphs ought to be catchable. I remember there being a couple last month with no section divisions, which should be catchable as b3=no. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let me know which page it was and I can investigate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hawkeye, it looks like the bot really missed something with [[Christian the Younger of Brunswick]]. No inline citations at all, yet still marked as B class. Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: - Not to detract from the good work the bot does, but it appears to have had a significant hiccup assessing Coffeyville Army Air Field, which has no inline citations and an outstanding no footnotes tag from 2013. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I see the problem. I changed the way newlines are handled and it was no longer performing the check for references correctly. This has now been fixed. But the fix won't affect this month's list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look into this. Ought to make the list a little more manageable next month. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I see the problem. I changed the way newlines are handled and it was no longer performing the check for references correctly. This has now been fixed. But the fix won't affect this month's list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
February 2021 Military History Writers' Contest
All done bar handing out the first place award. ( 
- Done (hopefully correctly :p) Eddie891 Talk Work 17:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for March
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom)looks a B. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)1971 Turkish military memorandumlooks a B. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)1972 Salvadoran coup d'état attemptdowngraded to C, not quite to scratch on B2 I think. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)1st Ukrainian CorpsStart, barely referenced and contradicts itself on the date of establishment.--Catlemur (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)2009 Boko Haram uprisingFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)24 cm schwere Flügelminenwerfer IKOFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)4 Military Intelligence Battalion (United Kingdom)Fails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Abu Bilal MirdasB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Alexander Hunter (novelist)Fails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Ancient Wars: SpartaFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Antoine François Eugène MerlinFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Arthur Murray (general)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Ashutosh Sharma (soldier)Fails B1, C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Axel H. Reedunreliable sources, inconsistencies. Start class. Hog Farm Talk 14:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Battle of PalmaFails B2; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Bill HitchensFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Bulls Road Commonwealth War Graves Commission CemeteryFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Cannone da 76/17 S modello 12Fails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Carl KimmonsB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Charles G. RidgeleyB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Charles H. Bennett (soldier)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Charles Patrick GreenFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Chief of Policy and Plans DepartmentFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Christopher Cole (Royal Navy officer)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Croatian Peasant Party during World War IIB class. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Croatian Republican Peasant Party (1945)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)DucovéFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Duncan Campbell (Unionist politician)Fails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Dutch ship Aemilia (1632)C-class Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Dwight Edward Aultmandowngraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)E. Henry KnocheFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Eastern Sabah Security CommandFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Edgar Thomas ConleyFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Edmond SchreiberFails B1 & B2; Start class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Edward LugardFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Edward Smyth-OsbourneFails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Edward Stanton (British Army officer)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Edward Willis (British Army officer)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)- Egyptian ship Charkieh
- Elaine Madden
Elisha Johnsdowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Elisha Marshalldowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)- Ema clan castle ruins
- Émile Régnier
Engelandvaarderdowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)English ship Fairfax (1653)Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Enniskillen Castledowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)- Eugène Étienne
- Evacuation of Pakistani citizens during the Yemeni Civil War (2015)
- F. L. Barnard
- Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan
- FARC dissidents
- Fastaqim Union
Fateh-class submarineStart-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- Feliciano Canaveris
- Ferhat Bey Draga
- Fighting Auschwitz
First Campaign against Turkomen Hazarasdowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)- First Perso-Turkic War
- Florvil Hyppolite
- For Cause and Comrades
Fort BlockhouseMILHIST bot seems to have downgraded it. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Fort Bunker HillMILHIST bot seems to have downgraded it. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Fort DeRussy (Louisiana)start class. Hog Farm Talk 02:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Fort FettermanAlready down-graded to C-class, concur. Parsecboy (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Forter CastleConfirmed B-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- Fortress of Mainz
Forward Operating Base DelhiMILHIST bot downgraded this. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)- Four Garrisons of Anxi
- Franc-archer
Francis Bennett-Goldneydowngraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)- Francis Bridgeman (British Army officer)
Frank Peak Akersdowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)- Franz Eisenach
- Franz Hofer
- Franz Vaterrodt
- George Sayer (Royal Navy officer)
- HAL Combat Air Teaming System
- Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland
- Hitler's Armenian reference
- HMHS Lanfranc
HMS Lawford (1913)retained. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)HMS Repulse (1780)downgraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)HMS Triton (1796)Confirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)HSwMS Öland (J16)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)HSwMS Uppland (J17)B class. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)- Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings
- Jan Morris
Japanese patrol boat No. 105 (1931)Already reassessed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Japanese seaplane tender Sanuki Maru (1939)Fails B1; C class. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)- John Morkel
- Joy Manikya II
- Judith Maro
- Karl Gustaf Brandberg
Kermanshah operationStart.--Catlemur (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)- Leslie Davidson
- Louis-Chrétien Carrière, Baron de Beaumont
Merle Egan Andersondowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)- Mihir K. Roy
- Minnie Pallister
- Modular Command Post System
MS Belpameladowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Nagapasa-class submarineStart-class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- Nell Ryan
- Nikolai Ogarkov
Ordinance of 9 August 1944downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)- Oscar Galgut
- Robert Fancourt
Roger CharlierMILHISTbot downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Russian destroyer Leytenant ShestakovConfirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Russian destroyer Leytenant ZatsarennyConfirmed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre
Second Honduran civil wardowngraded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Sergey Grishin (Hero of the Soviet Union)Start.--Catlemur (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)- Shelling of Highway 1
- Siege of Inverness (1746)
- Sigismund von Löw
Sinking of the Spanish trawler SoniaB class.--Catlemur (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)- SS Cleveland
- SS Jumna
- SS Lombardia
- SS Melita
- SS Minnedosa
- SS Westernland
- Syarifudin Tippe
- The Russian Revolution: A New History
- Thomas Atkinson (Royal Navy officer)
- United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon
United States Marine Hospital (Pittsburgh)confirmed. Fondycardinals (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)- Varlam Urdia
- Verna Grahek Mize
- Vostok 2018
- Walls of Avignon
- Walter J. Davis Jr.
White's Castledowngraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)- William Crooks (colonel)
William Tyrrell (RAF officer)downgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)- Xun Xian
MilHistBot (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- 503 articles. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Had Bot reassess the articles due to the new patch. Now only 138 articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks like some A-Class articles probably need reassessed
So looking through the recently-delisted FAs, we'll have to be keeping an eye out for WP:URFA/2020-delisted MILHIST ones that need an A-Class re-review. From a quick look, Structural history of the Roman military, is a old ACR-passed one that just got delisted, and there may be other. Peacemaker was on top of this earlier, but they're busy and not as active. Is anyone else familiar with A-class reassessment processes? WP:MILHIST/ACR just sends you to the coords. I'm not super familiar with the topic for the structural history of the Roman military one, but if someone who is familiar with that thinks it needs A-Class reassessment, like with the FAR, then maybe one should be opened. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- G'day, the process is that you have to move the most recent ACR for the article to an archive, then start the ACR process again as normal. For an example, see the move that took place here and then the reappraisal review that took place here, which was set up with these edits on the talk page: [2]. The review page is listed at WP:MHACR as per a normal first time ACR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Stuff related to Rhodesia might need to be checked. A few of those got spun through FAR a year or two ago. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
note from WP:HIST. inviting any input
my compliments to the commanding general, WP:MILHIST! this is the coordinator for WP:HIST. allow me to express my admiration for the vast and highly impressive functionings of your wikiproject. my own wikiproject is relatively less-active in comparison to yours. based on that, I wanted to suggest one or two possible actions.
- would some of you be willing to serve as part-time liaison or coordinators at WP:HIST? we could only benefit from any input that you might care to provide.
- If any of you wish to join any existing task forces at WP:HIST. relating to any eras or topics that you currently are working on, or else to set up any new task forces, you are entirely welcome to do so.
- the sheer range and scope of military history makes it an almost exact parallel for the general field of history itself, since it encompasses every society and every historical period that ever existed. based upon that, any action, input or items that you might care to offer at WP:HIST would be most welcome.
I hope that sounds good to you. please feel free to reply, with any thoughts that you may have. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
March contest
Can someone please verify my entries for the March article writing contest so it can finalised. I have updated the tables and done a blurb for the Bugle on a provisional basis. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- I Have archived February's log, but otherwise it looks good. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- I finished checking the last entries, and have award Zawed the second-place bling. I got first, so somebody else will have to handle the other barnstar. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Battle of Vukovar
Hello.
Experienced editor recommended me to contact editors from this project regarding article Battle of Vukovar. For several months now there's ongoing discussion about inclusion of battle of Vukovar on this list. Editors reached dead end until user started RfC [3]. I thought this would solve things but RfC expired [4] because no one answered. I asked for help before but no one replied [5]. I fear that if no one comments or resolves the issue the entire discussion on talk page of article in question will be archived and removed while the controversial addition to the list will remain. Any advice or help editors from this project offer would be greatly appreciated. Istinar (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Remaining batch list for February 2021
Relisting the unchecked ones here, so they stand out better than in the mostly-checked list above.
- Christopher Morris (photographer)
- Culinary specialist (United States Navy)
- Davis Guards Medal
- Decoration Honor of Naval Merit Commander Peter Campbell
- Deir ez-Zor offensive (December 2014)
- Diet Eman
- Diyarbakır Fortress
DMS MaritimeStart-class. Hog Farm Talk 23:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- Du Sengming
- John Lyons (Royal Navy officer, born 1787)
- John Markham (Royal Navy officer)
- John Monahan (RAF officer)
- Kevin O'Connor (physician)
- March of the Indonesian National Armed Forces
- Nicholas I Drugeth
- Pact Ribbentrop - Beck
- Swedish Air Force Volunteers Association Medal of Merit
Swedish Air Force Volunteers Association Merit BadgeNot complete. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- Swedish Federation for Voluntary Defence Education Medal of Merit
- Swedish Federation for Voluntary Defence Education Merit Badge
Should be 20, if I counted correctly. Hog Farm Talk 23:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)