Welcome to the discussion area for the Military history WikiProject's monthly newsletter, The Bugle!
This page is mostly used for general discussions about the overall structure, format, and content of the newsletter; individual articles have their own discussion pages, and comments regarding them should be directed there.
If you have a question, concern, or suggestion, please feel free to leave us a note!
This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 28 November 2011.
Fiction?
Currently, book reviews focus on non-fictional works, which is entirely appropriate and what one wants at a project with this name. However, there are some newly and fairly recently works of fiction that contain military history information of a high quality. It would be interesting to read reviews or commentaries on some of these novels and how they pertain to various historical periods; to avoid opening the door to truckloads of low-quality fiction anyone writing such a review could be encouraged to choose a novel of either high quality or high prominence. The point wouldn't be to evaluate the novel but really to connect it to historical events and to offer project members/visitors a chance to look at some related fiction that is interesting and accurate. Would anyone be open to experimenting with this or moving forward a revised version of this idea? dci | TALK 22:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, and I'd support including reviews of novels which are focused on military/war-related themes. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with reviews of high-quality historical fiction, or even comparable science fiction (I'm thinking of novels similar to Ender's Game, not Star Wars). Ed[talk][majestic titan]00:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, relevant science/alternative fiction would be fine. Connie Willis' two science fiction novels about time travelling historians stuck in the Blitz were probably be best military history books I read last year. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Given that we're not especially tight on publishing space, I don't see any problem with reviewing (sufficiently interesting and relevant) works of fiction. Kirill[talk]01:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion there is a problem with presenting fiction because you can't use a novel as a source for Wikipedia when there is a science book of the same theme and if there isn't one, you can not verify the facts in the novel. Second a novel normally does not name any of it's sources which is non-scientific. The big problem I see is that if novels are presented here, the people can think they are good sources to need for historical facts. And as a second there is the danger that not a single academic institute would take the project serious. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this would not be to present fiction as a source or anything remotely like a source. A novel does not need to be scientific, but in this case should be related to a military history topic while providing reliable information, with indication of reliability offered by a non-fictional source (which doesn't have to be alluded to in the novel). Readers of the Bugle should definitely be able to distinguish fact from fiction, and we can even post a disclaimer above this section. As to your last point, I don't really think that academic institutes will really care if we do this, as we are in no way insinuating that this fiction is real, only relevant to the project's areas of focus. dci | TALK 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The academic impacts are part of separate discussions we have been having, DCI. We could set off the fiction reviews from the non-fiction, or even put them on a separate page. I wouldn't mind that ("fiction review"?). Ed[talk][majestic titan]06:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that these discussions have been going on, but I've been working on some other things lately and haven't been around here much. A separate page would be fine. dci | TALK 12:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page organization
Two questions regarding the organization of this page:
At one point, we had discussed merging this talk page up to the main coordinators' talk page once the mechanism for embedding discussions in the table of upcoming articles was in place. Given the apparent success of the new mechanism, do we want to move forward with merging the talk pages?
Is there a need to retain a full list of every op-ed on this page, given that anyone interested can simply go through the main archives to find them? Would it be more useful to have that section be a dedicated submission/suggestion space rather than primarily an archive listing?
I like having a separate talk page, but I'm not wedded to it either.
I also like having the list of op-eds, and I was planning on indexing what books we've reviewed too. It makes it easier to find the one I want to link too. We might do better with a linked subpage, though, rather than a full list here. Ed[talk][majestic titan]14:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really wedded to the idea of combining the talk pages; that suggestion was mainly based on the lack of traffic here. If you think that this talk page will see more discussion in the future, then I certainly have no objections to retaining it as a separate space.
I like the idea of an index, but perhaps that would be more useful as part of the Bugle archives (which are rather lacking in content at the moment) rather than within the newsroom? Kirill[talk]14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it will see more discussion, but it's easier to direct people to the specific news talk page (eg [1]) then the general coordinator talk page, which doesn't obviously associate itself with the Bugle. :-) And you have a good point, the list would be much better in the archives with maybe only a link from here. I'll work on moving them over sometime in the near future! Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've added a small header to this page to better explain its purpose; any comments or improvements would be much appreciated!
We should also decide whether we want specific suggestions for articles (e.g. op-ed submissions, book review requests, etc.) on this page or in dedicated places in the newsroom itself; I don't particularly have a preference, but having them in the newsroom might allow us to break them down by the applicable newsletter section, which might be difficult here. Kirill[talk]15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like it!
The Signpost has them in the newsroom, and I don't see why we shouldn't follow that. The benefits. as you say, are pretty clear. Personally though, if someone accidentally comes to this talk page, I don't mind talking about it here either. It's on my watchlist anyway, right? ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]08:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review of non-english books
I asked myself should it be able to write a book review for The Bugle of a book which hasn't been in english language until now. Are there any opinions about that? I ask because I just finished reading an, in my eyes, excellent book which is only published in german. As en:Wiki is quite international this could be an interesting option for people that speak the language of the book reviewed. All others can look forward for a possible english edition. --Bomzibar (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be interesting, but I'd recommend you work in more context about the author etc. than you would do normally, as it is less likely that a purely English reader may have the other works by them etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could tell something in the review about why the book was made (as a review of an international conference), the intention (gaps in the research history of Reichskommissariat Ostland) and the publishing organization (German Armed Forces Military History Research Office), would that be fine? Otherwise I could make an Op-ed out of it, handling with the in some cases special german kind of military historical research and it's combination of military history with other fields. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as long as it brings something relevant to real military history to the table (ie. what I meant by 'high quality' above). I'm trying to exclude things like Star Wars here, but at the same time, an article on that could be possible if done carefully and with a narrow focus. Ed[talk][majestic titan]05:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's taken awhile; I had some trips scheduled that I did not take into account when planning this. I was thinking about possibly doing a less recent historical novel, perhaps one of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's series. This would be a decent introduction, and then I could move on to recent publications. dci | TALK 03:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The next issue of the Bugle won't be published until late July, and I'm not sure how beneficial an announcement will be at that stage; but I don't see any problems with including a mention if the contest is still running at that point. Kirill[talk]01:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth putting a dedicated special project page into monthly bugle edition so that the special project's can independently added information related to their editorial areas? I know OMT is the most active, but we have three others, and perhaps a little extra sauce from our publications would help keep the other special projects afloat. In particular, such a page in the bugle could be used to broadcast ongoing discussions and proposals for special projects, which could be used to attract the attention of special project members who either do not have occasion to keep a project talk page watchlisted or who may have missed pertinent news do to RL or other reasons. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something along the same lines as Tom the other day, though my suggestion is to have a 'news in brief' type page to cover specialised activities and events which might be of interest to members of this project. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I was thinking something along the same lines as Tom the other day..." Thus proving that great minds do in fact think alike :) TomStar81 (Talk) 12:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable enough, although I wonder if it might be better to start off with a section on an existing page (e.g. "Project news") rather than an entirely separate page, at least until we have a regular flow of material to sustain it. A page with only a few items on it would probably not be a very good way to encourage participation, since it would convey an impression of inactivity. Kirill[talk]18:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too. Incidentally, this was the reason we all agreed to promote Kirill to Coordinator Emeritus of the Military history Project: between his tech skills and the good ideas the project goes rolling along smoothly :) Now the only big question left to answer is whether the reports should be written by Bugle staff or by a designated point of contact in the special projects. Either way would work, and in the case of OMT our editor in chief could probably handle this as well, but in fairness I feel the need to bring it up here so that when the time comes everyone knows whose on first. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the project reps please. I see Bugle editing as just that -- leaving the grunt work to everyone else as much as possible and then just making sure it's all in the right place and flows well...! In fact if project reps don't submit anything, I personally wouldn't chase them -- they just wouldn't have any news in that issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't something most members concern themselves with, but at the moment there are two open requests on the Bounty Board for milhist related articles, and it might be nice to note that in the upcoming bugle publication so those interested in helping Wikipedia along can try their luck. Incidentally, If its not too much trouble, might I ask that future publications of the bugle include information relating to milhist articles at the Wikipedia:Bounty Board and Wikipedia:Reward Board? I am uncertain as to how much help it will be, but a little info on whats up on these boards and whats in it for the editors could help or pages move through these boards a little faster, and as an added bonus, may inspire our members to add their own requests up here as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea, when I began to discuss the fiction review, that I would be this busy in real life right now. I will have more time by the Labor Day weekend, which is when I can promise one by. I do have one question, however - should this be a new book, or would a fairly recent one do? dci | TALK 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I was unable to edit at all yesterday due to other commitments so I will try to get it up at some point either this afternoon or tomorrow. dci | TALK 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including free available books and articles in The Bugle?
If you search for it, there are a lot of recent scientific books and articles abouth military history and related fields released in the internet. As it is said, you have to search for it and the possibility is high to miss something of high interest for Wikipedia work. So I thought about how it would be to include a section in the monthly Bugle in which new free contents can be gathered and presented to the subscribers? --Bomzibar (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure ... any newsworthy additions to freely available material could run as news in the Bugle, and they could get added to the Academy as well. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How could it be presented? Three sections Books, Magazines and Articles would be good in my view. How about a short summary of the content and extra information about the possible series, source and file size? --Bomzibar (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Book review
G'day all, I have written up a book review. I see that there is already one for the September edition, so I would like to offer it for the October edition when that comes online. I have a couple of questions, though: (1) is there a word limit (it is about 660 words so far, including wiki mark up)? and (2) the book I've reviewed is a bit narrowly focused and old (published in 1986). Is that an issue? If so, no dramas, I will send my review to a professional journal that is interested in it. If it was to run, it would probably be best to run it alongside a review of a recent work that is a bit wider in its target audience. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to go for a two-fer, I'll be happy to help with developing two versions that are different enough that the journal isn't likely to be offended by the version that appears here. If you want to do that, email it to me. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks a lot! In response to your questions: 1) There's no set format or length for reviews - they can be of any length (and written in any style) 2) That's no problem at all. I generally aim at two reviews per edition and only have one so far, so if you'd like to submit it for the September edition, that would be great. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, Dan, I appreciate that. I'm looking to submit the review for publication in the Autumn edition next year (March). I will need to rework it significantly, anyway, as so far it is currently very much tailored to Wikipedia users and the journal I'm looking to publish it in is very different in its requirements. I'm waiting for some guidance from the journal's editor about length etc. They may also say that the book is too old for their journal, but they have expressed interest in my writing and want to see anything, because I'm working on submitting an article on a battle to them for publication at the end of next year. I'm also working on a biography for another journal. Those will be my main efforts and I would certainly appreciate some notes/suggestions on those. (I promised my wife that I would pursue professional publication next year: she gave me an ultimatum about that and having a second child!). I've had a few things accepted for publishing before in not-for-profit journals, but each time they fell through due to budgetary constraints, which resulted in smaller publications, so my articles were flicked. Nick, thanks. I have put it in the September edition now. Please feel free to tweak as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick 'n' everyone, back and slowly easing into things... Was able to visit many war memorials on our trip to North America and Hawaii, so there's at least a review essay of my impressions in that, though I may not get round to it until next month. Am I right is assuming the only op-ed on the boil is Bomzibar's, mentioned under Submissions on the main Newsroom page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very much support turning the Bugle into a general history newsletter, and an op-ed arguing for and against WP:MILHIST swallowing WP:HIST. Also, can we get the Signpost-style comments section at the bottom added, where people can leave thoughts? I had to page through multiple pages to get here and I'm still not sure I'm in the right place. Buckshot06(talk)20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about "ready" at this stage, but Bomzibar has also been working on one. No deadline per se, but we like to get our ducks in a row for issue content by mid-month at least... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just back from a short break -- looks like we're still awaiting an op-ed for January's issue (don't think Bomzibar's is ready) so don't be shy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To hazard an observation, if you are missing an op-ed for the month, you could consider taking a piece from the academy and publishing it as the op-ed. This would help draw attention to the academy, and could help us fill in some of the pothole we still have over there. Just some food for thought :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First World War centenary
Hello there. Wikimedia UK is a part of a very broad partnership of organisations looking to commemorate the centenary of the First World War. We're hoping to recruit as many volunteers to participate as possible. We are also looking for volunteers to suggest, design and deliver projects relating to the commemoration. If you are interested in taking part in any of this (regardless of your location) please do get in touch! You can find more details on our blog here or get in touch via my talk page on the UK wiki. Thank you! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made it work. ;) I would support a new template like you're describing for the same purpose. I find talk page delivery of various WikiProject "periodicals" to be foolish as no one (typically) needs an old newspaper. I like the current version sitting on my desk, though. Chris Troutman (talk)06:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If its alright with the news crew, I'd like to formally inaugurate a new page into the bugle for this issue, and have it carry over for the next four years. The new section would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2014/World War I timeline, and would be dedicated to maintaining a timeline of the war by month with articles on the relevant battles, campaigns, and political developments of the war in a manner similar to what I introduced for the GA, A, and FA articles in the bugle some time back. Are there any objections to this, and do I need any special layout or format options on a Bugle page? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom, as Ed says, if you’re prepared to keep it going I think it’d be good. I wouldn’t mind a link to the earlier example you mentioned to get an idea of how it would look. My first thought is that it should be pretty brief and rely fairly heavily on wikilinks to the events described so as to highlight WP’s coverage of the war (if they’re not up to scratch in some cases, this may encourage their improvement). Of course that may be what you had in mind anyway! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TomStar81: With regard to layout and format, the easiest way to deal with those is to add the new section to the task list for the upcoming issue:
|Task10= World War I timeline
|Link10= Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2014/World War I timeline
|Status10= Not started
|Notes10=
Tks Kirill. Tom, I saw the draft -- quite like the look of it. Couple of thoughts/queries: 1) I like the idea of "this month" in WWI but I guess that should be the month we release the Bugle, meaning this month it should be September's events in WWI rather than August's -- or since the war effectively began in August and we didn't do this timeline in last month's issue, perhaps we should do August-September this time and then we can just do one-to-one? 2) I see some events are cited and some not -- were you planning to cite everything? My feeling is that since you're putting details and other links in then perhaps citations are redundant -- it'd certainly be less work not to add them (especially as right now most or all are giving Harv error anyway! Of course Nick may have some ideas too -- we should try to resolve it all ASAP so we can get this issue out soon (partly as a timely reminder to our subscribers of the coord election). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to 1, good point. I think that both should be included so as to keep it as "real time" as possible, such as it were. As to 2, I'll be brutally honest and note that because a reply here was so delayed in coming I figured time is at this point a factor, so I lifted the table and sections from a timeline page we already have on WWI. If I had the month or so to format then I may have considered building the page a little differently, but if I'm reading this right you guys would like to get this bugle addition out sometime in the next few days, if possible, so that meant going with something we already have. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understand the pull from an existing source, Tom, and if you're prepared to do Aug-Sep to keep it in line with the monthly issue schedule that'd be great. As I say, apart from the (IMO unnecessary) citations, the format seems fine to me. Obviously Nick and the readers my have their thoughts too. Anyway, just let us know when you think you're done, and tks again for your efforts! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added September to the page, and removed the citations save for the external links, which I left for the benefit of those looking for more info offsite. Hows it look now? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tweaked a bit and added it to the front page and page header. If it still looks okay to you, Tom, and if Nick has nothing major to add, then we'll be right to go to press...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The content looks good to me, but I'm having difficulties understanding the colour coding - could a explanation of this be added? Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this. I've just commented on the two recent editions of this timeline. If you ever need a hand with this (it will be quite a task to keep it going for four years), let me know as I'd be happy to help. BTW, I think the latest edition of The Bugle posted to user talk pages has links to the previous month (three of the four links went to September instead of October). Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
September to October
I made this edit changing one of the links from September to October. Hope that was OK. No idea how to fix the September links in the bot-delivered (well, Mass Messaging) version of the newsletter. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Genghis Khan Edition Conquest of the Wiki World Triple Crown
@Ian Rose: I think that the only thing remaining on "your end" is the FAC blurb. My review essay could probably benefit from a second set of eyes if you have time though.
@Adam Cuerden: It looks like there are some more FPs to add from the links you added
@TomStar81: Have you completed the WW1 timeline for this month?
WWI Timeline for the moth is complete. Apparently, March was an off month for the Allies and Centrals forces, although I suppose we could throw in some pictures if that would help spruce up the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tom - a picture would be good. I've been surprised by the amount of fighting which took place in the northern winter of 1914/15 which you've uncovered, so it makes sense that March would be quiet. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, been a busier-than-usual month -- FAs done now I think, and will try to glance over everything else and dispatch tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm after some guidelines on what can be included in the project as reviews on books and articles, especially in languages other than English, and if there is a process to follow. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DPdH. There aren't any guidelines for reviews in The Bugle, and we welcome all submissions. Reviews of works in languages other than English are perfectly fine - not least as many members of this project are multilingual. If you'd like to contribute a review you can either post it directly on the review page for the next edition (the current draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2015/Book reviews), or draft it in your user space and ask either myself or Ian Rose to move it across for you. Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: could you please handle the new FAs and contest results and copy edit my stuff? From the editors should be good to go, but of course please feel free to change it!
Help plan a new software feature for easy subscription to newsletters
We are developing a MediaWiki extension that will enable users to subscribe to community newsletters much more easily. We are very excited to hear your feedback on the features we have planned. Feel free to share your thoughts here.
- Tinaj1234 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I'm going to be out of town until Thursday with no Wikipedia access. Everything is done other than copy editing the final version of Tom's op-ed (thanks Tom!), WW1 timeline if Tom has capacity to also contribute this, the FP (where I'd suggest only including a single image from the set!) and finishing off the project news page. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have the timeline up by the end of the day here (~UTC-6 wikipedia time}, so that shouldn't be an issue. Sorry, life has been difficult these last few weeks so I've been limited in my time to think critically here to write for the Bugle. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all Tom - we're all volunteers here, so there's no obligation on your part to provide anything - especially if you're otherwise occupied. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter help
Hi guys: I'm assuming you use a bot to deliver the Bugle to your contributors. May I ask which one? We're trying to get a project newsletter off the ground, and a bot would sure help to speed up delivery! Thanks, MeegsC (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day gents, might be worth highlighting Tomandjerry211's first ACM. Last one was Dudley nearly a year ago, and prior to that, Georgejdorner in January last year. Doesn't happen that often these days... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Typically archives of talk pages have an hat-notice and/or edit-notice that the page should not be edited. There is no similar message on this page of the Bugle issue. --Marc Kupper|talk20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Marc, regarding the missing bullet, I actually think that this has been done deliberately to denote which line is the work that is being reviewed, and which is the review. Regarding adding the wikilinks, in the absence of guidance, I see no issues with what seems like it would probably be a non controversial change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response AustralianRupert. I saw a couple more authors that could be wikilinked from that article and so did so. Thank you also for the explanation of the bullets and lack of. I suspect that could be improved by using "* Reviewed by " rather than using just a bullet to indicate the reviewers. --Marc Kupper|talk03:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to the Bugle project page from the header and Footer
Busy week, only had time for some routine housekeeping around WP. Looks like we've had help with FAs already so I hope to be able to format the FPs, tidy up any loose ends and get this edition out on Sunday. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@TomStar81: I'm going to be out of town this weekend, so can you please finish this off? I think that the only bits of the edition left are the op-ed (please feel under no obligation to finish this Tom if you're short on time though!) and the last bits of the project news page. Thanks Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for this. Is it OK if we hold it over until next month's edition? If you'd prefer though, please post it on the April reviews page. Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also: since a few people written essays on World War I, would it be possible to submit an Op-Ed on the Australian Army on the Somme? I'm not sure when the next slot would be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I have one more Op-Ed on the Somme for the birth of armored warfare; ideally, I'd be saving that for September since that'll be the centennial anniversary of the birth of armored warfare. If yours is time specific though then I have no objections to moving my other op-ed back a month to clear some space for someone else's op-ed. I think most of us are probably a little tired on consistently seeing my Op-Eds anyway, so a little variety wouldn't kill us :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification request: do you mean august as in this months bugle edition which will go out and be read mostly in August,or do you wanted the op-ed published for so that it goes out at the end of next month and gets read principally in September? In the case of the former you can get the next edition, if the case of the latter I can move my current op-ed off for you to have the space. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...Yeah, it didn't. Any idea why? I was under the impression we were going to share this month's Op-Ed, yet I seem to be the only one who got published. Can we run a correction? If not then I am happy to let you take Septembers Op-Ed (unless you want share). TomStar81 (Talk) 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! It looks like we missed that one. We can still easily run a couple in September - it would be best to not add it to the August edition as the page views figures show that most readers look at the Bugle within a few days of it being released. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Next Bugle - first ACM awarded to KAVEBEAR
G'day gents, just thought it might be nice to highlight another example of a first ACM in the next Bugle, just awarded to KAVEBEAR. I think each first timer should be highlighted as a way of encouraging continued connection to the project, but also to encourage others. It only happens a couple of times a year these days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Army isn't sending me books to review any more, so the selection reflects what I'm reading. This may be a bit monotonous for some. Let me know if there is a a recent book that you think people may enjoy a review of. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and AustralianRupert: Do either of you want to mention Peacemaker67 being the first to earn the Golden Wiki for Military Historian and Newcomer of the Year in this months Bugle edition? Its the first time this has happened, so I wanted to bring this to your attention to give you the chance to add a mention to that effect before it goes out. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble finding things in the Bugle archives. For some reason, the isssue numbers in the archive don't match those of the issues. And January 2017 is missing. Could someone have a look. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: May & June 2016 were a combined issue, that's where the miss-numbering got started. Good catch. I've got no idea how the number should go though, so someone with a little more familarity will have to decide where exactly we stand on that. And the monthly editions are updated by hand, so its up to us to add in the links. I usually get to it at the end of the year so I can simultaneous get all the previous op-ed pieces listed as well, although there really isn't a reason why it couldn't be done more frequently. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about September, since I was going to do one on the Russian revolution in October for October. Also, sorry for my extraordinarily long absences recently; trust me when i say there is a good reason for it, but due to circumstances beyond my control I got to keep a lid on it for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My OpEd is complete, so suggest running in September, and Tom's one on the October Revolution in October. Note that the October Revolution was actually in November! Hawkeye7(talk)19:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry Hawkeye, I did read the comment above but thought we were up to Tom's for some reason -- so no prob, we'll run yours! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Hawkeye -- actually I realise now it worked for me too but because I'd read through the piece when you first posted the link almost two weeks ago I think I had it in my head that we'd already used that one... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, there was a sentence about the US Army wasting time in the lead-up to WWI that didn't quite look right to me so I re-phased a bit but it may not be what you intended -- pls check my last edit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, thanks a lot. The book is retailing for something like $3 on Kindle at the moment, so I've snapped up a copy as well! Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick (or anyone else watching), dumb question, but how have we determined in the past that an FP is MilHist? Do we just judge it as such because it's of a castle or a soldier or whatever, or is there a place in the image file where it's claimed by projects as on article talk pages? I honestly can't recall even though I've checked for FPs in our purview in the past... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The process has always been totally subjective! I don't think images can be tagged by projects, especially as almost all are hosted on Commons. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@Nick-D: I've drafted a potential book review for The Bugle in my sandbox on a 2016 work, The Katangese Gendarmes and War in Central Africa: Fighting Their Way Home. I think it might add some diversity to our regular catalog of military history book reviews. Let me know what you guys make of it and if you are interested in running it in a future edition. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@Nick-D: After seeing this discussion on the project talk page, and particularly the suggestion that The Bugle can be "lacking international scope", I decided to throw together a feature on the role of military newspapers in East Africa during World War II. I've lodged it in the ol' sandbox for the moment. Not particularly surprising or of much consequence to our membership but it's something to read. Should you choose to run it, perhaps it will serve my dastardly scheme to spur interest in Africa topics *maniacal laugh*. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Thanks for this, it looks very interesting. I suspect that Tom may also be planning to write something to mark 100 years since the end of World War I to finish off his huge series of op eds on the war. We could easily run two op eds for November, or hold this over a month. Do you have a preference? Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@Nick-D:@Indy beetle: At this point, with the passing of the armistice, the bulk of the WWI Op-Ed pieces are done. I have in my head to write a few more to cover the ending treatise and other major points of note (like the scuttling of the fleet in scapa flow), but for all intents and purposes ya'll can now consider the Op-Ed section back to its original purpose. Incidentally, If you wanna run this for the December go ahead, but I had thought to put something out there (perhaps in the coordinator section) about the forthcoming end for the year awards and perhaps suggest that people keep an open mind since last year we had accusations that it was always the content people that got the recognition in those nominations. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tom. We'll run Indy Beetle's article next month, but I'd be very happy to run two op-eds in the same month if you'd also like to contribute something. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If no one volunteers an Op-Ed for the Bugle for January 2019 by the end of the week I'd be happy to keep the WWI series going with a post WWI-related Op-Ed, however I'd be cautious about doing that without a green light here first since there was a sense among the community that I've hogged the section enough over the last four years. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've written some thoughts on (mis)-use of the result parameter in the military conflict infobox, intended as an Op-Ed, if you're interested. It's 1st draft at the moment, but covers what I consider to be all the important bits. You can find it at User:Factotem/op-ed. Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ian and Nick. I have drafted a potential op-ed for the April edition of The Bugle in my sandbox. It covers the 40th anniversary of Idi Amin's overthrow in Uganda and reflects on some of the challenges of covering a topic of military history where there is only a sparse historiography to work with. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections I have a WWI Op-Ed piece i'd like to include in the next issue. I considered but ultimately decided against co-opting the section without feeling out where the op-ed should go, hence the post here first. Once I know where (if?) you want it I'll move from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for these. I've included the two Citino reviews as they're a set, and will run the other two in August. I liked Citino's books more than you did, but agree that they were rather uneven. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Hawkeye7, it seems Milhistbot is posting Oak Leaves awards to on Project News of the upcoming issue using the wrong image file name? It should be using File:WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).png. Also it seems to be posting them in a strange order, with oak leaves being posted above medals, but with diamonds at the bottom. I assume Nick and Ian have to make these minor adjustments, and I know there aren't major, but it would probably help them if Milhistbot was tweaked. I assume the order should be medals, oakleaves, swords, diamonds, crosses? In the interests of continuous improvement, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this is a proposed book review. I was told to contact someone here by Hawkeye7. Thanks for your time. I will appreciate any criticisms of the book review you may have and will be on hand to improve. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I don't always link every name in the contest, but always first and second place there, plus all the other names mentioned in Project News. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened to come across these tables at WP:TOLN that suggest milhist has seen a 2478% growth in GAs over the past ten years and a 403% in FAs (See them here under "Tree of Life's growing featured content". Perhaps worth a mention? Eddie891TalkWork00:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently read a nonfiction book about the Atlanta campaign of the ACW and I'm interested in attempting a book review draft in my userspace. What are the exact recommendations (length et al.) for this? Hog FarmBacon04:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hog Farm, personally I don't do and don't review book reviews; I cannot give you grammar tips even though that's not my duty but I have removed some unnecessary spaces. Anyway, it could be handy to add your book's publishing details you know ISBN or OCLC at the bottom of the review, for people who are interested in the book then they can read it themselves. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, seen it, ignored it. I'm kidding of course, I've just always wanted to say that... ;-) Tks mate, I'm sure we can use it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the Bot has instructions to add new awards, A class article notices etc to next month's issue. So it is currently adding them to September; but the August issue has not yet appeared. Would it be more convenient if it added material to the next issue, or keep it as it is? Hawkeye7(discuss)05:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quarterly reviewing blurb for the October Bugle
G'day guys,
I couldn't find the new pages for October, so herewith the blurb:
The quarterly reviewing awards for July to September have been handed out, with a total of 182 FA, FL, A-Class, GA and peer reviews conducted by 19 editors in the last quarter. These numbers are an improvement on last quarter, but still down on 2020, where the lowest quarter had over 230 reviews. Top of the list was Buidhe with 25 reviews, Nick-D (20), Hog Farm (20) and Hawkeye7 (16) also receiving the WikiChevrons. Thanks to all who reviewed, you made a significant contribution to the throughput of quality content by this Project.
The big year-end older FA review initiative is looking to post some progress/update reports once the year is over, would the Bugle be interested in doing something with that related to the MILHIST-relevant ones? I don't think there'd be any pickiness with interview, short paragraph, etc. Hog FarmTalk16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this, if the Bugle is interested I can create a report that outlines URFA/2020's work, with specific focus on the articles that fall within MILHIST's purview. Would you be interested in such a report? Please ping me or post on WT:URFA/2020 if interested. Z1720 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
recommend bot to scrub your newsletter delivery list
User:Yapperbot/Pruner is currently in use on WP:FRS, pruning the names of inactive editors from newsletter subscriber lists so their respective talk pages don't become over-filled with newsletter announcements. When I was Signpost's publication manager I irregularly scrubbed our list after finding massmessage error reports showing which talk pages were too big to receive messages. Chris Troutman (talk)18:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion landmarks
I have no idea if this might be considered newsworthy, but in March I had my 50th FAC and 100th GAN promotions. For the chronologically ordered lists, see here. By a curious twist of near symmetry my 25th ACR was promoted in February. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just passed the mark of 100 items of featured content, with 93 featured articles, three featured lists, and four featured topics. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bugle issue numbering got a bit eccentric in the previous few months. I have corrected the archives and the back issues. The May issue should be CXCIII. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Hawkeye -- Nick-D, I share your thoughts above, should we be bold and start with Arabic in the New Year? OTOH getting to CC might make life a bit easier in Roman for a while... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's change over to Arabic. Most of the above is due to me being unable to do even the most basic mathematics with Roman numerals! Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, it's so neat getting to the 200 (I mean CC...!) milestone at the end of the year I think switching over in the New Year is too good an opportunity to miss. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, there was an op-ed or interview to commemorate 150 issues, wherein members commented on the Bugle, made suggestions, etc. We could do something similar for the Dec issue, perhaps prepare the page and link to it in the Nov issue so people have a while to respond and then publish in Dec for the 200th. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting mentions of Wikipedia's military history content in The New York Times
In a mark of his confidence as a scholar, Kennedy does not gloss over his reliance on that online encyclopedia. He quotes from Wikipedia liberally in the main text, cites it more often than any other single source and regrets that he cannot acknowledge so many “fine though anonymous” authors by name. And indeed, Wikipedia does not deserve much of the disparagement often aimed against it. As a “first look” reference, it is a handy tool; this reviewer even consulted it while writing this review. Wikipedia’s articles on military history have improved in recent years, and many contain information not easily found elsewhere on the web. But, by Wikipedia’s own account, studies measuring its accuracy and reliability have been mixed, and its crowdsourced model means that any page can be edited by anyone, at any time, anonymously. For that reason, Wikipedia “does not consider itself to be a reliable source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings.” Many university professors would mark down a student paper that included uncorroborated Wikipedia citations. For a major university press to include more than 80 in one volume may be unprecedented. What on earth is going on in New Haven?
Yeah, it's a really interesting review. A top tier historian like Paul Kennedy relying extensively on Wikipedia is surprising. From memory, he cited Wikipedia a few times in his earlier book Engineers of Victory but this was done pretty carefully. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interview for the Signpost
Hi! I was wondering if you'd be down to be interviewed as part of a WikiProject report with a special focus on WikiProjects that use internal publications and how they create them. I'm still drafting some questions off-wiki but thought I'd ask now. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd be happy to. I'll be travelling for the next month of so, but will be checking into Wikipedia periodically, so please ping me (and on that topic I'll ping my co-editor @Ian Rose:). Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, Hawkeye, I'd like to despatch this month's issue in the next 24 hrs so just checking with the usual suspects if there's any book reviews you have up your sleeves... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away all week and only just got back. I did have one up my sleeve, so I have added it to the Book Reviews page. If you could give it a quick proof read, that would be great. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
