Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.

Coordinator tasks[edit]

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
  • 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:
    1. Determine whether the review needs to be closed and archived, per the criteria here.
    2. 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, move the existing A-Class review page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Article title/archive1 (increasing the number if there has been more than one review) without leaving a redirect. You will also need to adjust the article assessment history to reflect the new target page for the old review. 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
  • At the end of each quarter, all editors that complete at least one A-Class review receive a Milhist reviewing award. Create a new thread on the Coordinators' talk page and paste the following boilerplate into the body, leaving the subject line empty:{{subst:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing Table}}. Save the thread, reopen it and change the months and year in the subject line and table, add a comment under the table, sign and save the thread again. Then tally the qualifying reviews:
    1. Tally A-Class Reviews. As only those editors who complete at least one Milhist A-Class review receive an award, start by tallying them. Go to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/201X]] (inserting the correct year) and click on the links to check all the A-Class articles that were promoted, failed, kept or demoted in the relevant quarter. Tally the number of articles reviewed by each editor. One suggested method is to use a simple pen-and-paper tally of usernames as you scroll through the relevant archive; another is to save the relevant reviews into a word processor and delete all content except the usernames of the reviewers, then tally from there. Regardless of which method is chosen, it can be time consuming so you may need to do it over several sessions. Once done, add each editor who completed an A-Class review to the User column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table, and add one point to the ACR column for each article that editor reviewed.
    2. Tally Good Article Reviews. Methods are to go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare revision history for the quarter and tally the articles added by each editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table or to use the Pages Created tool to isolate GA nomination pages created by a specific user. Add one point to the GA column for each MilHist article that those editors reviewed. Note that the accuracy of this method relies upon reviewers listing GAs per instructions.
    3. Tally Peer Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive and click on the links to open the archive pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the PR column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
    4. Tally Featured Article Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations, and click on the links to open the archive of review pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the FAC column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
  • Tally the total number of points for each editor and add them to the Total column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table.
  • Award all reviewers in accordance with the following schedule (the award templates are all available under "Military history awards" below):
    1. 15+ points – the WikiChevrons
    2. 8–14 points – the Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
    3. 4–7 points – the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes)
    4. 1-3 points – the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe)
  • Sign the Awarded column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table for each editor to signify that the award has been presented.

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

How to...[edit]

Boilerplate and templates[edit]

Open tasks[edit]

Topics for future discussion[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Open award nominations[edit]

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[edit]

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.

MILHIST CCI cases[edit]

The following open CCI cases contain MILHIST articles (some usernames are omitted from the case titles because they are real names):

  1. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dawkeye
  2. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819
  3. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Degen Earthfast
  4. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789
  5. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004
  6. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D
  7. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kprtqrf06
  8. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mztourist
  9. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125
  10. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210418
  11. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Bluecountrymutt
  12. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013
  13. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hary1mo
  14. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833

Assistance with these cases is requested, but the work is tedious. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been working on #9 above, and it is a very messy ACW one. Hog Farm Talk 20:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


An eleventh case has opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And another one: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hary1mo. Involves a bunch of commons images, so any help from those who speak licensing or Commons would be appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


ACR to-do list for January[edit]

That's everything that is more than a month old, although there are also five more recent nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AutoCheck report for January[edit]

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January Article Writing Contest[edit]

I have done the write up for The Bugle and dished out the Writer's Barnstar for the runner-up, will someone do the honours for the ahem, winner? Thanks, Zawed (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our banner template[edit]

Our project banner template ({{WikiProject Military history}}) is now one of only two project banners that have not been migrated to use {{WPBannerMeta}}. That's probably because it is one of the oldest, dating back to 2005, and one of the most complicated. DFlhb (talk · contribs) has been working on producing a version that uses WPBannerMeta. This is incomplete, but has progressed quite well. You can read the discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Military history and the WPBannerMeta version is available at {{WikiProject_Military history/sandbox}}. The idea is to make it completely compatible with the existing template, so the switch over will not be noticeable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AutoCheck report for February[edit]

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

It's not. I've removed the tag. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ACR to-do list for March 2023[edit]

I think this one could probably be closed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contest results for March Bugle[edit]

Hi guys, if some kind person would like to add this in here, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Hello...?!
Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ian Rose: - I've slung something together for the Bugle. Hog Farm Talk 15:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done all of the backroom work for February, apart from awarding the prize for first place ... Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ACR to-do list for April 2023[edit]