Wikipedia talk:MHC

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

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:
    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, 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
  • 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
Miscellaneous

How to...

Boilerplate and templates

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

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.

MILHIST CCI cases

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/20130819
  2. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Degen Earthfast
  3. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789
  4. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004
  5. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D
  6. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kprtqrf06
  7. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mztourist
  8. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125
  9. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210418
  10. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Bluecountrymutt
  11. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013
  12. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833
  13. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230508

Discussion

Archived two project page talk pages; correctly?

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I have manually moved two threads about the December backlog reduction drive and military historian/newcomer of the year nominations and voting from active talk page to Archive 178. The threads were completed near the end of the year. I put them after a December 31 completed thread in the archive. They were taking up considerable space on the active page. If I did that incorrectly or otherwise messed up the archiving, please let me know so I won't repeat any mistake. Also, please tell me how to correct the problem and I will do so, or correct it along with any reply to me here. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Dec 2025 contest results

Hi guys, could someone add the results to the Jan 2026 Bugle pls? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Working on it now. I started on it earlier this month but seem to have gotten distracted and forgot to finish it (groan). Donner60 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Done. Donner60 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for January

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

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: @Hog Farm, Sturmvogel 66, and Zawed: I have updated the list of participants in the military aviation task force to eliminate blocked users and links to removed user accounts. I have hidden users that have not edited for more than three months - almost all are much longer. This has removed or hidden 48 of the 75 previously listed active participants. I think that links to these inactive or disappeared users are a hindrance and time waster for anyone looking to contact current editors on topics within this large category. As it now stands, even a few of the remaining participants do not edit very often. The warning on the page about inactive users is still well taken.

Articles on these topics appear to be coming up for assessment or reassessment more often than for some other topics, which is the reason that I did these updates.

It appears that I made a spacing error that reduced the margins on later sections. It may relate in some way to the table in the next section. This may or may not make much difference to the reader or length of the page in general. Nonetheless, I think it would be good for someone to look at this to see if it is a problem of any sort and, if so, to adjust the margins if you know how to do it.

I also made an update to the maritime task force but do not appear to have altered the layout of the page in any way, which I find puzzling. In line with the text on the page, I did not remove any user who had edits within the last year. Perhaps I will look at other task forces later but it took considerable time today to review just these two. (I updated some, but not near all participant lists, about this time last year.) Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There were some unclosed comment brackets that were preventing the div style tag from closing (and hence carrying over the column width to the rest of the page). I've fixed it. I wonder if this is something a bot might be able to do; periodically comment out editors from the list if they haven't edited in a year and readd them if they return? No idea if this is technically possible or, if it is, how arduous it would be to code - Dumelow (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. I am totally unfamiliar with how to code bots. Hawkeye7 is the bot expert and I think he would be best able to comment on that. Donner60 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Sure it's possible! It is what we already do with the main members list! I will have to file a Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
@Dumelow: I've coded and tested the bot. I will submit a BRFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Excellent news, well done Hawkeye7! - Dumelow (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Adding my thanks as well. Donner60 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Jan 2026 contest results

Hi guys, could someone add the results to the Feb 2026 Bugle pls? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Contest results added. I deserve a trouting (spell check says it isn't a word, however). Second month in a row that I drafted it early in the month and forgot to transfer it later in the month. Donner60 (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It's okay, how often have I done 80% of my stuff on the issue in the first week or so and then let it sit while getting on with other things...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Bots cluttering WT:MILHIST

There seems to be several new bots that are posting a new threads at WT:MILHIST each time an article within the project's scope is nominated for a move. These are User:TarnishedPath/MovePlus, User:TheTVExpert/rmCloser and User:BilledMammal/Move+. Given the huge scope of the project, this is cluttering up our discussion page with low priority stuff. Is there a way to block or opt out of these messages? Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

These, and similar messages, should be posted to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input sub-page; I try to move them there when I can (Donner60 has done the honours for the most recent batch). Boilerplate templates tend not to get any interaction, but maybe people do click through and comment at the linked article; doing this leaves the main talk clearer for those topics actually generating discussion - Dumelow (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

A-class reviews, again

We have a large backlog of A-class reviews once again, with none having passed since January. I think that there's a need for much more active management by the coordinator team to try to rebuild momentum. Quite a few of the nominations date from last year:

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Marked A-class=pass on article talk page. Donner60 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I am assuming that as a coordinator emeritus it is uncontroversial for me to close ACRs in cases like those above, but please let me know if I should not do this again. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, thanks for the nudge. I am more than happy for you to take whatever coord actions you like, we are very short on the ground this year. I've been a bit busy elsewhere recently but will try to get some reviews in to help out - Dumelow (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Dumelow. As I interpret the general remarks about emeritus coordinators, those coordinators can do the same tasks as current coordinators. They should feel no obligation to do anything in particular, however. They can do as much or as little as they wish and have time or interest in doing. Another step would be to post on notice on the project talk page asking experienced users to help with A-class reviews. A few do already. As Dumelow notes, there are not many active coordinators this year so additional help is needed even more than in the past few years. Donner60 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I've certainly always interpreted the guidelines as being that an emeritus is as good (or bad!) as a current coord, and have closed the odd ACR accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Nick, it is quite appropriate for you to close ACRs in your capacity as a coordinator emeritus. We have fewer coordinators than hitherto and your pitching in is most welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

ACC issue

Hey, I got my latest A-class award, but it gave me a 6th regular cross, when this should have been an ACC with oak leaves. Can somebody fix it? Not sure if it's as simple as moving the line, or if the bot will get mad because the nom was for a regular ACC. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I will fix it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it! Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Having investigated, I think that it is okay now. The award was based on the template, which was incorrect, but the error has since been fixed. I have manually upgraded your award. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I approved it. I checked the five articles were promoted and had not been listed against previous award but didn't think to check if the level of award itself was correct; one to remember for the future. Many congratulations Parsecboy, there's not many of these given out! - Dumelow (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Not your fault; it should have been correct and the Bot was in error. The next big test will be when I can rack up another nomination, for this will be the first A-Class Cross with Swords and the Bot will have to execute a new set of instructions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for March

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

MilHistBot (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for February

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

MilHistBot (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for April

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

  • I'm going to say not in scope. At best it's a terrorism article that may eventually grow to being a counterterrorism article but it doesn't directly have any MilHist nexus. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for my prolonged absence here

...these last so many months have seen me focus on my health - physical and mental - but it hasn't much left time for Wikipedia. Trying to change that, hopefully in the next so many weeks I should be back on here a little more. Sorry for any inconvenience my absence may have caused. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It's always great to see you around Tom, but obviously your health comes first. I'm glad to see that you're feeling a bit better. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Nick-D. Your health comes first. I am glad you feel up to working on Wikipedia again. Certainly you should do as much or as little as you are up to. We are all volunteers, after all. Donner60 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Hope you are feeling better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Just to echo the others with my best wishes for your health and appreciation for any Wikipediaing you are ready and able to do Much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

A class reviews for attention

Some of these just need a little extra.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish Land Forces

Dear Coordinators, Shadow4dark and I are counselling a fervent Turkish believer on this page, but this user is getting a little excited and is engaging in repeated personal attacks. If any Coord has a little time to spare, advice and/or action after a review of the last talkpage comments would be much appreciated. Kind regards and many thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I see the user has been blocked for personal attacks. That should take care of the problem which you have noted. Although three coordinators (one of whom is ill) and two emeritus coordinators are administrators, this type of problem (personal attacks) is best handled at the administrator notice board where more administrators will see it. If you are asking about the merits of the issue which led to the personal attacks, coordinators (and former coordinators if watching this page) may be able to offer comments. For wider coverage, such review requests should be made on the project talk page where it may attract more attention to the merits and perhaps even lead to mediation in some case.
I am not suggesting this type of question or request for review might not also be raised here as well if you think it appropriate or you think help from experienced current coordinators and emeritus coordinators in particular might be especially able to help. I make the suggestion for putting the question or request on the project talk page in particular this year because there are fewer coordinators and emeritus coordinators to respond than in previous years and the usual volume of review work to be done. Thanks for seeking third party opinions and resolution. It is much better than edit warring, of course. Donner60 (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, FWIW not that you can't raise the issue here, or that AN(/I)is not the "correct" place, but I would be able to respond faster with (and do not mind) a direct ping on my talk page; the user was already blocked by the time I saw this.SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for May

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

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Some articles on American politicians. Second opinion sought as to whether their military service was sufficiently defining to warrant being in scope. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • For the ones with military service that we had records of their career, I kept as I lean towards that being in-scope. Albeit brief, a couple of sentences with the service record of X having fought in Y campaign, listing some promotions and units, is sufficiently historically relevant for us to consider it in scope. Importance would of course be "Low", but still non-zero. The USPHS guy, I excluded as his service was non-military in nature. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Trying to start an A-class review

It's been a few years, but I've finally done something better than GA quality. I moved the old review page for HMS Duke of York (17) as instructed but I can't get the new review page started. I think that I may have left a redirect behind when I moved it. If that's truly my mistake, then the instructions need to say not to do that. Thanks in advance! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I've deleted the redirect. Can you try and see if you can create the review page now? - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
No joy. The additional information section still just shows the failed nom--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I've bravely gone and deleted a bit of template - does that solve your issue? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Indeed it does, bless you and your temerity!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Re-appraisal of Smedley Butler

Smedley Butler was listed as A-Class in 2010, and it seems due for re-appraisal - see Talk:Smedley Butler#Sourcing in "Business Plot" section. Looks like the article should be checked for balance and strength of sourcing in general. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Nominated for GA review: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Smedley Butler/1. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)