User talk:Ian Rose

Archives: 2006 * Jan-Jun 2007 * Jul-Dec 2007 * Jan-Jun 2008 * Jul-Dec 2008 * Jan-Jun 2009 * Jul-Dec 2009 * Jan-Jun 2010 * Jul-Dec 2010 * Jan-Jun 2011 * Jul-Dec 2011 * Jan-Jun 2012 * Jul-Dec 2012 * Jan-Jun 2013 * Jul-Dec 2013 * Jan-Jun 2014 * Jul-Dec 2014 * Jan-Jun 2015 * Jul-Dec 2015 * Jan-Jun 2016 * Jul-Dec 2016 * Jan-Jun 2017 * Jul-Dec 2017 * Jan-Jun 2018 * Jul-Dec 2018

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for Thomas White (Australian politician), Vance Drummond, and Lou Spence. MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Hawkeye/MilHistBot! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		2018 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki for sharing third place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a good idea Gerda! Thank you, and a very pleasant and productive 2019 to you. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for William Bostock, on his birthday! I updated the above with a link to a 4 Feb birthday which includes the 3 Feb birthday, when we sang two compositions by that birthday child, closing with Jauchzet dem Herrn, alle Welt ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda -- and by the way, your pictures are beautiful! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean the calendar pics, but am quite proud that the one of Michael Herrmann appeared on the Main page in 2011, and the one of Werner Bardenhewer on the German Main page on his 90th birthday (which he spent in a monastery in Africa). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and then he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April

Thank you today for Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer), "another Air Marshal, another interesting character"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gerda! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May

May

Rapeseed

... and today Bobby Gibbes, saying "I've made use of a good many sources to try and tell Gibbes' story in context, and to get behind the usual facade of the fearless fighter pilot and crack shot, neither of which he claimed to be. Still, "irrepressible" is the word I'd use to describe him: a dual ace who flew combat in a cast when he broke his ankle; went beyond the call of duty to rescue one of his mates who crashed in the desert; participated in the "Morotai Mutiny" of 1945; pioneered air transport in New Guinea; and built and flew his own light plane in his 60s and 70s."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Gerda! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Ian. Apologies if this is not the correct place for this request. My FA nom Siege of Berwick (1333) has five supports, an image review and a placeholder for the source review which has been there for two weeks. I have reminded the placeholding editor, but I wondered if I might have permission to nominate a further FA while we wait for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, yes, a coord's talk page is fine for this, or you can ping us on the extant nom page. I'd normally say yes straight away in a case like this but I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (which we normally ask for at one's first FAC nom but apparently didn't through oversight) and therefore I'd prefer we hold off on a second nom until that happens. I'm probably being overcautious but this is a fundamental part of the process so I hope you're okay with that. I'll add a note to the FAC page re. the spotcheck as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. No worries. I saw a mention of a relaxed attitude to granting permissions and thought it worth asking. As it happens the editor who said they would source review has come back saying they hope to do this tomorrow. I fully understand the quality control issues. I shall, attempt to, control my impatience. Cheers Gog the Mild (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Gog. Yeah, not so much a relaxed attitude as just encouraging editors to make use of an existing convention -- which as I say I would've acted on immediately you requested it but for the spotcheck thing. Anyway, as that seems to have turned up no major issues, pls feel free now to nominate a second article at your convenience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian. Battle of Auberoche coming up. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. Me again. With the same request again. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Auberoche/archive1 seems, to my untutored eye, to only be waiting for Sturmvogel 66 to sign off on a couple of minor points in the source review. While we wait, could I have permission to nominate my next article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this till now -- busy day. Anyway, I think Sarastro has answered this one for you already... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no need to apologise. I appreciate the smooth way in which the FA process is kept running, and don't expect special treatment for my impatience. I am impressed by the efficiency of your TPW though. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Henry Petre, Australian Air Corps, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), Eastern Area Command (RAAF), and Ragnar Garrett you are hereby awarded this WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your work on Henry Petre, Australian Air Corps, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), Eastern Area Command (RAAF), and Ragnar Garrett you are hereby awarded The Featured Article Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikiwings
		For your work on Henry Petre, Australian Air Corps, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), and Eastern Area Command (RAAF) I hereby award you the Wikiwings. Congrats!

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work on Henry Petre, Australian Air Corps, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), Eastern Area Command (RAAF), and Ragnar Garrett you are hereby presented with The Australian Barnstar of National Merit. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Ian Rose by TomStar81 (Talk) on 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Henry Petre, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), and Ragnar Garrett you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi Ian. I have re-nominated this and hope that is acceptable by the established process. The article's main authors have reviewed it very thoroughly and addressed every criticism we could find. It has been at least two weeks and I have no other nominations pending. Let me know if there are any concerns. Thank you for all your good work. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Jehochman -- tks for checking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, quick heads up, I've heard (unofficially) that this one will be at TFA on his birthday. Anything special you want to see in the blurb? - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, any chance you can unofficially get it canned...?! I'm kinda over seeing any of 'my' articles on the front page, even if they are relatively non-controversial and don't attract as much rubbish as some, but especially older ones like this that would need more attention before they went live. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Ealdgyth. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.... I've been sick. Generally, it's not something we do. It's not like Wehwalt and I don't share your pain, but they have to go up sometime. It's the price we pay for doing good work. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cape May County, New Jersey/archive1 - could you withdraw/remove this FAC? It wasn't as ready as I thought it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Done. Sarastro (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that William Bostock has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 5 February 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 5, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already have one solo FAC and another co-nom'd with L293D. I'd like to add another one with Parsecboy, if I could.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, the way I tend to judge these is that the instructions say you can't have two solo noms simultaneously, so anything that "adds up" to less than two is fine. Since you have a solo and a co-nom, another co-nom would effectively be the same as two solos... It'd be different if one of the current ones was close to promotion but I don't think that's the case so I think we should wait a bit. Of course if Andy or Sarastro think differently, I'm more than happy to reconsider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Hiyo and Bretagne look to be just about done, so I'd like to re-nominate Albatros which was archived last month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier -- that should be fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

I can probably do a review or two this week; I looked at the urgents and I think it needs updating, so any requests? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And pinging Sarastro1 and Laser brain since I just realized what time it is in Australia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike -- there are actually quite a few at the bottom of the list that we can probably promote. Looking further up the list, if you could try Allison Guyot and/or Fall of Kampala, I think it'd help. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- I'll take a look at at least one of them in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I was wondering if you could look at my current FAC. It has only been up for ten days, but it has received four support votes, an image review, and a source review. Since it has not been up that long (not even two weeks), I am not certain that is ready for promotion, but I was just wondering your thoughts on its status? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, it's looking pretty good so far but I like to leave noms open at least 2-3 weeks to give busy editors a chance to comment. I think we could do with one or two more people casting their eye over it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Understandable, and I agree that is for the best. Aoba47 (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for the message, but I was just curious about the status of the FAC. It has been a little over a week since my last message, and one additional editor supported the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, just wondering if you had anything else re: your review? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably all good, will try and take a look soon. Now you mention it, how's Lou Spence look to you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, have supported now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, noticing that you have an interest in first wave punk, have put "Cut the Crap" up for PR. Its a strange addition to their cannon that brings up a lot of heated emotions, with that in mind the PR is framed as a "safe space" were you can eff, blind, and vent about mid 80s music and where did it all go wrong to your hearts content. You input anyhow would be valued. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for thinking of me Ceoil, I've bookmarked article and PR and will try to comment when I can. You're right about the interest, though I'll admit I wasn't a big Clash fan -- perhaps that will allow me to be more severely objective than I might otherwise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"severely objective"? haha / <gulp> - bring it on! Ceoil (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian

1. Thanks for tidying up Siege of Aiguillon prior to promoting it to FA. A little embarrassing that so many niggly bits were left, even if I can console myself with the thought that a lot of other eyes had missed them too.
2. Apologies that my attempted op-ed for The Bugle wasn't up to the mark. I think that it got a bit out of control. Let me know if you would like me to have an attempt at one in a more traditional style.
3. I help out a little at both the Four Awards and the Triple Crown. It has been noted that neither gets the traffic that it used to, and suggested that some gentle promotion may be in order. As a first step, would it be in order to put something in The Bugle making people aware of both awards? If so, would it be down to me to draft something and submit it to you for approval? Do you have any other suggestions re promotion, or an opinion as to whether this is a good idea in the first place?

Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, on the go now so just replying to point 3 for now... I'm not sure about mentioning those things in the project news page but do you think it might be worth an op-ed? Perhaps you could go a little into the scope and history of the awards and how they motivate people (or even just yourself), as well as discussing how they could use more participation. Bugle op-eds can be (and have been) a forum for WP processes as well as broader military subjects... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there is a good way to ask FAC coordinators a question, so asking you individually. Will Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger B. Chaffee/archive1 require a spot check? All my other FACs I co-nominated with Hawkeye, so this is my first solo-nom FAC. Kees08 (Talk) 04:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that Kees. In that case I'd prefer to see a spotcheck -- I'm sure you both did your share of the referencing in your co-noms but if this is the first time you're bearing the whole load I think a spotcheck wouldn't hurt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I'm going to be taking almost a month off from editing to work on a project that I hope will benefit new editors. I want to be available for a week after I post any proposed blurbs, so the timing is a little tight. Would it be okay if I post my suggested blurbs (currently in User:Dank/Sandbox/5) to FAC talk pages before the articles get promoted? I'll add a disclaimer, of course, that I'm not trying to predict when or if articles will get promoted. (Just between us, I don't even think about doing blurbs until I see two solid supports.) I'm just trying to get people to look at the blurbs before I leave. It's fine to say "no", of course, if you have concerns about the blurb review process interfering in any way with the FAC process. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in this. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 13, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...so, ping! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start this off by saying it does not really bother me, so only take action if it bothers you :). I presume you place FAs into the various sections on Wikipedia:Featured_articles (if not please point me in the right direction). Warfare biographies has Alan Shepard and John Glenn, while Neil Armstrong is under Physics and astronomy biographies. With Aldrin, Collins, and Chaffee coming up, as well as Dave Scott I think, it could be useful to make the categorization consistent. GA puts them under Physics and astronomy (to be fair, I might have made that subcategory). Anyways, it does not bother me if they are not grouped together on the FA page, but I thought maybe it would bother someone, so just wanted to bring it up. Kees08 (Talk) 00:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Kees -- it's an interesting question, and there's probably no ideal answer but consistency is certainly desirable. I think people should be in a category that would earn them their wikinotability alone, and most if not all astronauts would not tend to fall into the military category for that, even though many had a military background (Glenn might be an exception but as far as 'secondary notability' goes his political career would challenge his military one). For the primary category I wonder if even Physics & Astronomy is appropriate -- I notice the Apollo missions are under Engineering & Technology so does that work better? Perhaps my tps' would like to weigh in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on it, I guess one could argue that although the US space program was a civilian operation, most of the astronauts were in the military at the time of their flights so perhaps it's as good a category for them as any. Armstrong is an exception, I believe he'd resigned even his commission in the reserves by the time he became an astronaut, so probably best he remain in Physics & Astronomy (or Engineering & Technology if that works better still) -- Hawkeye, what's your thoughts on this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a question about an FLC of mine which has been open for 5 weeks with 4 support votes and no opposition. Can it be promoted as I’d like to devote my attention to other projects.—NØ 10:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I'm a coord for FAC, you might want to consult with the coords listed at the top of FLC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I’ll do so!—NØ 10:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Hello again! I hope you are doing well. My current FAC has attracted a substantial amount of commentary, and I was wondering if I would be allowed to post a second FAC. I am on the fence on whether or not I would do so as there is something nice after taking an FAC one at a time and I am honestly not in a rush for the current one. I am grateful for the editors that took the time to comment on it and help to improve it as that particular article has gotten immensely better since the FAC started. I was just curious if it was an option? Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, I think we're pretty close to where I'd say go ahead with a second FAC, but I wouldn't mind seeing BLZ's initial source comments first if that's okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, In Hewitt's article, prose says Keith while References say co-author with Alan Stephens is Jeff. (Ditto on Allan Walters). I can see it's Jeff here but are they 2 different aviation writers or same fellow using both names? JennyOz (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, tks Jen, my error -- there is a Keith Isaacs but nothing to do with this work AFAIK. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth wants to run this one at TFA on the 6th. Thoughts? I'm having a hard time getting it done. Feel free to write the blurb, or if you prefer, let me know what you'd like to see in the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dan, busy lately but will have a look now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, you know what's coming... blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 6, 2019. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you picked one that wasn't ten years old... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, there are a stack of references on the Gurney page relating to his death. Is it necessary to repeat them given that he is linked to the 33 article?Lexysexy (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, according to WP guidelines it is, especially in a Featured Article. The references there already, Gillison and the WW2 roll, support that he died in a crash, as the article says now -- if we want to add that he was flying with the yanks at the time then it'd need a further citation, and that's up to whoever wants to add that snippet (which I don't think is that vital, Gillison obviously didn't think so either). Best, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, the only FP promoted in April which might be in scope for The Bugle is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brest, 1700. It doesn't seem to be included in any military-related articles, but does pretty clearly show that the town was fully enclosed by fortifications. I think that this probably puts it in-scope, but what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm kinda on the fence (or the wall!) with that one -- does Adam Cuerden have an opinion? I'm aiming to despatch the issue tonight or early tomorrow so I guess we'd better decide soon... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, given Brest's military significance I think why not -- will add it in and then I think we can despatch the issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

Hi Ian Rose, I saw you deleted my FAC nomination of James A. Doonan for being out of process. As far as I'm aware, I followed the FAC process. Can you explain? Ergo Sum 15:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the instructions at the top of WP:FAC it states, "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." IOW the same process as if one nominated the same article immediately after it was archived. The first time your statue nom was archived I said let's waive the two-week waiting period because there was little commentary (again per FAC instructions), but this time there was a reasonable amount so I didn't feel a waiver was justified. Cheers, 22:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. I was under the impression that the two week hiatus applied to individual articles, not nominators. Should have read more closely. Ergo Sum 22:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a few borderline ones (they're explained in hidden comments), as I figure it's better to be a little broad than too narrow. I haven't added any of them into the showcase yet. I believe the space race is considered in scope for us, right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 03:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so -- part of the Cold War, mainly military crews, etc. Will have a look when I can, many tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's really just Tarbell and maybe Bohr - people with definite connections to military history, but who are vastly more famous for something else. I think Fawcett's Boer War investigations push her beyond doubt, though. The Japanese-American internments of WWII presumably count, and the only other thing I can think of that might be questioned is Mary Jackson, who's definitely part of the space race, but maybe engineers are one step too far removed from MILHIST? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 01:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One other question: Should notable peace campaigners (Aletta Jacobs in particular) be included under MILHIST? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 06:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam and Nick, sorry it's taken so long to properly review the FPs in this month's issue. Taking a hard look at each case, I do think we might be going a bit too broadly. I remember posing the question once, when we were deciding what should go in one month, if we could determine inclusion according to whether an image was tagged by the MilHist project or not, and was informed that images don't get projects assigned. Well fair enough but could we decide it based on whether the subject is claimed by the project or not? Many of these aren't and I think we need to ask ourselves which of them could fairly be tagged as MilHist? I don't think Jemison could be -- no military career I can see and in the space program just as the Cold War was ending. Hosokawa seems a stretch despite his internment -- his career as a war correspondent occupies a sentence in the article. I know what I said about the Space Race above but Tranquility Base never had a military career as such like the early astronauts did. Of those remaining, if we include them in the Bugle I think we should put our money where our mouth is and tag the subject articles for MilHist if they aren't already. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian and Adam, Firstly, thanks for putting this together Adam - it's best to cast the net widely given that the project's inclusion criteria tend to be both broad and somewhat vague. Regarding the images here, I agree that the Jemison and Hosokawa images are out of scope. While the US military was involved with the Apollo Program, the Tranquility Base image doesn't depict a significant aspect of this, so I'd suggest omitting it as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise the Hosokawa image is at Heart Mountain Relocation Center, right? I can't see how the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans isn't MILHIST. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 12:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for now I'll remove Jemison and Tranquility only. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the North-Eastern Area Command article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 17, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 17, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, this is one of your noms, you're welcome to do it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, now I see WT:Featured article candidates/North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)/archive1, so I guess we're good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, always good to hear from you -- not sure if I checked the blurb there, will do so in due course. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no rush. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

There's maybe one more: Keitel signing the German surrender after WWII - but unless you think Frederick Fleet is MILHIST then all the current ones are up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 16:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Also Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov will end FPC on the 30th. So might get another. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 22:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one note. If Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov does pass FP, be careful not to also use the image in the A-class section. Because I do TRY to grab FP candidates from recently promoted stuff when I can find a good subject. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 03:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Adam. Yeah I think Fleet's MilHist connection is pretty tenuous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing, and I realise this is an odd question: I was surprised to learn The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was under MILHIST. Does that mean Marino Faliero (opera) is as well, and the FP for it counts? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 01:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

Hi Ian. I wonder if I could query the status of my FAC nom for Battle of Crécy. It has had four supports and image and source reviews for two weeks, and four days ago picked up a fifth support. I am not feeling especially impatient given that you let me nominate my next FAC ten days ago, but I am wondering if there is anything which I should or could be doing to move it along? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'll be there in the next few days to take a look. There must be something in the water... no pun intended. Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There must indeed -- tks for the heads-up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

My request for additional reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Bulwark (1899)/archive1 was very promptly responded to and it should be promotable now. Might I add a new nomination in anticipation of its promotion?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that'd be fine Sturm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. It was most appreciated. Especially from those who voted even when it was going west. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it, your resilience in the face of what seems collective shortsightedness -- including even some whose work and opinions otherwise command deep respect -- is quite an inspiration. Thanks for your continuing commitment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I trust all is well with you. You may have seen that I've been working on the Goldfinger (novel) article recently. This is now at PR, if you have the time and inclination to give it a once over? No problems if you can't - entirely understandable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gav, guess what went onto my watchlist almost as soon as you opened it...? ;-) That said, RL has been busy, and I can't promise I'll get to it, but if not PR then certainly the FAC that will presumably follow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian - no rush and if you can't make it, then not a problem. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Apologies for always messaging you. I was just curious about my current FAC. It has received comments from several editors and has received a source review and an image review. I would think it is ready for promotion, but I was wondering about your opinion. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, will try to look over this w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see this has been taken care of -- tks Andy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I hope that you are going to be nominating yourself to be a MilHist coordinator again. If you are undecided, can I urge you to take two paces forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys, not playing hard to get, just aware that owing to FAC and RL I haven't been able to spend much time on MilHist coord duties this past year, and not sure that will change in the foreseeable. If it looked like we were short of candidates I would've come on board but I think we're pretty okay there, and if one or two drop out during the year I'm open to being drafted... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just curious as to the status of Hurricane Sergio (2018)'s FAC since it has been without comment since August 26. Noah^Talk 22:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the ping, Noah -- looking pretty good on first glance, will take a closer look soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I meant it hasn't had any comments since that date. It has had 4 reviews, a source review, and a media review. Noah^Talk 21:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

Image	Description
	You've gotten some of these Featured Article Medals for your writing. This one is for your work as a coord, with my thanks for your devotion, competence and good sense. It's awardable to people who have helped with three or more FAs ... so I think you and Andy qualify (awarded jointly). - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite right too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hear, hear! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Dan (and Gav/PM) -- much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian and Laser brain, I currently have SS Politician on the go (five supports and image and sources both passed); would I be able to nom a second? Politician has only been on the go for ten days, so I won't mind if you'd prefer I wait a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gav, well yeah, I prefer to let things go about a fortnight before considering closure or a second nom so suppose we leave till the weekend and then feel free to kick off a new one, as long as nothing major has come up with Politician? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No probs at all. I'll leave it until Monday and then list. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Just a quick check on this: am I OK to list the second one now? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the exemplary work you have done as a MilHist coordinator. I, for one, appreciate it. Do feel free to keep glancing over my shoulder and applying correction as necessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gog -- you've been a great asset to the project as an editor and, as I said during the vote, you'll be a fine coord too. I don't think you'll need much in the way of advice but if you do, always feel free to ask. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Thanks very much Ian for your long service as a coord, stretching back to March 2009 and including a year as lead coord! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the above. Carry on, and feel free to drop a line if you need anything. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to say thank you Ian to help us, the project and Wikipedia in general in your co-ord terms. We were happy to have you in the team and we want to continue the legacy you made in the last three years. Hopefully, we will continue them, I bet we would, you'll see mate. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all very much, and all the best in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. I was just wondering about the status of my current FAC for "A Rugrats Kwanzaa". Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get the FPs finalised in the next couple days. I think there's at least a couple, though it's not been a great month. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 20:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I just did it now. We could add Gina Krog since she participated in the Inter-Allied Women's Conference (or am I mixing things up?), but, given nothing about that's mentioned in her article, unless User:SusunW wants to update her article soon, I say we leave it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 21:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

Happy First Edit Day, Ian Rose, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've roughed in the FPs. There's a ten-day lead time on FPs, so you can usually tell the list of what's going to pass before the end of the month. The only one in the slightest bit of doubt is File:Maréchal_Canrobert_by_Nadar.jpg, which only has four supports so far, but almost certainly will get five in time, as it's so new.

Now, I'm trying to write a little more about each person this month, but I'd like you to go in and trim out anyone you don't think relevant before I really get into it. I think the justifications are all there, it's down to things like, "Is a major supporter of Alfred Dreyfus who was otherwise minimally involved in MILHIST suitable? What about someone who painted military history?

You get the idea. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 07:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Mary Bell (aviator) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 10 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November

Cassia javanica, Torremolinos
thanks from QAI

Thank you for the prequel to that of Clare Stevenson, the long-serving director of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF), the first and ultimately largest women's military service in wartime Australia. Mary Bell led the WAAAF for the first three months of its existence but, more importantly, had played a significant role agitating for its establishment. One can imagine her reaction upon being passed over for permanent command of her baby in favour of corporate executive Stevenson, but Bell was persuaded to put aside her disappointment and ended up serving in the WAAAF for most of the war, if in a minor capacity."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that No. 33 Squadron RAAF has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 15 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 15, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the companion piece to No. 36 Squadron RAAF, "Australia's sole air-to-air refuelling unit. It operated Boeing 707s for many years and has just finished re-equipping with aircraft from the other big commercial jet stable, Airbus.! - see also - arbcom season --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'm logging off for the evening. I think that the Bugle is good to go once you're happy with it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, from the above I think that you and I almost have a monopoly on TFA at the moment! Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, looks like it! BTW, I think 33SQN might need some updating for the last couple of years -- I'll check Air Force News but if you have any important info from say Australian Aviation or other sources, pls feel free to add. I'm not thinking of an exhaustive search, just anything the absence of which might be considered an omission of up-to-date events. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing to add to the 33 Squadron article is that the extra KC-30As have both now been delivered (I think), with the VIP aircraft commencing in this role recently. It would probably also be worth noting that the KC-30s are now deployed to the Middle East on an alternating basis with the E-7s (the Operation Okra article has a cite for this from memory). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boy these TFAs creep up on you! It was on the front page before I even got a chance to add that the sixth has definitely been delivered; I daresay the seventh has too but couldn't see anything on the web in my cursory look, so left open for now. No time for anything re. Okra now, maybe tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

Thanks for uploading File:The Easybeats - Friday on My Mind (alternative cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Andy, I hope all is good with you both. I've currently got Baker Street robbery going through FAC; it's been going for three weeks, got five supports and a clear image and source review. Would you mind if I opened a second nom? No problems if not - I can always hold off for a while if you're prefer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: No problems here! --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Gav, yeah I scanned it the other day and thought it looked close -- fine by me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - many thanks to you both. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik/archive1 looks to be about ready to go, can I make a new nomination?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Given both your current FACs are co-noms, the new one can be solo or shared and it'd stay within the guideline. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ian, I hope you are well. It seems a long time since we've talked. Anyway, I had some time this afternoon after my flight home to expand and reference the Battle of the Nek article. I seem to recall many years ago you expressed an interest in potentially working on this. (Apologies, if I have gotten this wrong -- I have a bad memory). Anyway, if you are keen and you have some time, would you mind taking a look at the article? Happy for you to adjust whatever you see fit. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupert, great to hear from you. I don't actually recall talking about it either but if army types like you and AC can do so much to improve air force articles it seems only fair I help with a land battle if I can -- will at least give it a ce over the w/e. Cheers, and tks for asking! Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:JK0454HannahCropSharp.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I hope all is well. Would it be OK if I added another nom? I have had this one on the go for over three weeks, with five supports and clear image and source reviews. No problems with waiting a bit, but just thought I'd ask. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, was wondering when you'd ask -- didn't want to be seen to be playing favourites by suggesting it myself... ;-) Go ahead of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - all done. It's about a rather grotty character, but an interesting insight into the porn-peddling world of 1960s and 70s London. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, This story notes that several F-35s with 2OCU markings recently arrived in Australia. It doesn't say that the unit is now formally operating them - presumably this will happen sometime next year(?). BTW, the December Bugle is done except for the FAs and any FLs and FTs if you have time this weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate. Yeah, been very busy work- and otherwise so tks for all the effort on this month's issue, should be able to finish up and despatch in the next 24... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By now you've no doubt realised I meant the next 24 days, not the next 24 hours... :-P End-of-year deadlines and all but it should improve by the w/e... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well IR. MarnetteD|Talk 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Marnette, I know things are being looked after when your name shows up on my watchlist... Cheers to you and yours this festive season! Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and thanks back atcha for the kind compliment :-) MarnetteD|Talk 11:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Gav -- keep up the great work (more Bond novels at FAC pls, need to keep my hand in)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoria, hope it's a great festive season for you too, and look forward to working with you in 2020! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda, happy 2020! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also to you, card in the making (please watch, I won't go around mailing). - Wikipedia won't be the same without Brian, so happiness is not the purest. Sad list, really. But I am determined to make illumination, enlightenment and vision 2020's topics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Clare Stevenson, "on the first commander of an Australian women's military service"! - A new year began, good wishes on my talk, for a year of vision! - I archive every year, hint hint ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for promoting Brian's expedition! I decorated my talk on the rare occasion of Rossini's birthday - feel free to take some of the February flowers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian, I saw your ping and have answered you at the above. Best wishes, and if I don't speak to you before then, have a lovely Christmas. Cassianto^Talk 11:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for responding so quickly, Cass -- I hope you and yours have a great Christmas and New Year too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great card, tks mate, and best to you and yours! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Ian Rose, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Donner60 (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Tks Donner, Happy Christmas and New Year to you too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Happy holidays! Can you please have a look at this FA promotion? There is a minor formatting error in a comment which has precluded proper closure. Best wishes for 2020, JennyOz (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Jenny, actioned now by a friendly TPS it seems -- best to you for the coming year as well, always good to see you around! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ian Rose, i thought you might be sleeping off the turkey by that time!  ;) festive greetings to ye! ——SN54129 22:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Iéna/archive1 is just about ready for promotion. Can I add a new nomination to fill my solo slot?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Sturm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). --Hanberke (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

Thank you, kindly. Zabararmon (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kindly Zabararmon (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do I find the discussion page? Zabararmon (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zabararmon, if you go to the top of any Wikipedia article page (in fact most WP pages in general, including this one) you should find a tab marked "Talk", just to the right of one marked "Article". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Clare Stevenson has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 24 February 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 24, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see this excellent article as TFA Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well a lot of people helped, including your good self, Nick. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian. I was wondering if I can make a new section on the FAC talk page to find a new Featured Topic delegate. Feeling that only two delegates on there might not be enough for the project and hopefully can find someone more active to help out. GamerPro64 01:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GamerPro64, do you mean an announcement in a new section at the (current) bottom of the page? I don't see why not... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

The Wikipedia article on Arthur W. Vanaman and the Wikipedia article on Jonathan M. Wainwright each identify the subject of their article as the highest ranking American POW of WWII. I believe the Wainwright held the higher rank of the two, but I'm reluctant to go in and change the Vanaman article because maybe there is some nuance I'm not aware of. Either way, someone who knows should fix whichever article is incorrect. (User:Dog-519) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

...both for promoting the article, and for your edits there - I never realised how attached I seem to be to the word 'various'! Hope to be back some time soon, I've learned a lot during the process. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, all those terms that I check for when preparing to promote an article -- "however", "in order to", "a number of", "various", etc -- I have been guilty of employing in the past. Anyway I hope we see you back at FAC soon as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope you are doing well. Since my current FAC has attracted a fair amount of attention, I was wondering if I could submit a second FAC? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the additional message. I was wondering what would be the best course of action for the "Drake Would Love Me" FAC? Sarastro has not been active on Wikipedia for some time, and their last comment for the FAC was over a month ago. I could try looking for another reviewer if necessary, but there already appears to be a healthy amount of commentary and reviews. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll aim to stop by the w/e and take another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but are we done with wolf yet? Jonesey95 reviewed the formatting. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No bother LJ, it just looks to me that Nikkimaria concurs that we've had a spotcheck of sources in the lead but not an article-wide source review for reliability. It also looks like F&F is offering to do that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please weigh in at the FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you suggested that I withdrew my FAC nomination for Le Gros the Younger. I'm happy to do so and work on the language which, you are quite right, got the better of me. I'd like to withdraw but have no idea how. Just simply delete the section?

As a suggestion: you might want to put a little paragraph of how to withdraw in the explanatory section of the FAC page. I'm sure others are equally unsure how to proceed. Gerbis (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gerbis, you've actually done all that's necessary, which is to indicate your willingness to withdraw -- an uninvolved coord will action in due course. As for explanations, we've historically been leery of instruction creep at FAC but you might well be right that a few extra words wouldn't hurt... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is my FAC ready to be promoted? It has four supports, an image review, and a source review. It's only my second FAC, so I don't know when exactly it is supposed to be closed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking okay but I tend not to promote articles that are still in the process of being reviewed, as this is. Once Pendright has had his say and you've responded, I'll take another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Would it be possible for me to nominate a second FAC? The first one, Tropical Storm Ileana (2018), has been open for quite some time now and I have resolved the comments put forth by the reviewers. Noah^Talk 15:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noah, I think I'd like to see a source review for reliability (and formatting but primary reliability) before another nom is opened (unless I missed one, if not you could add a request to the top of WT:FAC). I'd also like to see a review from someone outside the storm article fraternity, although I wouldn't necessarily stop you opening another nom on that account alone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KN did a source review. His comments mainly pertained to the sources. Noah^Talk 15:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need clarification on that, will mention on the nom page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for me to nominate Hurricane Lane (2018) now since KN has clarified? Sorry if I am being a bit pushy. An FT is riding on Lane. Please let me know. Noah^Talk 12:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Tks PM -- been such a whirlwind these past few months I'm going have to think very hard about what this was for...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for leaving another message on your talk page. I have a quick question about my current FAC. Although the nomination has been up for only a little over two weeks, I think it is time to archive it since it has not received any commentary and it is already being buried under a list of far more active FACs.

I do not mean this in a negative or bitter way as I am glad that more editors are putting up nominations and certain topics attract editors more than others. I just realistically do not see this getting any attention in the future. Rather than pinging the FAC coordinators on the FAC itself, I wanted to get your opinion about it. Do you think archiving it would be appropriate? I can always try again in the future. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

Hi Ian

I hope that you are coping well with the various virus-related restrictions.

April's Bugle *Cough* Battle of Drepana; promoted 28 March; my 20th FAC. *Cough*.

Cheers

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're always in the naughty corner but this was, in fact, merely oversight. As you were... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian. (I'm not naughty, I'm just ebullient .) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian. I saw you archived the FAC for Open Here, which makes sense because unfortunately there just wasn't anybody reviewing it. But I saw you said "I appreciate you've tried to drum up some interest in this review, and of could it's not a great time for that anyway..." Forgive me if I'm just slow on the uptake here, lol, but what did you mean by "it's not a great time for that anyway"? Do you mean FAC isn't particularly active right now? Because of the pandemic, or some other reason? I only ask because I have other articles I'd potentially nominate, but if it's a bad time and they're just going to end up getting ignored like Open Here did, I'd perhaps wait... — Hunter Kahn 14:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's an interesting time because the virus thing is simultaneously giving some people more time for WP and others less, and perhaps for still others there's no change, so I guess all I'm saying is things are up in the air and we shouldn't be surprised if in some cases fewer people are reviewing. I'm not trying to discourage you nominating this one again (or a different one) in a couple of weeks; all we can do, as they say, is run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood. Thanks Ian Rose! — Hunter Kahn 03:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @WP:FAC coordinators: since I just nominated a FAC I'm looking to do some reviews. I picked off a couple that looked like they needed another look, but there's nothing in the urgents list at the moment. Anything you want looked at? Otherwise I'll start at the bottom and look for ones that seem under-reviewed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike, always welcome -- I have to admit my main interest just this moment is a source reviewer for the Washington and slavery FAC, if that takes your fancy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, and I hope you are well. Might I ask why you reverted my edit here? I was under the impression that changing [[Category:Stub-Class military history articles|51,000+]] to [[:Category:Stub-Class military history articles|51,000+]] took the category away from the page and presented it as a link... You'll note the same code was added by GELongstreet soon after again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie, fine and hope you are too. Your guess is as good as mine! I notice it's a mobile edit so I guess finger trouble... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me adding a by-line here. It was so I could run the fcimporter script for The Signpost'. If that's something I shouldn't have done, please rv and let me know. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised a few concerns about the article Vernon Sturdee on it's talk page. Just wanted to let you know. Aeonx (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, The current edition of the Australian Defence Business Review, which is available online for free here has a detailed article on 2 OCU which looks very helpful for updating the article how that it's ceased Hornet training and is about to start F-35 training. Regards Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nick -- be a fair bit of updating for a while to come but this gives us a very good starting point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

Hi there, Ian Rose , good seeing you, I would really appreciate if you took note of (not necessarily responding) this discussion I started on the general FAC talk page. It's part a complaint and part a summary of the (frustrating; pardon my use of the word) FAC discussion surrounding just one word (in a sentence about her parents' religion which I was reluctant to add in the first place but when I did upon the user's demand, I was asked to remove parts of what appears in the source), and which led to this one oppose from a user who did not even read the article past this one sentence. I really didn't expect to have to deal with one line in the background section when the article covers almost five decades of film work. I'm not sure how much you closing coordinators read through chunks of text and that's why I started this discussion and am letting you know now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't had a chance to go through the whole thread but, as KJP1 suggested at WT:FAC, don't worry about it for now, just deal with any other comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it was easy. Other prolific editors on the FAC have told me to ignore him (and on my talk page as well), but now I'm forced into dealing with this user's behavior, which keeps going (which I'm told is just pure ego). It looks like he is now set on destroying this FAC once I haven't removed that word in the religion part (I know it sounds a bit too dramatic but that's really it) by adding big blocks of text which contain nothing constructive or actionable. Knowing how feeble his oppose is, he now moved to the next, short section of her film debut and attacked the sourcing in this section (which includes noted critics, authors and historians) by providing a random list from Google books, complaining none appears in the section. And why is this comment (which he says is another reason for his oppose) totally uncalled for? Because all the books he cited (which he clearly didn't care to even have a glance at) do not even mention the actress (the subject of the nomination)! Most of them hardly even mention the film. I had to go over the list of books just the prove it's fake. I think he's making fun of the entire process of FAC reviewing. And he turned everything into personal, throwing empty lines such as "Your article is nowhere near that level". First, it's not "my" article, but is this person really aware of the kind of constructive comments required on FAC? Where can I complain about this behaviour? Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I have an article at FAC at the moment here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley/archive1. I've received some helpful critiques and I'm working on them. I unfortunately have exams until the 19th of June, and that means I'm very tight on time until then. Would you mind holding off on passing or failing the nomination until around then? I'd be very grateful. Many thanks, Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I hope I'm reading correctly from the silence that my request was out of line. If so, I apologise - I'm new to FAC and I'm still finding my way around. I will make sure that the changes are done soon. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying, my silence (and lack of action re. the FAC) actually meant no problem for the moment. Obviously we like to keep reviews moving, and one could say in hindsight it's probably best not to initiate a FAC if you have exams on the horizon, but pls focus on those exams until the 19th and only stop in on the FAC if you can afford a few moments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oops - thanks for clarifying. You are right, I shouldn't have initiated the FAC with exams on the horizon - won't make that mistake again. I'll be back in a few weeks. Thanks so much! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be "legal" to ask for someone to review my article on the FAC talk page? Noah^Talk 20:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurricane Noah, WT:FAC is not really the place for asking for reviews but it's okay to place neutrally worded requests for input your FAC on relevant project talk pages or individual users' pages. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

could you please add my nomination to the urgent list? Noah^Talk 19:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're past adding it to the urgents list -- when noms have been open the best part of a month and received so little attention we generally archive and waive the usual two-week waiting period prior to a new nom, so we'll try that (though my advice re. neutrally worded invites for review stands). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it has been nearly three weeks, should the article proceed to the urgents list so it can garner additional feedback? I know two reviews generally isnt enough to pass. I did add a request for a SR given the two supports. Noah^Talk 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I think you may have the Aces High book by Shores and Williams as it is cited on some of the Australian flying ace bios you have worked on? If so, could you have a look for Edgar Kain, and in particular the page number for their claim that he had 16 confirmed victories. I currently have to cite it to Lambert who refers to their work in his book, but would prefer a firsthand ref. Much appreciated, cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I can get the book next time I'm in the Mitchell Library but it so happens that Cobber Kain's entry is available for viewing in GoogleBooks... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Google link, that had the information I needed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many's the time that book preview has saved me at trip to the Mitchell... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Rose, Henry Belafonte 's story of Jesse Washington s killing is a central point in Blackkklansman. I think it is at least worth mentioning a link to imdb. Don t you think? To me, it s my disrt time I ve tried to add sthg. Surely I forgot to add the link myself. Or do you think it is not worth because the plot of the movie is inaccurate? With all respect, if you would explain this maybe I will understand it. Best regards V. Anogis VassiliosA (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I have moved into the final stages with my work on the Meghan Trainor article and am considering re-nominating it at FAC within the next few days. Can you have a look at it and tell me if there's anything I need to be worried about? I just want to be absolutely sure this time. Are there any red flags that it could be quickly failed/archived? Note that it has been successfully peer reviewed this time. Regards.--NØ 17:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything, Mr. Rose? Not asking for a full review, just a go-ahead or brief criticism.--NØ 08:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I think I would've left things a bit longer before the actual nom for people (like me) to look at it but if you got some traction at PR I'm sure that's helped. Now it's there I'll be leaving it to reviewers to look over and just remain as a coord on this. Best, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

Hi Ian, hope that you're well. I'm active in the peer review space and we often get review requests for articles wanting a pre FA check that are posted and then linger for some time unanswered. I was wondering if there's an appropriate and watched featured article talk page that I could post some of these reviews at? Not having that much familiarity with the FA process, I thought I might ask you for some help. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, we do mention PR in the second paragraph of WP:FAC but we don't maintain a list of specifically pre-FAC PRs anywhere from memory. We do have an active talk page, WT:FAC, which includes notices of FACs requiring urgent review pls FARs and FARCs. I don't know if, given the competition for reviewers, the FAC community would want a list of PRs sitting there as well, although as a coord I certainly like potential FACs to go through PR first. I'd have no problem with you posting at the bottom of WT:FAC something similar to what you've said above about the number of PRs there for pre-FAC review and that if people can stop by it'd be helpful. You could even float the idea of maintaining a limited list of the more lonely pre-FAC PRs on the page somewhere, if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have done. I think I'll just post sporadically as most pre FA reviews are attended by reviewers contacted by the editor. PS have you considered archiving your talk page? It takes quite long to load and is difficult to navigate because it's so long. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry, I didn't get why my FAC was removed; the previous FAC for 1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match was on 22 April 2020, so way more than 2 weeks ago. Or can I not nominate an article for FA before two weeks have passed from ANY of my FAC nominations being archived? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Yes, per the FAC instructions, "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator" (my bold). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the No. 37 Squadron RAAF article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 15, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 15, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to have two nominations if both have co-nominators? In this case, there would be 2 total people on one (currently active) and 2-3 on another. Noah^Talk 02:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noah, I think of it in arithmetical terms: no-one can have two solo noms (2.0), but you can have one solo plus be a co-nom with one other person an another (1.0 + 0.5 = 1.5). If you're a co-nom on two the most that you could add up to is 1.0 (0.5 + 0.5) so there you go... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June

Vespro della Beata Vergine

Thank you for kind of a birthday gift ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. Apologies for the random message. I have a quick FAC-related question. I have recently received some excellent advice for the images in my current FAC, which I have brought up and linked in that discussion. I was wondering if that would qualify as an image review? I hope that I do not come across as impatient, but I've not come across a situation like this before so I was just curious about it. I am very grateful for all the comments left at the FAC so far. I hope you are staying safe and having a great week so far. Best, Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, doing well thanks, if busy in RL as it tends to be when our Financial Year ticks over down here. Anyway, though certainly helpful, the external review is probably neither here nor there as Nikkimaria has checked the licensing and, in the FAC itself, pronounced herself satisfied. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response. I'm not sure how I missed Nikkimara's review lol; apologies for that. Good luck with everything keeping you busy in RL! Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Puddleglum2.0, a writer for the Wikipedia newsletter The Signpost. I was planning on putting together an interview with coordinators and delegates involved in the Featured Content projects for the August edition, but before putting together the questions, I wanted to gauge coords interest to see if it will be worth doing. Thanks for your work and thoughts! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 19:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Puddleglum, thanks for thinking of us -- I tend to agree with Ealdgyth's response re. timing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your stewardship of the FAC process. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Ian Rose, who fulfils a high-profile and potentially contentious role so effectively as to be hardly noticeable. As one of the FAC coordinators they have the swan act down to a fine art: all serene grace on the surface, while occasionally paddling frantically underneath. Almost every part of the FAC process is questioned on a regular basis, other than the effectiveness and probity of the coordinators. In a project where on one agrees on anything, everyone agrees that FAC is safe in Ian's hands. Over and above this they are one of our most prolific FA writers, co-edit the MilHist Project newsletter, take an active part in all sorts of necessary but unheroic backroom activities and proffer sane and sage advice. I am at a complete loss to understand why they have not already received an EotW.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Sydney Opera House

Ian Rose

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 12, 2020

Effective FAC coordinators, writers and protectors. Co-edits the MilHist Project newsletter. Participates in many necessary but unheroic backroom activities providing sane and sage advice.

Recognized for

co-editing The Bugle newsletter

Notable work

David Bowe

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many many congrats on receiving this IR and thanks for all your work here at the 'pedia!! MarnetteD|Talk 15:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's a nice surprise, thank you guys -- Gog, as one of the people who keeps FAC ticking over, your sentiment is especially appreciated...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is so cool! Many congratulations to you :)--NØ 16:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for No. 37 Squadron RAAF, saying "Following up my FAC noms over the past few years for other RAAF transport units, namely Nos. 33, 34 and 36 Squadrons... For 40 years, Nos. 36 and 37 were the RAAF's twin C-130 Hercules squadrons, until the former converted to C-17 Globemasters in 2006 -- No. 37 is expected to continue flying its C-130Js until 2030, and after that who knows? The C-17 may be superior in range and payload, the new C-27 Spartan might be able to get into smaller landing grounds, but no aircraft has spelt "disaster relief" in Australia and the region like the RAAF's Hercs, not to mention their combat support role from Vietnam to the Middle East. The "trashies" (trash haulers) may not have a particularly glamorous job, but unlike their fighter and bomber colleagues they’re “operational” all year round."! - Thanks also to all Wikipedia "trashiers" who see this, the gnomes to clean up and do other not glamorous jobs ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

Sometimes I float around and and look in on some of the long time editors, the forefathers of Wikipedia, if I may. One of the quotes on your front page sort of struck a chord. "Thank God I'm still an atheist". One of my favorite quotes comes from Admiral Nelson who was mortally wounded at the Battle of Trafalgar. His last words were, "Thank God I have done my duty". Hope you receive this in the spirit it was given. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just wondering how Dorian's met is looking since it has been close to a month and a half now. I know the other nomination (Hurricane Willa) still needs an SR and has been listed for a while. Noah^Talk 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the help with the Hey Y'all FAC. Is it just me or does the FAC process seem less active lately? There have been a lot of nominations, but I feel like there has been a considerable decline in reviewers. I do not have any statistics to support this, as it is mostly just a feeling. It also just feels like the FAC's tone has changed in general, but that could just be my more melancholy mood as of late. Anyway, I wanted to ask to see if it was just me? Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 , the best way to answer your question about reviewer numbers is to look at the statistics Mike regularly posts to FAC talk and compare over time. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, and apologies again for the random question. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

Ian, do you happen to know about Featured topics, because I don't, and this nom looks supported enough to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have closed successfully, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came to tell you that, happy that it happened the day 10 years after both Brian and I received a star (which he deserved much than I did). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian, hope you are well. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your closing note over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Game of Thrones/archive2. It is unfortunate that the nomination didn't get more reviewers. I'll definitely look into another peer review for the article. Thank you again. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're not discouraged, sometimes the big topics are a bit intimidating -- if you go for PR then perhaps try pinging a few projects and/or editors for a look, and if they comment there it's fine to let them know with neutrally worded requests when you bring back to FAC. Also if you review a few other FAC noms it can get you some exposure that might lead to people looking at your nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian-absolutely no apology necessary re. closing Hearst. It just didn't generate any interest. Not sure why given the subject matter, but there you go. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought it was ideal FAC fodder but you can't predict how these will go. No reason you shouldn't ping a few likely suspects next time you nominate (as I said, I'd love to have commented myself, but my reviewing time is limited these days). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. at FAC but I'm looking to move the article to add "(2002)" to the title to satisfy some clashes that may exist. Do I simply move the article and ongoing FAC to the new title, or is there another process required? Kosack (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler if you leave the title change and move till after the FAC is wrapped up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I would think that would upset the bot? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike, will sort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

Hello, Ian,

Yes, I'm back from hiatus.

I have spotted a problem beyond my ability to fix...indeed, to truly understand. I hope you are still an admin, so that you can take care of the problem. The article concerned is Henry Woollett. It has been arbitrarily directed away from the most common form of his name, which is Henry Winslow Woollett. I created the article under this, his most commonly used name. Above the Trenches uses this form on page 389. Balloon Busting Aces agrees, as can be seen at https://www.amazon.com/Balloon-Busting-Aces-World-War-Aircraft/dp/1841768774/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3KS0AEC8XR31Q&dchild=1&keywords=balloon+busting+aces&qid=1597168630&s=books&sprefix=balloon+busting%2Cstripbooks%2C208&sr=1-1#reader_1841768774. Sopwith Camel Aces agrees, as seen at https://www.amazon.com/Sopwith-Camel-Aces-World-Aircraft/dp/1841765341/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=sopwith+camel+aces&qid=1597169051&s=books&sr=1-1#reader_1841765341.

To add to the confusion, the present iteration of the article is rated on the quality scale as Redirect-Class--whatever that is.

So, two requests.

1. Please change article title to Henry Winslow Woollett.

2. Please assess it on the Military Aviation scale.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, nice to hear from you and sorry for belated reply -- I've never been an admin so I wouldn't have any special powers for this but I can take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin? You are so cheerfully confident, I fooled myself into thinking you were.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian signed up for enough abuse as an FAC coordinator... --Laser brain (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 29, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 29, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Hope you're well. For everything you do around here, even when it must be the biggest pain in the backside ever. ——Serial 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SN, sorry for belated reply -- thanks for the thought! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September

Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA (which you promoted) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast: matching colours music to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Valston Hancock, introduced: "From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force."! - My DYK bio today is Hainer Hill, and I like that I saw the mentioned production of Mathis der Maler, and that Hill was a painter like Mathis ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should not miss telling you that I just quoted you (without name) in the Mary Shelley discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose. I know the limit for FA noms is 2 weeks and I have about 3-4 days to go. Can I ask permission to put up a new one? Possible Trading Places which is a relatively smaller article than Groundhog Day. Might be a bit less intensive. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DWB, if your last FAC was promoted then you can nominate anew anytime -- the 2-week wait only applies if your previous FAC was archived, i.e. not promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I know I pinged you about this article a while ago, and not hearing back from you could mean you are not interested in helping out, but I am afraid it may mean you ran the copyvio detector on it and found what looks like a serious violation and nixed it because of that. I assure you any copyright violation is a backwards violation. There are now three of them on that one article. The last two are apparently what's called clickbait--if you don't know what that is--I didn't--it's when someone who wants to sell you something posts something they think people will click on so they can then reroute the user to what the seller wants to sell. This last one appeared today and is a 'free download.' I'm afraid to download it for fear of what else it might put on my computer, but I have asked some others who are computer savvy to see if they can find a date of its online posting so I can prove the date they printed on the first page is false. The article was not online in 2010 or the copyright detector would have picked it up back then. I run the detector nearly every day on this article since I found the first backwards violation. Anyway, if you don't have the time or the interest, that's one thing, that's understandable, but please don't let that backwards violation be what puts you off this article. The plagiarism is in the other direction--of me not from me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk, no I probably don't have time to look myself but I can quite believe there's reverse plagiarism; seen it before, even on one or two of 'my' articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanx for letting me know. Your input will be missed, but I understand. A. Parrot said he could review the sources for me in October so I am waiting to renominate until they have time to take a look at it. That seems fitting since it was in October two years ago that it was nominated the first time. It should have less to persevere through this time, and I am no longer being harassed, so I will see it through to the end. Thank you for all you did originally. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I see you have archived this FAC and I can see why. Other than peer review, is there a place where I can get more input on that article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, apart from pinging relevant projects, which I think you did, I guess if I was putting it up for PR I'd just try telling about everyone who's ever reviewed one of these articles, and then of course once they've been at the PR it's fine to ping them when you return to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll try out a PR on the understanding that the FAC was archived mainly because of lack of comments in a reasonable time frame, rather than because of unactioned issues. I'll try to get some FACses reviewed too - Sandy is going to hate me for this, I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far I've received one comment about technical language. Now I am wondering whether to renominate it (after the two week waiting period, presumably) and hope there will be more reviewers then but need a third opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'm not sure if this is a new development, but I've just noticed that the archives of RAAF News are now available via Trove. It's very handy to have this in a searchable format. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, pretty sure that's new -- the 1960-1997 date range looks eerily similar to how I'd find them listed for viewing requests at the Mitchell Library, so I guess they've been steadily scanning them over time and now we have this. Yeah, it used to be a matter of my grabbing a bunch of issues from around a date that interested me (the time someone prominent retired or died for instance, or the time a unit was created or disbanded) and then just going through the issues page by page -- not any more by the look of it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Coordinator Emeritus stars
		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. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ian. These are thoroughly deserved. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Congrats, Ian, and thanks for all the great work you have done and the work you continue to put into the project. This truly is well deserved. All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To join in with my fellow editors, congratulations Ian! I think your election as Coordinator Emeritus is a credit to you. When I first started editing in the Milhist space several years, your guidance and feedback was important in my development as a Wikipedian, so thank you! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I can honestly say I wasn't expecting this nomination -- remind me never to play cards with PM... ;-) FAC, Bugle and RL continue to prevent me committing to put myself forward for a full-time coord position so this is a cunning way to ensure I'll stop by when I can to help out...! Really not sure that I belong in the company of the other emeriti but hey, never refuse an assignment... Seriously, it's a great honour -- good luck to us all for the coming year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Apologies for yet another random message. I just wanted to say thank you for archiving the Shannen Says FAC. I hope that I did not come across as rude or impatient, and if I did, then I apologize for that. I also want to apologize for my behavior at the Bluey FAC. I have already apologized directly to the nominator, but it was not my place to put up that message. I wanted to reach out to you about both of these things, and I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all, Aoba, you didn't sound impatient to me at Shannon Says and it was quite right at Bluey to query whether there was leave to open a new nom so soon after the previous one was archived. Sure the nom went ahead but we do have a process and AFAIC you were simply helping ensure that it was followed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, what was the problem here? [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, was just looking at stuff on the mobile, must've hit something by accident. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, just wondering about a few of your FAs that have yet to be put up for TFA. Do you have a plan for them? For example, I'd be happy to generate a blurb for Dick Cresswell and nominate him for 23 November (first kill etc) given noms are open for Nov atm. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, TBH I'm pretty well over getting "my" FAs on the front page. Even though not particularly controversial they still attract their share of trivial edits that just take up time reverting or tweaking, so I prefer to leave it to the TFA coords to do their worst in their own good time... ;-) One way or another I've contributed almost 50 articles to main page so I think I've done my bit...! That said, you have reminded me that I should update my list of prospective TFAs, something I've maintained in the past as my preferred articles for TFA if the coords must have some, and I'll include Creswell there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for modesty, but the coords I know are thankful for hints. A nomination in the pending list is all it takes, but of course a worded blurb in TFAR helps even more, and we are close enough to the date to do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There oughta be a law...! But thank you very much Gerda... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"law"? - I don't get it. Festive day today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just an old saying (that became a comic strip), meaning in this case I shouldn't have been allowed to stay this long... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus" - I noticed your revert for Peter Sellers with so many "not" and "don't" that I am not sure I understand. Did you watch Frank Sinatra? - I came to think that a collapsed infobox is worse than no infobox when we discussed the topic in 2013, and a friend with a handicap pointed out how difficult it is for him to click on the little "show" button. (The discussion - in case of interest - was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7#Collapsed or hidden infoboxes, the edit in question 20:24, 6 March 2013) - Looking at who consents to helping such a user vs. those who decline shows - just by numbers - a rather strong consensus for help over the years, while the few who decline are the same names again and again. I know which side I support. I miss Brianboulton who said (treasure in the archives, where I read with interest that I refused to participate then already): "I thought we had a mission to educate and inform – silly me." 10:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC) that was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer no collapsed infobox too, but then my preference would be none at all in this article -- compromises frequently satisfy nobody, but the other options are generally considered worse by either side, so we end up retaining the status quo. It so happens that I believe education and information re. artists is better conveyed by leads than by infoboxes, but I bow to the established consensus on any individual page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You speak very generally, but the bad compromise has just been rejected by the community for the other artist, which - imho - changed the situation. I wonder why some argued (in the past, it seems to have stopped altogether, thank goodness) as if it was infobox OR lead, and will never understand why we can't have both, serving different readers with different interests. I am completely happy with Beethoven and Percy Grainger (by Brian), and need no more detail, just born where and when, died where and when, and why we have an article, these few things in one predictable place, which is something the typical lead doesn't provide, per the MoS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Thomas White (Australian politician), introduced: "Tommy White had a remarkable career. He was one of the first military pilots trained in Australia and saw action in World War I in the Mesopotamian campaign, during which he was captured but escaped three years later. He married the daughter of Australia's second Prime Minister, became a Federal parliamentarian, resigned on the eve of World War II, and served in the RAAF before getting his second bite of the political cherry as Minister for Air in Bob Menzies' Liberal government." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Alister Murdoch, introduced: from 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force."! - I'd agree to better no infobox than what we have for Hippolyte et Aricie. What do you think? I am sure it was meant to be a good compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

Hey, Ian Rose. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris for that thoughtful -- if somewhat scary -- reminder! Best to you, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ian Rose,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. In this article you included a quote under the Hurricanes section that includes the "word" exended. I suspect it should say extended, but as it is a quote and I could not verify, I'm asking for your help with it. Best regards --LilHelpa (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's been there a while -- tks for spotting, having checked the source it is indeed a typo for "extended". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Thomas White (Australian politician) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 18 November 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 18, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, it looks like you accidently removed a review in your response to Peacemaker here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick, I might've opened a version older then the current one when I followed the alert... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, since you often review my sf magazine FACs, I wonder if you could take a look at Imaginative Tales? It's likely to be my next nomination. As it happens Saturn looks like it is close to promotion so Imaginative Tales could well reach FAC before you get a chance to read it. If you do get a chance I think it would be better prepared for having had your copyediting eye run over it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, would love to but not sure how much time I'll have for next few days -- I certainly will if/when I can... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 9, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 9, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I think that this is close to being ready to go - could you please finalise the material on featured content and check you're happy with everything else? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds -- on it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today Lou Spence, about "another RAAF pilot closely associated with the Korean War. Like Cresswell, Spence was a World War II veteran who commanded Australia's sole air combat unit in Korea, No. 77 Squadron, and won plaudits doing so -- but whereas Cresswell lived to become No. 77's longest-serving CO in Korea, Spence's light shone but briefly, as he was killed on a dive-bombing mission four months into the war. Whether the cause was ground fire or misjudgement has been debated. Personally I think exhaustion played a part, as the load he carried in Korea seems a good deal more than the average squadron commander. I find it telling that a month after his death the RAAF split off the maintenance, base support, and air transport portions of No. 77 Squadron and put the lot of them under a superior wing organisation, effectively relieving some of the pressure on the fighter unit's CO -- but that's all OR, so take with a grain of salt."! - Good news: after a long pause a FA for me, and a repeated TFA to come for Easter, please help watching. Sad news: missing Yoninah and others (more on my talk). - How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know I withdrew my last nom less than two weeks ago simply because a couple of people wanted it merged and I felt it inappropriate to continue the nomination at that point (looking like no consensus on that front). Would it be okay if I nominated a less controversial article before the holidays? Noah^Talk 02:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noah, yeah it's been 10 days and an unusual circumstance so go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donner, apologies for the belated response, many thanks and hope you and yours are well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ealdgyth, sorry it took awhile but thanks for this and of course same to you for 2021! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Trying to finish arbcom evidence, which is kind of the most miserable thing ever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That I don't envy, take your time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, just as I was almost there, they extended the deadline a week, meaning I will again procrastinate finishing (because of the unpleasantry of reading through horrid diffs), and be in a panic a week from now ! OK, here are the three I mentioned:

1. Not waiting two weeks: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive4. I did not say anything there (and considering the surrounding circumstances, think it best not to), but I did have something to say away from the visibility of WT:FAC.
2. Not consulting other nominators at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steven Gerrard/archive1, see User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch111#Gerrard FAC, not a problem now.
3. Done templates, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Willie Mays/archive1, no longer a problem.

So, nothing for you to deal with ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are having a great 2021 so far. Apologies for this super random message. I was curious about the status of my current FAC since it has received a fair amount of commentary and support as well as image and source reviews. Apologies for being very impatient with this FAC. I am just planning on retiring right after the FAC is completed (regardless of if it is promoted or archived for any reason) so this is my last Wikipedia-related thing prior to doing that. Thank you for your time and have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, it looks good, I'd just prefer to give it another few days in case anyone else wants to comment because it hasn't been open that long. Do you mind my asking what's prompting your retirement? Feel free to email if you prefer to keep confidential, but of course please don't feel obligated to explain anything in any fashion, entirely up to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point as the FAC has been open for a short amount of time and it is always best to get as many different opinions as possible. I have decided to retire because of two things. I have realized that I am devoting a significant amount of time and energy into Wikipedia that I think would be better spent elsewhere. Lately, I have been revisiting my past GAs to rewrite for potential FACs and I think that was a bad idea for me since it made me weirdly critical and self-concious about my past writing. I was working on the "Hood Boy" article, and after I spend a decent amount of time finding additional sources and doing the citation formatting, I stepped back and asked myself why I doing all of this for a song that I do not like. So my retirement decision is really based on wanting to be better with my time managements and how my focus on rewriting my past GAs had made Wikipedia less enjoyable for me. Apologies for the long, rambling response and for my impatience with the question. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will really miss you, Aoba47, as I have considered you a shining star of conscientious and thoughtful consideration and civility, and had approached others backchannel about you as a potential admin candidate. All the best to you; sometimes stepping away from Wikipedia is a really helpful thing. If you come back, please stop in and say "hi". Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. That is very sweet, and I have very much enjoyed working with you. I have definitely made a lot of mistakes, but I try my best to civil and understanding with everyone and I have learned a lot from our conversation. If I ever do come back on Wikipedia, I will definitely let you know. I hope you are doing well and having a great 2021 so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for explaining Aoba, you will be missed and I hope you do return sooner rather than later -- but in your own good time of course! Best, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

An editor has posted comments (now here) to my nomination of Love for Sale (Bilal album), that felt disruptive and biased. I was advised to refer this to one of the FA coordinators and see what is the appropriate action, rather than continue dignifying them. isento (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered these comments ([2], [3]) from the editor, suggesting their presence there is in bad faith. isento (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just going to weigh in on the FAC page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was enough. This editor is escalating in tone and temperament, and these latest remarks are uncivil and disparaging. Their comments section is bloating into a personal vendetta bordering on genre-warring and not a review. isento (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they were to review this article, I don't know how any of it can be given any merit at this point. I hesitate to respond or dignify any further remarks from them. Even the comments earlier about minuscule details of phrasing, unrelated to their original intentions, were pointy and felt insincere. isento (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was I being to harsh with the oppose on the Billy Bates article? I'm not an upper-tier FAC reviewer, so I feel like my opposes may be weak or come across too harsh. Hog Farm _Talk 00:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HF, although the FAC instructions state that coords are free to archive a nom after one or more reviewers suggest withdrawal, it's not blindly done. You take into account whether the concerns are actionable and how serious they are, as well as the experience of the reviewer making the recommendation. In this case the comprehensiveness issue is an actionable concern and could lead to significant re-editing of the article, which should indeed happen outside FAC, so I think it was fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

9 supports and 2 purely subjective opposes? Right. Please correct the rationale to reflect there was strong consensus to promote but the co-ords disagreed with the community. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Ian, please could I add to the above a request for you to go back and consider reopening the FAC? Aside from the question about whether there was consensus or not, there was active discussion going on at the time you closed it. SandyGeorgia, Lee Vilenski, Dweller and myself were actively working through the points of confusion last night with the intention of continuing that today, and as far as I could tell there was every chance of Sandy withdrawing her oppose, and perhaps even converting it to a support. I think rather than having to push this through the whole FAC gauntlet for a second time in the future, it would be preferable for us to continue trying to get this one across the line. Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, last I looked, consensus on WP wasn't determined on numbers, and of the other coords, one had recused to review and the other had recused after you apparently took exception to her performing those duties.

No, I made no such claim. I said that her and Sandy's behaviour and attitude had made me physically sick, that's all. I never suggested consensus was a counting exercise, but when I'd done exactly what the co-ord had asked and sought further input, four more of whom supported, this closure with a claim of no consensus is about as misleading as it gets. It's also really interesting how you closed it mid-way through the discussions, really interesting. All Wikipedians are equal... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, it was actually pretty late at night here when you posted but I can say good morning now... I noted the discussion but even if Sandy were to change her oppose, there was still Gog the Mild's. More to the point we had TRM's withdrawal, which I took seriously. Even so I didn't act on it immediately but left things a few days in case of second thoughts. I understand your wish to see the discussion continue but a nominator has every right to withdraw an article; further, the questions that appear to be causing the disagreements are bigger than this article and I think should be pursued at WT:FAC, for the sake of future nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and I sense this is a little bit of flogging a dead horse here, and as you say I guess it had technically been withdrawn anyway. But I just want to clarify in my own mind how this process works. Suppose that we had worked through the issues with Sandy (as indeed seemed likely given her engagement with the process), and then remained with just Gog the Mild's oppose, as you mention above. Is that lone oppose really enough to kill the entire FAC, especially given that three of the support voters had pretty much explicitly said that they thought the prose was fine as it was, and would not benefit from the proposed added text? Gog was asked to re-evaluate their position in light of this, but refused to accept that their position might not represent the consensus view, and they eventually walked away with the single-word comment "unwatching". I'm all for taking oppose comments seriously and acting on them, but I don't see how this one could possibly be interpreted as actionable given the myriad voices at the FAC saying otherwise. I guess we can pursue a lengthy discussion at WT:FAC to get to the bottom of the MOS:LINKSTYLE question, and it will be useful to do so, but I still think that in this particular case we were on the verge of a fairly clear consensus. I think it would have been fairer to all concerned for you to make that clear. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, are you considering nominating an article to mark the 100th anniversary of the RAAF on 31 March? One of your articles on RAAF commanders or famous members and units would be a particularly good choice. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the reminder Nick, I have to admit it hadn't crossed my mind. Of course I'm a bit over getting things on the front page that I have to watch like a hawk but for such an occasion I really must put duty before personal feelings... ;-) Given many of these articles have already seen the main page, I'm tending to narrow the choice to Lou Spence as exemplifying the service. I mean RAAF area commands is a decent general one but a bit dry, Henry Petre historical but really AFC and English to boot, and Australian Air Corps, while also being general, immediately predates the RAAF. WDYT of Spence? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Spence would be an excellent choice. As you say, he's an excellent example of a distinguished RAAF airman. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's done, although I imagine they'll be pushback over its proximity to Lionel Matthews earlier in the month. Then again Matthews isn't actually scheduled yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I think that this month's Bugle should be good to go. Would you be able to check it over and do the honours with dispatching it? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, on my list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did every subscriber get the Bugle twice? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my namesake...! The first set of links was to Feb 2020, not Feb 2021 (typo)... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not easily spotted... I see that some recipients have reverted the second (typo-free) one, presumably as a duplicate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

Thank you, as ever, Ian, for your correction of well-meant infelicities, at Maurice Ravel in this case. For the sake of absolute accuracy, however, I have to tell you that looking in the bathroom mirror these days I find it is perfectly possible for a person to be widespread! All the best, Tim talk 16:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I think that the March edition of the Bugle might be good to go. Grateful if you could look it over, and press the send button when you're happy with it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian and Nick-D, I wasn’t sure where to put it but could we add mention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive? Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I've just added a para on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2021/Project news. Grateful if you could check it, and make any edits you see fit :) Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nick, It looks pretty good to me! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

Hi Ian, may I ask you for some guidance? You closed the FAC Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women and added I should continue the improvements outside FAC. Unfortunately I don't know what to do: there were 2 reviewers who gave support (one of them 15 minutes after you closed it), and one who opposed but without clear instructions for me what to do. It seems he is opposing because of this: "You need to imagine you're explaining to a 7-year-old child and if they don't understand the entire article without having to click away, that's a fail. It's not what I consider an FA should be but sadly the FA co-ords and others have set their stall out that way (within the last two months) so we all should comply with that." I agree with him that setting that standard is wrong. I can see that none of the other FACs are held to this standard at the moment, not even the many football ones. I was hoping to get more reviewers to share their views on this fundamental issue. I'm not sure where to get these other views other than FAC. Do you have a better idea than just bringing this back at FAC in 2 weeks time? Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwin, sorry I don't have time for a fuller reply right now but Peer Review would be the best venue for further commentary before another FAC nom. You could solicit input from the people who reviewed the FAC. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian Rose.

In No. 450 Squadron RAAF "Squadron bases" section , there some remarks said "det. at".

What is the full form of "det. at" and what is the meaning of this ?

Thank you.--Comrade John (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

44 was a complete and utter flutter in the wind compared to the 42 scare here in perth - there is more juicy material in the awm archives (and others) about what they were getting up to in perth - however I havent seen any good material that exploits the real world impact in perth of 42 compared to 44 - my favourite item in the awm materials are the detailed how to blow up the freo harbour facilities to render the whole port useless documents, great reading and the great rush to get army camps out of range of the coast - all great fun and local - nothing to do with melbourne and the guys with strange names or medallions on their chests.. cheers JarrahTree 15:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I think that this should now be good to go. If you're also happy with it, I'd be grateful if you could do the honours with dispatching. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

Ian, I added the coords of Tito's cave (Op ROESSELSPRUNG) because I visited the battlefield in spring 2004 when I was posted to the Canadian Battlegroup in Zgon (near Kljuc). No coordinates are exact. Drvar was located in our sector, and a mechanized company was lodged just south of downtown. I know where Tito's cave is located - because I was there. My job that day was to drive the Intelligence Officer. Secondly, I am a recently retired Canadian geomatics technician and 16 yrs ago prepared materials in support of the tour. If you have better sources, please contribute otherwise I request you revert my edit. PS - I've met now-LGen Wayne Eyre. Great guy! Terry (aka Maple Leaf Eh) 17:28, 25 May 2021‎

Hi Terry, I appreciate you've been there and I haven't but Wikipedia -- especially re. Featured Articles like this one -- requires all information to be cited to reliable sources. If you have such a source that supports your info then you could re-add with a citation to that source -- as I said in my edit summary, anecdotal info alone doesn't satisfy the requirement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just take down FA Raya and the Last Dragon, I am working on it. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least give me a month. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wingwatchers, you can have as long as you need to work on it, but just outside FAC. Archiving doesn't prevent you from nominating the same article in future, many FAs had multiple nominations before gaining consensus to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I think that this will be good to go after the featured content is added. Only one new A-class article this months is a bit of a shame! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that's probably a record low but the FA numbers were okay. I hope to find time to add the FA blurbs in the next day or so, so be a late despatch but still... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi Ian! I have opened a peer review for Bowie's album Low and was wondering, since you're familiar with Bowie, if you would be able to provide some comments when you get the chance? I'd greatly appreciate it but if not I totally understand. Thanks! – zmbro _(talk) 20:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, replied there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Billy Bates (baseball), would you still say I have to go through PR like you suggested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Billy Bates (baseball)/archive2, or do you think it's OK to renominate at FAC? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Therapyisgood, I can see you've been working on it since it was last nominated, the PR would be useful to get a reality check on those changes before FAC. OTOH, perhaps an informal pre-FAC look by Hog Farm would do the trick, if HF is willing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look, but it'll be several days. I've got a couple other FA reviews for longer articles I've promised to do, and I'll be traveling a lot for work over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: any update? Therapyisgood (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood: - To be honest, I stayed busy with work and forgot about this. Will have a bit more time over the next few days, will try to look at this over then. Hog Farm _Talk 18:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I know you're a Bowie fan, so I wasn't sure if your interest would also extend to a Beatles related article; I've submitted John Lennon's first book, In His Own Write, to be an FA, but is hasn't received much attention. I'd appreciate a look if you have the time, but if not I understand. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 11:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tk, funnily enough I was considering reviewing the article when/if I found time. As if happens the Beatles' music doesn't really do much for me -- there's something a bit twee about much of it IMO, though perhaps that's mainly McCartney's part as I will listen to Lennon's (and Harrison's) work. Still you can't deny the band was a phenomenon. Anyway, yes, if I get time I will look at In His Own Write. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, I appreciate it. Tkbrett (✉) 19:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, will you be able to finish off the Bugle? If not, I could do so. I imagine that the lockdown might be causing issues in your part of the county, and hope that all's well for you. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help in any guys! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys -- it might've been a near-run thing but no amount of government hysteria will prevent the Bugle going out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Ian, and I hope that all's going well. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

Hey Ian! I'm sure you know by now that I have nominated Iggy Pop's The Idiot for FA status. Due to your familiarity with both Pop and Bowie, I was wondering if you'd be able to provide some comments or concerns regarding more than just prose? I'd greatly appreciate it. :-) Thanks! – zmbro _(talk) 15:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I did see that and would love to comment but I don't have a lot of spare time right now (as witness the Low PR) but will if I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - I thought I'd try a sounding board with the coords before posting at WT:FAC, so I don't make a fool out of myself if this is a bad idea. After that spurt of a bunch of drive-by nominations from a new user, I got to thinking about if it would be worthwhile to create a discussion suggesting semi-protection of WP:FAC. It would still allow logged-out editing of the FAC nomination pages themselves, but might cut-down on some of the drive-bys from new users by not allowing them to transclude it. I don't think I've ever seen an IP FAC nom, and the underlying code/wording on the page should be fairly stable and not needing IP adjustments, so there shouldn't be any collateral damage. It might also prevent the rare act of vandalism to the page. Since IP noms never seem to happen, and non-autoconfirmed nominations are so far as I've seen always drive-bys that get closed within 36 hours due to lack of preparation/involvement in page, is this a worthwhile topic to bring up? Hog Farm _Talk 17:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, my first thought was that I am reluctant to close FAC to anyone. I find it difficult to argue against your proposal from logic, but I am not sure that I like the way it looks. Even though I accept that this access is pro forma and that the only thing it is used for in practice is frivolous nominations and vandalism. Although, are they that troublesome? I wouldn't know, I never have the back off, myself. A sensible proposal, but is the level of damage yet severe enough to warrant inserting the first tip of the thin edge of the wedge? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been at least one IP nomination that was successful. It was a long time ago. I have looked, but I can't find it. Graham Beards (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards and Gog the Mild: - Sounds like the potential collateral damage from this is likely to be too high for this to be a good idea. Hog Farm _Talk 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it will be, but am uneasy about the precedent. Much as I might enjoy a power for, say, FAC coordinators to ban any editor they wish! Eg a certain serial withdrawer from earlier in the year? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HF, tks for suggesting. I have to admit I don't find the current situation onerous even though we have those vulnerabilities. In fact as a coord I find dealing with OOP/drive-by noms even easier these days because reviewers spot them early and heavily oppose and/or suggest withdrawal, which wasn't always the case. So while I wouldn't necessarily rule out supporting semi-protection, I personally don't think we need it as yet, if at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to proceed Frozen II as FAC, I have resolved all the issues raised from the previous archive, but the article is not yet two weeks old but close since its last nomination. Thank you. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wingwatchers, I think you're only a day or so short of the two weeks so that's not a huge thing but I notice you have an open Peer Review for the article and that needs to be closed before starting a new FAC -- unless of course you want to give the PR more time, which would be my recommendation but it's your call, the main thing is you can't run both simultaneously. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will close the peer review before I nominate the article, but first I need your permission. It's pretty close, can you allow it? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Wingwatchers, now that the PR is closed it's fine to go for FAC again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian! I wanted to let you know that since I have now, for the most part, completed work on Low (besides a few other touch-ups still to do), my next two projects will be finally finishing up Young Americans and start work on Station to Station. I'll be expanding it in a similar fashion to Never Let Me Down, also brought to GA before I started this project. Using Pegg's 2016 edition will be of good use as that goes into great depth on the 2010 deluxe edition (and I'm sure O'Leary's book will too). I wanted to let you know beforehand so you're aware. I do not mean any animosity whatsoever, I just want to make sure the article is fleshed out in a similar vein that all of his 70s-80s records are now. Hoppe all is well! – zmbro _(talk) 16:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H zmbro! Mmm, still prefer to expand S2S myself as much as possible to maintain the flow and style, so long as I can access the newer sources, with a view to taking to PR and FAC sometime. Anyway if YA is first cab off the rank for you (not one of my faves by any means!) why don't we see how things go...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to collaborate on STS with you if you'd like. I've now fallen down a rabbit hole and am finally finishing Pin Ups before I get to YW (it's easier because I don't have to worry about a section devoted to every song). I'd also ideally like to get Ziggy done before its 50th anniversary in June but we'll see about that. – zmbro _(talk) 14:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. Wanted to let you know I'm now done with both Pin Ups and YA and I plan to start work on StS very shortly. I'm aiming to craft it more in style to the other articles of his I've written. Also, it's currently at 65k bytes but I have a feeling it can go up to 90k (maybe not as large as Low but definitely close). Ping me when you wanna discuss. – zmbro _(talk) 19:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the STS article to my sandbox. I'll be making adjustments there so I can think as I go. If you want to make comments or tweaks there as I'm working please don't hesitate. – zmbro _(talk) 02:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian. I wanted to let you know after taking a break to do a few other projects I'm backing working on StS and have made substantial progress over the past few days. Please feel free to make some adjustments if you see fit over at my sandbox. Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 14:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, will try to take a look in the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there old friend. Think we could return to this at point? I'd still like it to become featured. Thanks. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ian, Sturm and I currently have Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj as a co-nom, and I'd like to co-nom Uroš Drenović with Amanuensis Balkanicus as well. AB and I have previously co-nommed at FAC with Kragujevac massacre. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: given Ian seems to be away, anyone else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm around but I had to do some calculations... Yeah so once you add this co-nom you'll have one solo nom and two co-noms I think -- technically that's the equivalent of two solo noms but I'm about to close your boat FAC anyway so feel free... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, this now should be good to go once the featured articles are added (hint, hint ;) ). Making the excellent decision to go on holiday during a lockdown has given me lots of time to work on this! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean you didn't fly out of Canberra on your VIP jet private plane before lockdown like everyone else? What were you thinking...?! ;-) Thanks mate, should be done this w/e... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only time in my career I had anything to do with a VIP jet I was disappointed to find that they don't let public servants anywhere near them. I wasn't even allowed to ring the RAAF to ask important planning questions like whether my minister could actually fly into the places he wanted to fly into. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. We must have edit conflicted on the undo, and I ended up leaving the IP a warning for your udo. Please replace it or remove it if you wish. Meters (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meters, I think we can let it ride for now, tks for the message and I'm glad we have a few eyes on this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP is still going... not going to end well. Meters (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I think if they do it once more they should be blocked but I'm not an admin. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, please see [4]. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned, thanks Graham. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must revert yourself. I actively oppose the promotion with justification. You yourself have refused to promote other FACs with eight or nine supports based on lone opposition. This is fundamentally flawed. If you can't be equitable, I suggest you resign from FAC delegation as you clearly aren't being reasonable. I don't want you to do that, but you are clearly not being egalitarian. Sort it out. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry TRM but this is not similar to that case. You opposed after Gog promoted the article and without having commented on the article for weeks. If you had recently revisited the nom or had already opposed then I doubt very much Gog would have promoted, certainly not without attempting to get it resolved. I don't think it would set a good precedent at all to reverse promotions when someone opposes after the fact. In this situation the thing to do is discuss any remaining points on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely the same, but I don't expect the outcome to be any different. FAC is broken, you have an impotent delegate in Gog, an absent delegate in Ealdgyth and you, to pick up the pieces. I'm sorry it's ended up this way. Where was the request for me to revisit my position after all the edits? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

If FAC is not meant to allow extended feedback or changes, as I was told, then criterion 1e needs to be changed for being misleading. Significant changes in response to feedback can't simultaneously be discouraged but also explicitly allowed. Being so opaque makes the process a waste of time. Urve (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some health issues and I'm stepping down. Thanks for all your kindnesses to me over the years, and for doing such an outstanding job at FAC. Nothing that I did would have been possible without you. Best wishes for the future. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, very sorry to hear that -- I and many others will miss you greatly. You taught me a lot. Aside from all your editing work, your wisdom and calm helped keep many a volatile discussion on track. Stay safe and strong, we're thinking of you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, thanks, and I'll continue to do some writing and reviewing on-wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's great, really glad we'll still see you around -- whatever you feel you can manage will be a positive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian

I hope you're well. I just wanted to check if you're aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/UEFA_Euro_2020_Final/archive1#Query_for_the_coordinators regarding the possibility of an early promotion there. Of course I'm aware that we can have no expectations as to when a particular candidate is promoted, but obviously it will extremely useful for myself and TRM in the WikiCup if you are able to find a way to giving it the shiny star before the end of tomorrow! It has four prose supports plus sourcing and images, so hopefully good enough although if there's anything else we can do to get it over the line before tomorrow that would be very useful to know from you as well. Cheers and all the best  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, I can't take into consideration one way or the other what effect an article's promotion might have on WikiCup, but I am planning to check through the list this weekend so we'll see how we go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian. Of course, can't ask for anything more than that! Cheers and have a good weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Ian. Absolutely get the many competing demands but if you’re able, could you bump Ham House up your to-do list. It’s been a tough, two-month long, haul for the nominator and I think they’d appreciate closure. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Australian Air Corps article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 26, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 26, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, congratulations on the Australia Day slot! As a possibly irritating suggestion, this article might benefit from a short para or so on why Australia decided to establish an independent air service (presumably modelled on the RAF?) to provide context for the somewhat unusual status and organisation of the AAC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated hello, Nick. I like the idea but have effectively been out of action due RL stuff until now, and even so might not have time to get this before tomorrow, though just a sentence might do the trick. We'll see... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between October and December 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I have nominated Quatermass and the Pit for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Ian Rose! i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.

• both the blurb and article lead state that the aac was part of the australian army, while the article body reproduces a quote that states that the aac was "technically separate from the Army and Navy [and] was Australia's first independent air force". is this a discrepancy that should be resolved?
• the article body refers to "the Vickers Vimy bomber recently piloted by Ross and Keith Smith on the first flight from England to Australia". however, the article on the flight states that a prize was offered for the first australian nationals to fly from england to australia in a british aircraft within 30 consecutive days. were the smiths actually the first to fly from england to australia, without qualification?

dying (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January songs

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Presenting a neglected formation of the Australian military (so neglected it didn't even have an article on WP till recently)... The Australian Air Corps has always been the poorer relation of the Australian Flying Corps of World War I and the Royal Australian Air Force formed in 1921, but between the disbandment of the AFC and the establishment of the RAAF, Australia's military air personnel needed a home, and that was provided by the short-lived AAC. Though always a stop-gap, it turned out to be a pretty successful venture -- rather than simply remain in a holding pattern, its personnel undertook some pioneering flights, one of which has been credited as marking the birth of aviation medicine in Australia. Most importantly, the corps laid the foundations for a permanent Australian air force."! On Australia Day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

If you have time, I believe it's ready to promote again. Thanks so much for your work at FAC. (t · c) buidhe 10:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 March 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February songs

frozen

looking forward to that! - my turn today: my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music - You once told me that it's customary that an article's principal editors make decisions about its appearance. Cosima Wagner raises two questions: for how long after they died? ... and should they even be allowed to decide that an article is less accessible, which isn't only appearance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stand and sing - the discussion progressed without you, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March songs

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2012): "No, surprisingly, not an RAAF flyboy. Fact is, I’ve long observed that while Australian military pilots are, if I say so myself, well served in terms of quality WP bios, as are Australian soldiers thanks to Hawkeye and also Bryce Abraham, the same can’t be said for Royal Australian Navy personnel. So putting my time where my mouth is, this is one of the RAN’s legendary commanders of World War II, who earned the admiration of Admiral Cunningham during the Mediterranean campaign and who, had he not been lost with his cruiser HMAS Perth in the Pacific during the Battle of Sunda Strait, might well have become Australia's pre-eminent naval officer of the post-war period. The submarine HMAS Waller was named in his honour."! - Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Ian. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you wrote many featured articles with links to politics.

I asked this question at the Help Desk but didn't get a proper answer.

Rana Ayyub wrote this in March 2015.

Nun rape and church vandalism: The fringe is now mainstream

Her article ends, stating that Bangladeshis were not responsible. After the arrests of the Bangladeshi accused, who were convicted, there is an editor's note that the article was written before the arrest.

The editor's note was added after the conviction, initially, it was not there.

Contrary to what she wrote, actually, a Bangladeshi was convicted not locals. That was the reason, why the editor had to leave a note at the end of the article, after the conviction of real rapists.

She promoted her article twice through her Twitter account and did not delete or gave any updates, in spite of the court verdict.

https://twitter.com/ranaayyub/status/577862190906011648

https://twitter.com/ranaayyub/status/577805661460795392

Can this be inserted in the controversy section, as she gave wrong information and didn't clarify afterward, in spite of the editor adding a note at the end of the article? Knight Skywalker (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

Not open long enough to be promotion-eligible, but just wanted to give you the heads up that you're the only non-recused coordinator. Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks HF. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, mate,

Eh, been a while since Albert Ball. Anyhow, I am trying to improve some of the WWI ace bios beyond B Class. However, I ran afoul of that little menu of technical requirements when I submitted a nom. Can you refer me to a WP tutorial on the subject?Georgejdorner (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, sorry for belated reply! Are you speaking of MilHist A-Class nomination, or FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both, actually, as I intend to promote some of my GANs through A Class to FA.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

[5], was there a problem? SN54129 17:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate I have no clue how that happened. I did edit something else on my mobile about the same time... I think there are intervening edits now so I don't like my chances of restoring things until I get back on the laptop later so don't let me stop you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The old "Accidental rollback" defence, eh :p no worries, I was flattered that I'd done something so out of order that you'd been forced to make your first edit to that page in 14 years! All the best, SN54129 18:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Seemed like a long gap and I happened to notice it; I know you often do multiple promotions. I'll be more patient if I notice this in future... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay Make, I appreciate your conscientiousness (is that really a word, spell check seems to think so!) -- I did take a coffee break in the middle there, perhaps it was longer than I thought... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

Hi Ian. My nomination of Eadred has five supports. Is it OK for me to nominate another article? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Dudley, go ahead. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

Hello. A long time ago, I was pushing to get some of these 'old' FAs, where appropriate, featured on Main Page. Mainly because of inactivity (especially over Covid when RL was very busy for me) I've completely lost track of where (if anywhere) that has got to. Any ideas? Paging others involved at various points: SandyGeorgia, Bencherlite, Ealdgyth, Casliber and Dank Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(PS Apologies to anyone I omitted) --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look suggests that 3 of the 2006 FAs still have their bronze stars, were reviewed as appropriate there, and still haven't appeared on Main Page, except perhaps in DYK, in the intervening 16 years. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dweller; sorry to hear you had COVID-- so far, I've dodged that bullet! WP:URFA/2020 includes mainpage date, and is now being used as a central place for reviewing old FAs and coordinating with TFA. Z1720 has been active in making sure older FAs are nominated at WP:TFA after they are reviewed, and the TFA Coords have been receptive to running them. Have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report for an update. To my knowledge, your userspace page is no longer being updated, but quite a few editors are participating in the URFA effort, which has resulted in a high number of older FAs being run TFA. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Dweller, you can sort on the TFA date column at WP:URFA/2020VO, the very old FAs, to see which have not yet run TFA, including

• Four from the 2006 to 2009 period that been cleared at FAR or marked satisfactory at URFA/2020, and
• Six from 2006 that have not yet been cleared.

As there are plenty that have been checked, several of those active at URFA2020 (like me :) have typically opposed running those that have not, and the TFA Coords have been keeping tabs on URFA2020 progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt nudged me that some of the above are no longer editing, and perhaps Jimfbleak, Gog the Mild and Wehwalt might be interested. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that when I schedule, the older a FA is, the more cautious I am about scheduling it, especially if the principal editor is no longer active.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are really helpful responses. Forgive me if I still don't completely understand. Is a formal FAR required or an informal check by a clued-up volunteer (solo)? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Five different things are happening:

1. Some old and very old FAs are listed at FAR and saved/kept, while some others are moved at URFA/2020 to "marked satisfactory" after three generally "clued-up" volunteers have reviewed them, and indicated that a FAR is not warranted.
2. Z1720 is frequently nominating old and very old FAs that have been marked satisfactory or passed FAR to run or re-run at TFA.
3. In the very rare event that an article is erroneously marked "Satisfactory", it can still be sent to FAR ... I have opposed one "marked-Satisfactory" URFA2020 articles at WP:TFAR, for example, as I didn't think it satisfactory.
4. TFA Coords are posting their proposed list of TFAs in advance, so that "clued-up volunteers" can run through and check the old and very old FAs.
5. Some TFA Coords are watching URFA/2020 as to which old and very old FAs are good to run or re-run.

If you look at the URFA/2020 lists and use the sortability on the TFA dates, you can extend that even further, for example, Sandy Koufax is a very old FA that has been marked satisfactory. It is eligible to re-run, but as Koufax is 86, I am hoping it can be run when he passes, if the Coords are able to do a last-minute juggle. That's just one example of how the URFA2020 sortability can be used to help with TFA scheduling ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @ Ian Rose,

Hi I am User:Bookku my wiki activism includes finding info and knowledge gaps and promoting articles and drafts to recruit users to fill such encyclopedic gaps by article / draft expansion. English not being my native language, frequently I do need linguistic help too.

I am looking for help in following segments

• Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala is well sourced but needs linguistic help in bringing to Wikipedian expectations.

• Expansion requests
  • Draft:Irrational beliefs
  • Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia
  • Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies

Requesting your visit if any of the above topics interests you and help expand the same.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was more than chuffed to get your "thank" for my recent confection, the Decca Ring. Such things quite make one's day! Tim riley talk 14:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all Tim, I just happened to spot it when I found a new edit to John Culshaw on my watchlist. I think the Decca Ring was the first opera set I bought, my wife and I were on holiday in Surfers Paradise when I walked into a music store, saw it on special and persuaded her to let me indulge myself... I wasn't even an opera fan before that, but having the Penguin Guide I was intrigued by what I read of Culshaw's experiments and felt I just had to have it -- needless to say I wasn't disappointed. The story of the recording is an epic in itself, so this article is a worthy addition to WP...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

Thanks! Learned a new word today. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DonQuixote, that's very gracious of you -- I have to admit I had to check the dictionary myself before I was sure... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. Is Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King suitable for FAC as it is so short? And if it is, Can I nominate now as Eadwig has three supports? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudley, if promoted as is then Ælfwynn would certainly be one of the shortest FAs but time and again it's been agreed that the criterion of comprehensiveness, neglecting no major facts, doesn't preclude brevity. You could try PR to get further opinions but on the face of it I don't see why you shouldn't nominate at FAC. Yes, Earwig seems on track, I won't be looking at closing till it's had a couple of weeks on the list to give everyone a chance to comment but no reason you shouldn't kick off a new one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate,

As can be seen, my initial attempt at a solo FAC is being closed in a welter of confusion. I will retire to lick my wounds a bit, wade in the swamp of copyright baffle-gab, flog thru the MS one more time, and otherwise educate myself in the ways of the FAC process. Such as having reviewers on tap. Which leads to my humble request. Could you please be one of the reviewers when I resubmit this?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, sorry for belated reply -- I'll try but admit I don't have very much time for review these days. Anyway I'll see it when it goes up and will do what I can... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

Hey there! Um... I know this is a short article, but it's a subject of limited size. Do you think you could give your opinion on whether it's worth taking it beyond GA to FAC? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). 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 here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August songs

... for promoting Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 to featured article, in it's third attempt! - Enjoy images of a rich summer, especially in music -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Noticed you reverted my changes to the page on Werner Voss, I get the issue with the date. I suppose that writing "2 April, Year" is the standard on Wikipedia then? Personally I feel that more often than not "April 2nd, Year" for example looks better, but if it isn't the formatting used then I won't change it going forward.

I did however have a question regarding what you called "good-faith changes", what exactly do you mean?

As noted in the text I added after the changes I made, it was done to make it flow better. I don't think I jumped to any conclusions or added information that wasn't already present in the text (but written in a way that made it clunky). If that's what you mean.

Thanks in advance for any clarification you can give me, want to improve as a contributor and not make mistakes moving forward.

MeadeIndeed (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. 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 here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. 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 here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

Hi Ian, thanks for the promotion. Re upper cases for battle of XXX. I have possibly been inconsistent, or - possibly more likely - others may have made "helpful" edits, but it has been pretty well established that the sources use the lower case in these situations. And definitely established for Punic War sources. See this debate, where I accept this, with much flabbering of ghast, towards the end. So, unless you shout otherwise, I'll go through Ticinus changing Battle to battle. (No, I don't understand it either.) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the lyonisation of lower case... I bow to your (shared) lack of understanding -- as long as it's consistent within the article I guess that's the main thing (just as verifiability is more sacred than truth, so consistency frequently trumps logic)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ian Rose! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

Hi Ian, thanks for edits to the above article.

Since your 11:03, 22 October 2022 edit the coloured photo with caption of the RAAF Aermacchi MB-326 in the 'infobox' on right no longer appears in the article.

It's removal was not mentioned in the revision so if the photo was/is not in breach of a Wiki protocol is it possible for you to re-instate it in the info box or alternatively, immediately below or adjacent to it? (Chronologically it fits immediately above the last photo.) Shellac41 (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)‎[reply]

Hi Shellac, I considered placing that shot elsewhere in the article but I was not certain from the source caption that it even belonged to 25SQN - can that be verified from the fuselage code (don't know 25SQN's off the top of my head)? We also have Macchis in one pic anyway, albeit not in colour... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I will try and check out the Macchi's home, may have been 2FTS but was not concerned because 25 SQN flew some of their Macchis in the same training colour scheme.

There are far better photos of 25 SQN Macchis in warpaint with Black Swan tail emblems on the ADF-Serials' ADF-gallery website that would enhance the article in my opinion.

However, ADF Serials do not show any source or copyright details of the photos and to-date they are not responding to my requests emailed to their only stated email address, nor to any members' questions or comments on their members' talk forums? Shellac41 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ian

1.The Macchi in the deleted picture was A7-018 which was a 2FTS aircraft at RAAF Pearce - according to ADF Serials it crashed 05/04/88 after engine failure shortly after take-off - both crew ejected safely with only minor injuries.

2. The caption on the deleted photo said ...; this aircraft type was flown by No. 25 Squadron...(bold added) - it was not meant to claim the photoed Macchi was flown by 25 SQN; just the type for illustrative purposes.

3. The article's existing photo of 25 SQN Macchis only shows them in the distant background and then only partially.

4. Until a photo of an actual 25 SQN Macchi that qualifys for Wiki's public domain - free access requirements becomes available (which appears not easy and will probably take a long time), it is requested the colour photo be reinstated.

5. The photo's caption could read: Aermacchi MB-326 A7-018 shown in 2FTS RAAF Base Pearce flying training school colours. This aircraft type was operated in both training and 'warbird' colours by No. 25 Squadron during its 1989 - 1998 flying role. Shellac41 (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm stepping back from The Signpost for a bit. Still willing to do The Bugle, but it doesn't have the same overlap as it used to, so I might need a little prodding.

Long story short... The Signpost isn't malicious, but it's incompetent. They lost multiple articles because they decided to reset their contributions page three days before publication. They published something I repeatedly marked as a draft to be postponed, basically ruining my attempts to get image donations. I was literally begging for help for weeks with September's featured content on the talk page, and got no reply until the day before publication, at which point I was completely burned out. They said they wanted to interview me when I hit 600 featured pictures, and then, as I approached that number, decided not to, apparently.

It's killed my enthusiasm for doing anything with them, made all the worse by the fact I was doing three to five of the articles every issue for the last few months.

They don't appreciate their contributors, the readership is tiny, and... well, it's really hard to get enthusiasm for continuing with them after all that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 00:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, sorry to hear all that -- I have to admit I don't spend much time reading it and could never face the prospect of contributing given other commitments to FAC and the Bugle. If you can see your way clear to continuing with the Bugle FPs that'd be great, I can always do the other featured content and Nick the A-class blurbs. You have a real commitment to excellence and we appreciate it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do it, just might need reminders until I switch habits over. It's mostly done for November now. Got pulled off looking up images on the Air Force Museum of New Zealand (A little Jack Rae rabbithole). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 07:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Gog, especially coming from a fellow coord who's contributed a plethora of helpful reviews to keep the process ticking over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

Hi Ian, while following up on an interesting note that No. 83 Wing was known as Army Co-Operation Wing at some stage after the war, I found some stories in Trove from 1946 that used generic titles for the RAAF's wings at the time (e.g. [6]). Have you seen this elsewhere? It might just be the journalists getting confused about RAAF terminology, but it's possible that the RAAF was using generic titles at this time while deciding which wing numbers to use. The re designation of No. 12 Squadron to the more distinguished No. 1 Squadron and No. 21 Squadron to No. 2 Squadron occurred at around this time which suggests that the RAAF was settling on which names to retain. All the sheets in the No. 83 Wing unit history sheets are marked as 'No. 83 Wing', but the copy in the NAA looks to be a clean copy typed up in one sitting, presumably as part of the process of disbanding the unit. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...! Since during the war and for several years after wing (and squadron) names generally included their purpose as well as number, as in No. 82 (Bomber) [or (B)] Wing for example, I was initially tempted to put it down to sloppy journalism but then I recalled this, which I referred to in the No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF article -- check out page 9... I have a vague feeling Stephens mentioned that in Going Solo too so will double-check it for anything about generic wing names I might've missed before. Maybe there was a general but short-lived policy of naming rather than numbering certain units, especially bigger ones. So I guess Heavy Bomber Wing was No. 82, Fighter Wing was No. 78, Army Cooperation Wing was No. 83 (since No. 84 had disbanded in March 1946) and Transport Wing was No. 86... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Stephens too, p. 146... No. 1 Service Flying Training School relocated from Uranquinty to Point Cook and changed its name to the Flying Training School and then to No. 1 Flying Training School (No. 1 FTS) as it prepared for the first post-war basic aircrew course. As far as the name-only wings go, the only look-in is pp. 31-32, where a hypothetical Mobile Task Force was envisaged in April 1947 as part of the RAAF's Plan D. The OOB mentions a Heavy Bomber Wing, Fighter Wing and Transport Wing -- yes it uses title case just as I have here but then it uses title case everywhere, as in "Three Heavy Bomber Squadrons" being the complement of Heavy Bomber Wing -- so those names might not mean as much as they initially seem. And maybe the press got hold of it and assumed those were the proper names of all these wings, meaning FTS for No.1 FTS was just a one-off -- who knows...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, yes it seems that this is unclear! It's a shame that that Wikipedia's coverage of RAAF wings is probably the best resource on this topic available anywhere, as it leaves us caught a bit short on details like this. Not a big issue, of course, though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, FWIIW, my initial posting to Richmond was to 86 Transport Wing - attached to 38(TT)SQN (meaning Transport Training). According to the Appendix to Derek Roylance's 1991 History of Air Base Richmond, 86 (T) Wing existed from 1941 to 1994.Lexysexy (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no MILHIST featured articles promoted before the end of the month - and you of all people will know if there are - and likewise featured lists, though the only ones actually nominated that are at all related seem to be the pretty tangental List of prime ministers of Australia and Timeline of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson). So probably not much more to do. I looked ahead in the FPC queue and unless Gurney gets delayed in promotion, then FPs are done, and worst case scenario we report a little early. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 02:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Adam! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

Congratulations! I made it my New Year's resolution to write more featured content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda -- I look forward to seeing that! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, and the same to you and yours -- good to see you back! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, hope you are having a great time as well! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoria, wish you and your family the very best for 2023 as well! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks, Moops, and the same to you...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even more belated Happy New Year from me too, Ian!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amakuru! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with belated well wishes, or with belated thanks! :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

I presume you don't mind if I borrow a couple of The Bugle summaries of featured content for The Signpost? Will credit you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 23:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, go ahead -- and don't worry about crediting me, to be fair I often adapt Nick-D's A-Class blurbs for the FA ones so on balance it's at least as much his work as mine...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure! We're having two Signposts this month, so I'm trying to get this out in the first one so I can just do an easy half-month for the second issue, and moving forwards. Gives me more space for article descriptions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 23:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- BTW I recall you suggesting maybe there should be something in the Signpost about the Bugle's 200 issue -- did you want to just mention it somewhere with a link to the issue or were you looking at something more elaborate? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one said anything, I just put a brief note in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/News_and_notes#Brief notes. I think it'd be nice to republish the article, but I'd want permission for that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 00:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see... The mention with the link to the interview/commemoration was pretty much what I had in mind. I don't know about missing two months though, on two occasions we ran issues where we amalgamated two months to reflect alterations to the publishing time/format...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of those begins with apologies for missing a month, so... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...for your tweaks chez Klemperer. Almost all are improvements, methinks. Is the topic of particular interest to you? I do hope so. When I was young I idolised the old boy, and now I am myself an old boy I still turn to his recordings of Beethoven above any other conductor's. Tim riley talk 20:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, my musical tastes are wide and varied -- I inherited an interest in jazz from my father, in classical (mostly romantic and modern, particularly ballet scores) from my mother, and rock/new wave/electronic I discovered for myself... It's perhaps because DG was my mum's go-to label that Karajan figures more prominently in my classical upbringing than Klemperer, particularly re. Beethoven. That said I do have a copy of OK's EMI Fidelio (can't recall if the Penguin Guide gave it a rosette but it was highly recommended) that I still haven't played because I packed it away before my last move and haven't unpacked it, and it's never too late to sample his interpretations of other works... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong? Catlemur (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing! Bloody mobile's too sensitive, I just rv'd myself... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been no A-class articles for all of January? I'm trying to get this roughly into shape, but that's... weird. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As they get posted by a bot, that would seem to be the case. The history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review shows that no articles have so far been promoted in January. It's the first time I can remember this occurring. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Strange. Probably just the post-Christmas slowdown, to be followed by a ridiculous number in February. If any of them are being held up by lack of an image review, let me know. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 19:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, the Miles Dempsey ACR is pretty well there, so we might get one... As both FAC and MilHist coord I've pretty well given up trying to understand why some months are good and others bad -- Wikicup can contribute to heavier reviewing but it's never been the whole explanation for strong results in my experience, and if the holiday period has adversely affected ACR, it doesn't seem to have had the same effect on FAC this past month or so... Just the usual vagaries of a volunteer project methinks! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I went to find suitable citations for Professor Farquharson's rescue of Tubby the dog on the Tacoma Narrows bridge, only to find that that was Frederick Burt Farquharson and not Ray. That's my bad, the footage of the collapse simply refers to him as "Prof Farquharson" and doesn't clarify his first or nmiddle name so I thought the two were the same. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariusPumpkinRex (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Well, I've half-finished the next Bugle's FC. Insofar as... y'know, did the first two weeks of February.Might be late enough that I can reasonably predict the images for the rest of February (Nominations run 10 days, so if there's no Milhist images that aren't already obviously passing or failing, we can say pretty definitively what will pass.) That leaves FAs and FLs, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, thanks as always, I can take care of the rest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF to be today's featured article for April 25. As the article's FAC nominator, you are invited to comment on the nomination by clicking here. Z1720 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did half the Bugle a while ago, but realised we need to finish out the month, and so I have figured out what articles remained to be included. I'll try to get descriptions up for them by the end of the weekend. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s okay Adam, I've got the page complete. I just have to do the main project news page and then can despatch. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between October and December 2022. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

No offense taken, we're allowed to have differences in opinion. :-) Hope you're doing well! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we are! Doing pretty good, thanks -- hope you too... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The 30th/archive1 — idk why. (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looks to me that someone has merged the 30th article with Guitar Songs before the FACbot has gone though? Hawkeye, is there a simple way to rectify this? Do we need to unmerge 30th temporarily? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what happened. This edit removed the FAC template, so the Bot no longer knew that it had been nominated. Fixing was quite simple: I restored the template and our bot closed the nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you may have accidentally transcluded an extra nomination to the archives page on 29 March. The 2007 World Cup of Pool article is still live on FAC, I don't think you meant to archive it. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi Ian, I'm going to be out of town until Monday. I've just written the for the editors section and the book reviews and A-class articles should be done, so I think that this will be good to go when the featured content is finalised. I hope that you have a nice break over Easter. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, likewise! Just finished the featured content so I think we're pretty well ready, nice and early! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

Hello! Can you tell me why you undid my changes to the countries of birth/death of the British monarchs? I would also appreciate it if you could explain the country of birth/death rule in the UK. Boja02 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boja, first of all my apologies for not leaving an edit summary -- I meant to do so but clicked the wrong button. Essentially it's about putting just enough information to clearly identify a place -- TBH even "England" after "London" might be considered overkill, let alone "Great Britain". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's too much information. If I'm not mistaken, you should put both the place AND country of birth. As far as I have noticed, most articles have, for example, "London, England", while some (eg Charles III) have "London, England, UK". I added Great Britain and UK on the article about George III because he was born in the Kingdom of Great Britain and died in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which are two different countries.

What is not clear to me is when I'm supposed to add "UK" and when I'm not, and whether there is even a rule explaining that. Having "London, England" is like having e.g. "Dallas, Texas" (without the U.S.). Boja02 (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I say, I'd even drop "England", never mind "Great Britain" or "UK". I take my guide from Template:Infobox royalty. In the sample infobox the birth and death places don't include country. I believe it's overthinking things to worry in the infobox about the political entity like GB vs. UK -- London is London. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. If you're interested, I recently nominated the king's article for GA status. If you want to review it, it's on the table. Any help at all is appreciated; conversely, if you're not interested, or don't have the time, I completely understand. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Might do a couple more, but think File:Ruins_in_Charleston,_South_Carolina_by_George_N._Barnard_-_crop.jpg is a pretty decent start. Should pass FPC Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose! I am here to let you (as well as the other FAC coordinators on their talk pages) know that User:P-Makoto and I intend to nominate the Joseph Smith article for Featured Article status within the next few weeks. After spending some time lurking at WP:FA and WP:FAC though, I notice that this article is lengthier and more complex than most of the articles that are nominated. I think the length is justified: Smith was and remains a very complex and controversial figure. And of course, just being complex and controversial with a long article doesn't necessarily disqualify a topic from FA status (for example, see Jesus).

That said, I'm wondering if you have any specific thoughts, questions, or comments before we jump into things? I think the length and complexity of the material has turned off some reviewers from doing a deep dive into it in the past. For example, a 2013 PR request failed to attract a single reviewer or even a comment. Is there anything you recommend to offset this a little bit?

Thanks in advance, and cheers! Trevdna (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say bushrangers fall under Military history? I'm leaning no - too small scale - but your call. Just restored a photo of Captain Moonlite. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 14:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, sorry for belated response -- no I don't bushrangers would generally fit under MilHist either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Glad I didn't add him to the list, then, though I suppose there's not really a rush - nothing stopping us running something we missed a month late. But, probably for the best I never added him.

Probably would have if he had had military service before becoming a bushranger, mind ye, but... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 12:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if someone's had a military career it could qualify them even if it's not their main claim to fame, although I think those are best assessed case by case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, agreed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 13:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

Another one. Cheers!--NØ 01:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's all the articles one would consider inclusion of - Frances Cleveland did a bunch of work preparing the U.S. For WWI, so she probably counts, rest are pretty standard subjects, though with slight doubt about Menenre, an Egyptian pharoah without a huge amount of discussions of his military work, and the somewhat-poorly-documented (in remaining texts) Tiberius III.

I'll see if I can't make the descriptions more Bugle-y and less doggerel soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 00:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam, I quite like as is for something different! Only thing is a couple weren't MilHist before FA and I'm a bit dubious about claiming articles post-FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 26, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I was thinking of nominating Gordon Steege for TFA on Sep 1, the anniversary of his death. Normally I would try to nominate biographies on their birthdays, but Steege was born on Oct 31 which is a tough day to schedule. There doesn't seem to be anything majorly significant about Steege's death (it wasn't in combat, he didn't receive an award for the events that caused his death, etc.) but is there was another day that would better suit Steege's appearance on TFA (commemoration of Australian servicemen, or another occasion that I do not know about?) Thanks for your help, Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) If there is no really good day to connect him to, you could just nominate him with no specific date, and coordinators would be free to place him where it fits best for a variety of topics and images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, TBH I prefer not to see "my" articles at TFA because of the inevitable tidying up that's necessary during and afterwards. I'm not protesting Frank Bladin since it's been selected, and I'm making a suggestion for Anzac Day 2024 if nothing more appropriate is found, but I'm not a glutton for punishment...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

I see that 1 January 1901 is celebrated as a founding day for the Commonwealth of Australia. Is there any particular controversy associated with this day? If we ran, say Koala or Canberra on that day, would Australians be likely to think of that as an obvious nod to Australia's founding day? - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, if there is controversy associated with 1 Jan, it's certainly far less than with 26 Jan. OTOH I wonder how many Aussies are even aware of the significance of 1 Jan (perhaps I'm being uncharitable). If OTD mentioned the founding day at the same time TFA had an Australian subject, that would make it clear to everyone... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about Anzac Day ... I'm assuming that would be better-known, but would it be controversial? (Although, running a Koala on Anzac Day wouldn't really be the right tone!) - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for tardy reply Dan, was away a few days with less internet coverage than expected... Anzac Day is not free of controversy but I'd consider it a good deal less than Australia Day. IMO the ideal Anzac Day TFA is a military bio on someone who saw action at Gallipoli and had connections to both Australia and New Zealand. A challenge but I did manage to get just such a personage onto the front page for Anzac Day this year (Alfred Shout). Failing someone who matches these criteria so exactly, we could fall back on my own article on Vance Drummond, a New Zealand-born RAAF pilot. BTW I still think it'd be fine to do an Australian-themed article on 1 Jan but, as I say, making the connection clear with an OTD on the Australian Commonwealth's founding might be a pre-req... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll list Drummond at TFAP then. Anything come to mind for 1 Jan? - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No rush on this ... I'll ask Z1720 for a recommendation, but feel free to suggest something at any time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, I'm working on January TFAs now. Re: Koala, I'll run that on 1 January unless you or someone else objects. (Jerry, the FAC co-nominator, is fine with it.) Agreed that it would be nice if Federation of Australia shows up on 1 January at WP:OTD, but it's currently listed in the "Ineligible" section of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1); something to do with the references. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan, I had a quick look at the Federation article and there's too much uncited for me to consider bringing it up to standard by 1 Jan. In that case, though, have we considered Australia? I know it's been run once before but that was 2005, and it at least makes the 1 January connection right there in the lead. Obviously Koala hasn't been on the main page yet but it could go any time. Anyway this is just my thought to make the date connection more obvious... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but people tend to complain about a variety of things when we run articles on developed countries ... do you feel like taking the lead on vetting and defending the article, or do you have someone in mind who might? - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I don't think I could commit to that, nor would I want to drop anyone else in it, so if there is such controversy over country articles, Koala begins to look okay... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about Canberra or Australia for next year, that should give us plenty of time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the October TFA schedule. There are several FAs in this topic that have never run at TFA. Do any of these have an image that you reallly like for the blurb? - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Dan -- pls see this...! In any case the area command articles don't really have images that relate to the subject as a whole except the maps that are in the infoboxes. All this aside, if you're desperate to use one of them I'd choose the main RAAF area commands as an overview, or North-Western Area Command (RAAF) as the most action-packed history, but I've never seen these as main page fodder as they're so specialised. At a pinch you might run North-Western Area Command on 19 February since it's the date Darwin was bombed in 1942, and this features in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I probably should have known that already but didn't. Happy to see you've got something in mind for Anzac Day. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

August songs

my story today

Congratulations, and thank you today for Frank Bladin, introduced (in 2011): "Another of my older RAAF bios that passed GAN and MilHist ACR but which I felt just needed a little more work before nominating for FAC. Not a Chief of the Air Staff this time, but a quiet achiever who didn't quite make it to the top job, deserving as he may have been..."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Epsom riot has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project 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 here. If you are interested in running, please sign up 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 current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

September songs

my story today

Congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is The Company of Heaven ("company" with a double meaning, but angelic company in the end). - It's a week with concert or opera almost every night! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I think that's all the images; I'll review the lists and articles soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 01:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got to that before me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 01:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, there wasn't much to it... Tks for the pics as always! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

I want to request permission to nominate a FAC bypassing the 2-week countdown from my previous, unsuccessful FAC on 4 October; I want to nominate a different article which I have finished refining but I am subjected to the 2-week burden. Can I please just go for it? Wingwatchers (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wingwatchers, it looks to me that the article you're talking about now is waiting for review at GAN, and you can't have it at both GAN and FAC simultaneously. In any case I think based on the previous FAC you really should put your new article through peer review before trying for featured status. Now there is no rule that an article must go through PR (or GAN) before FAC, but it is strongly advised and I would prefer you wait the usual two weeks since your last article was archived and use that time to get the new one peer reviewed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ian Rose! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, as I think you've seen I've just added a photo I took today of Spence's grave to the article on him. The cemetery has an interesting layout, with sections for each country (quite large in Australia's case) as well as a combined section at the top of the hill where each country has a group of about a dozen graves below a national flag. Spence is in the combined section, which I presume was done as an honour. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the second place finish in the contest for simongraham to the November Bugle contest item draft. I also realize that I had not recognized Zawed for second place in September. I added a sentence giving him belated recognition for that in the November draft. I added the barnstar to his talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Otherwise, I may have remained oblivious to the omission. I am now up to speed on the two monthly awards. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

Hi Ian, saw this. Just my usual practice to, when I finish my review and if I decide to support, add "Support from" in the heading under which I've written my comments. Is this wrong? Not a big deal, but wondering as I'm a bit of a newbie. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for asking Tim -- we just need to see one clear support from any given reviewer (big, i.e. header, or bold, but not both). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Will remember for future reviews. Thanks, Ian. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also used to do that, because being in the header, I could see in the good old days of a TOC at a glance how many supports a nom had (to decide if it needed mine, for example). Ian, you delegates are not the only ones interested ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, I hear you but since there's no requirement to put 'support' in the header as opposed to bolded at the end, a glance at the TOC won't tell you for sure how many such comments there are anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

I've taken my name off the mailing list because I don't want pro-nazi pigswill like "Modern Warfare: Lessons from Ukraine - Lawrence Freedman" on my talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago, you said the Mars Society article is not up to FAC standards yet. I've made several attempts to polish the prose and ensure text-source integrity, but, unfortunately, the article is still pretty short as it is hard to find additional sources on the topic. What do you think about the article now? (link to article) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Think I was trying to copy over the template to January, and failed epicly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 23:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Schro -- stay happy and well yourself! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Doc -- best wishes to your and yours! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always.

December: story · music · places

I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, Happy New Year to you too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Ealdgyth -- wishing you and yours a happy and productive 2024 as well! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like 2019, see above -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, belated new year's greetings to you. I have nominated the article Sam Manekshaw for peer review because I have expanded it and want to take it to FAR. I incorporated the suggestions from the last 2 FARs in 2018. You were a part of one of these and I would be much obliged if you would take part in this PR, given your skills in and understanding of military history. Thanks in advance. Matarisvan (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 21 February 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for the article, introduced: Donald (in 2017): "Time for another RAAF chief, this one being the second and last RAF officer to run the service. That caused resentment, but it soon dissipated. Hardman had a good pedigree: fighter ace in World War I, foreign postings between the wars, and group command in World War II. He also seems to have been a likeable bloke, as well as an imaginative organiser. His main claim to fame is that he transformed the Air Force from its WWII-era geographically based command-and-control system into a functional command system, which essentially exists today. The article's post-military section is a bit thin, but I think he just lived a quiet life." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Just a heads-up that we had this one at WP:TFAP for April 25 and I'm planning to run it. No need to do anything if this still works for you. Let me know if there's anything I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ian Rose

I have observed your recent peer review on the webpage bio of Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw. A series of subsequent edits made by User:Matarisvan have also been observed, in particular his decision to remove the subsections of his promotion dates and his military decorations. Kindly remember, sir, that the subject person is from the military - and while yes, according to a comment of yours in the peer review, the awards he received may be mentioned in the webpage's body, but in an overall context - he is a military officer, and thus his insignia must be displayed.

For reference, you can look at the webpages of fellow field marshals, like K. M Cariappa (India), Sarath Fonseka (Sri Lanka), Ayub Khan (Pakistan), Igor Sergeyev (Russia) - who all have separate, distinct mentions of their insignia. Please, do urge User:Matarisvan have to stop removing the aforementioned subsections.

Yours. Silver Pavilion (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your input but I stand by my comments in the peer review. There is no "must" in terms of such displays and dozens -- perhaps even hundreds -- of A-class and featured articles on military personnel do not employ them. As well as in the text, high honours and gallantry awards are mentioned in infoboxes and are often also highlighted in the lead paragraphs, quite sufficient for an encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ian Rose

Thank you for your opinion, but nevertheless, I feel it is best that the subsections of his promotion dates and military decorations remain untouched, given there is no utilitarian benefit in having them removed. The concerned subsections should be left as it is, given that they are a public attestation of the subject person's military prowess, not as Field Marshal - but in the overall context of his career. Silver Pavilion (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, what is your final say on this issue? It seems like this user is hellbent on reverting any edits which remove the 2 sections. Matarisvan (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Talk page stalker here: for what it is worth, I agree with Ian's stance on the removal of the subsections of concern, as they are viewed as non-encyclopedic. I have reverted the restoration of the subsections. I understand Matarisvan is working towards taking the article to FAC. If the subsections are left in place, it is highly likely to get pinged for this at FAC and won't get promoted which would be a shame for the subject of the article. Also just because other articles have subsections of this nature present does not mean this one should, that's just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Finally, any further debate on this should done on the article's talkpage, not here. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed, I concur. User SP seems to think those sections are integral, non negotiable parts of the article, when they aren't. Their content is mostly repetitive, because the dates of rank are already mentioned in chronological order in the Military Career subsection. As for the awards, the 3 significant ones are there in the infobox and body, the others aren't very distinctive, many soldiers have received those. Matarisvan (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian