User talk:Cuprum17/Archive2017

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

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 recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WAVES

Thank you for cleaning-up my spelling blunders. I hope you had a good holiday season and all is well in your part of the world. Pendright (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pendright: Anything to keep the Good Article...good. We could used a little rain or snow but all is well. Hope you are well. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

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: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we explain complicated or controversial edits on the talk page -- not in our edit summaries?

I made a series of edits to Bernard C. Webber, which you reverted, providing your only explanation in your edit summary. You didn't provide a meaningful or substantive explanation -- you used the default explanation.

You may not know this, but most contributors reserve this default explanation for reverting instances of obvious vandalism. Did you intend me to understand you regarded my edits as instances of vandalism?

Normally when there is an URL for a reference, we place it within the reference itself -- not in a "references used" section. I have no problem using non-standard section. But shouldn't the explanation for using non-standard sections go on the talk page?

I think we can both agree that your reversion of these three edits looks reckless -- like you didn't take a close look at what you were reverting. If that is what happened, could you please be more careful?

After adding new material to the article I noticed many references in the article that were without URLs. As I wrote above, if there is a URL for a reference, we normally include the URL right in the ref. I didn't notice {{cite}} templates for them, buried in a non-standard "references used" section, at first.

Even if, for the sake of argument, placing the references in the right place was not a valid edit, you overlooked that I filled out the archiveurl field. No offense, but overlooking the work I put into filling out the valuable archiveurl field also gives the appearance of reckless disregard.

I encourage you to think about how much effort other contributors are making, and not make reversions without making an attempt to explain the reasoning behind your edit. If you don't understand an edit I strongly encourage you to talk to them about the edit, rather than simply reverting their edits, without any explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I reverted your edits because they changed the established citation style in the article. See WP:CITEVAR. In retrospect, I should have been more specific in my edit summary as a courtesy to you, and I regret that I didn't provide more insight into my reason for reverting your edits. I spent considerable time putting the Notes section of the article in order several months ago from a mish-mash of bare URLs, dead links, and meaningless gibberish. This effort on my part established a citation style for the article. It may not be the optimal style, but it was established with my editing efforts. To change that style without discussing it on the article talk page only results in confusion and an article which ends up with two or more separate styles of citations. If you wish to include new information in this article or have additional reference materials covering points brought up in the article, you are certainly within your rights as an established editor to include them in the makeup of the article. If you are interested in changing the established citation style of the article then by all means discuss your reasoning on the article talk page. If you feel we can work together to improve the article with additional cited material, I would be more than happy to discuss any collaboration. I am occupied with real life situations much of the time, but I can always take some time for helping with this or any other U.S. Coast Guard related article. I patrol most of them and regularly remove misinformation and vandalism. I have no objections to any improvement of the article or its supporting elements, my only objective is to present the material so that the reader may be educated about the subject and reference any supporting materials without confusion. I feel this is best done by following established citation styles in the article. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... WP:CITEVAR... The first several times another contributor cited CITEVAR, I concluded they were misinterpreting the term "citation style".

When I first started working on the wikipedia there was no {{cite}} template -- everyone used bare URLs, supplemented by an external links section. Around 2005 I noticed other contributors using a citation style that was far superior to bare URLs, which used a different set of templates than the {{cite}} templates. I stopped using them, when the {{cite}} templates came along. A very few articles currently on the wikipedia use "Harvard style" citations, and have a suite of templates to support that style.

The Harvard style templates, and the {{cite}} style templates are not mutually compatible. An article that includes references from both styles will have multiple and confusing lists of references. The two styles can't co-exist, in the same article. This is what I think CITEVAR is meant to address. For the purpose of CITEVAR, I think any reference that uses a {{cite}} template is considered the same style.

About three years ago I encountered a use of references where the definition of the reference was within the article's reference section. Now I always add new references there.

Like you, I feel free to rewrite bare URLs, and convert them to proper {{cite}} style references, because all experienced contributors recognize that the bare URL style is deprecated. When I do that I add the new reference to the reference section.

I always fill out new {{cite}} template with one value to a line -- as they are much easier to read and repair. I almost always leave existing template alone, as much as possible, when I fix them, or add new fields, because unnecessarily altering the line endings erodes the usefulness of the history mechanism.

Several well-meaning challengers, in different articles, challenged me adding {{cite}} templates to the end of the article, when all the earlier refs were defined in the body of the article. Well-meaning challengers rewrote references, putting all the fields on a single line.

The justified rewriting the references I wrote on CITEVAR, which I thought then, and continue to think, was due to a misunderstanding of the problem CITEVAR is meant to address -- namely the problems that arise when {{cite}} style references are mixed into an article that uses the rare Harvard style references.

Okay, you called upon CITEVAR, and I don't know whether your concern is that I used {{cite}} templates with one field per line. I don't know whether your concern is that I defined the {{cite}} templates within the reference section. If so, in my opinion, these would both be instances where CITEVAR doesn't apply. I've looked, wikipolicy and the more official guidelines, don't take a stand on whether {{cite}} templates should have one field per line, or all fields on one line. Defining {{cite}} templates within the reference section is completely compliant with how the {{cite}} template is supposed to be used.

You might think I wrote new instances of references you already wrote, as if I wasn't even recognizing the work you put into writing them. That might have seemed offensive. If that seemed offensive you have to recognize that your creation of a "references used" section is non-standard.

What I saw, after I added new information to the article, was that the body of the article contained references that frankly seemed broken. The first existing reference I tackled, the reference on the first line of the article, was:

<ref name=USCG1>"Bernard C. Webber, USCG, 1928-2009", Coast Guard Heroes, U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office</ref>

That seemed broken, to me; as broken as a bare URL. I went to the effort of finding the actual Coast Guard article whose title you used there, because it is important that references like that have the URL right in the reference which supports the paragraph where it is used. I went to the effort of finding the URLs for several other references, before I realized you had completed {{cite}} templates, but you had placed them in a non-standard place I hadn't looked.

Wikipedia articles have certain common sections. But "references used" is not one of them. I am sure lots of other people, maybe most other people, what want to follow the URLs to the source documents that support those paragraphs, wouldn't find them -- since they were in a non-standard place.

So, is there a reason you put them in a non-standard place, where other contributors are a lot less like to find them? Note: because you placed the real {{cite}} templates in a non-standard place I put in the effort to find the actual URLs, all over again. Wasted effort, but I didn't realize that. No offense, but I see that as a strong reason to regularize where those {{cite}} templates are placed. The standard places would be in the body of the article, or in the references section.

• WRt the new information I added -- do you really have a reason it shouldn't be added?
• Would you have allowed that new information to have been added, except that I put one field per line in my new {{cite}} templates I added?
• I encourage you to consider converting to putting one field per line on new references, because: they are easier to debug; they are easier for you to read; they are easier for other people to read. And, if you place the definition for them in the reference section itself, they interfere even less than references defined where they are used.

I am going to assume you didn't offer a reason to discard the values I place for the archiveurl fields, because you don't actually have a reason for discarding those archiveurl fields. It might be you overlooked that I added valuable archiveurl fields. It might be that you don't understand why archiveurl fields are valuable.

I won't explain, in detail, why archiveurl fields are important, other than that sites sometimes reorganize their pages, without leaving redirection from their old URLs to the new locations of those pages; sites sometimes simply delete old pages; sometimes sites have a change of policy, and rewrite a page so it says something different than the points it made when we cited it. Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Reread WP:CITEVAR. Established citation styles shouldn't be changed by follow-on editors. Wikipedia doesn't specify a particular citation style for any articles. Your preference for a particular style of citation is fine if you establish that style of citation for a particular article or you find an article to work on that already has your preferred style incorporated.

My choice of References used was to separate the actual reference materials used to write the article from the Citations that are used to call out page numbers, etc. The citation style I commonly use is using the authors name and a page number. If the reader needs to research further they only have to look to the References used section to find more information on where the citation was drawn from. I suppose this could be called the Bibliography section, if one was so inclined. I use this style because it does not appear cluttered to the reader and has the immediate information that might be needed for research. Most often this is the page number if they have the resource material at hand. I do see that this fails somewhat on internet sources that are available, but I have also successfully included them in articles I have written without appearing cluttered. See the article Coast Guard Squadron One to see how this works on a A Class article.

I find that my real life away from Wikipedia is urgently calling so I must close. I'm not sure we have come to an agreement on much. If you wish, I will revert my own edits on the article Bernard C. Webber and you can work to improve the content or citations as you see fit. Let me know. My goal is accuracy, clarity, and readability. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

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 two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

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 air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

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 Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Request

When I brought the WAVES article to a GA, I was satisfied. Since then, I’ve had second thoughts. Now, I think it’s deserving of more. With a little cleanup and re-write, do you think it has A-Class or even Feature potential? I know you are busy with other interests, so I hope you don’t mind me bouncing this off you. I hope things are well in your part of the world. Pendright (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pendright: Good to hear from you! I had noticed that you had been doing a little changing on the article lately but I hadn't paid much attention to what you had done because you are a trusted editor. WAVES is one of many Navy and Coast Guard articles I patrol for vandalism. Vandalism seems to be prevalent at the end of the school year when students are almost through for the summer and just marking time. Let me look at the article over the next couple of days and I will let you know what I think. I would imagine that it is close to A-class without much effort, but I will be in touch. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. And thanks too for your vandalisms work. BTW, your Jeep looks first rate. Lots of hours there! Pendright (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pendright:I've commented before about the fine quality of the article WAVES. Upon a review of the article I have only these suggestions: First, the bibliography lists the source "Ebbert, Jean & Hall, Marie-Beth (1993). Crossed Currents" and the citations refer to "Ebert and Hall, p xxx". Which is it? Ebbert or Ebert? A small error, but one that will come up during an ACR. Second, and this is a personal preference, I dislike most parenthetical expressions used in text. The example, "She was commissioned a lieutenant commander in the Navy on 3 August 1942, and was the first woman commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve (she was later promoted to commander and then to captain)." I'm not sure how to convey the same information in a sentence using commas, but it could look something like this: "She was commissioned a lieutenant commander in the Navy on 3 August 1942, the first woman commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve, and eventually she was promoted to captain." That might need a little fine tuning, but there are several parentheticals that could be changed in the article. This is just a suggestion to help the article read smoother and less of a distraction to the reader. My exception on parentheticals would be the example, "Less than a year later, 1 July 1943, Congress refashioned the WAAC into the Women's Army Corps (WAC), providing its members with similar military status as the WAVES.", where the term Women's Army Corps is used later in the article and a short version of the term is provided for the reader. This is OK. The only other thing I noticed about the article is the amount of detail used in the lead. Perhaps it would be best to use less detail in the lead and put the information taken from there in the main part of the article. Just a suggestion, of course.

The article has many good points and really stands nicely as a "Good Article"; however, as there will be at least three ACR editors looking the article over, I'm sure that they will find some things to change about the article. It is best to follow their lead and make the modifications they suggest. If you have heartburn about a suggestion made and don't agree with the changes suggested then explain carefully why you think the change shouldn't be made, or a different way of expressing the same thoughts. In my one ACR of the article Coast Guard Squadron One, many of the things I was asked to do were to provide citations in places I hadn't thought were needed. Different editors have different ideas on what needs to be done on an article, but most are fair about their suggestions and only want to get the article through the review in "ship shape". There will be an image review by one of the reviewers, make sure that the images used are "free use" images under Wikipedia copyright rules.

I will continue to look at the article for things that I feel will improve the article when I get the time but I don't feel that I would qualify with my limited experience to serve formally in an ACR. If you can't find enough ACR reviewers, let me know, and I would try my best to find time to help. I would encourage you to do the ACR, and if successful, then go on to the Featured Article. The ACR would be fairly easy I think, because most of the "bilge" has been wrung out of the article with the GA review.

Your suggestions are well taken, and I’ll start tackling them ASAP. I have a few thoughts of my own as well. But, in the meantime, feel free to jump in whenever you can. Thanks again for taking your time to review the article. Pendright (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I’ve spent the last several days fine -tuning the WAVES article, incorporating your suggestions, and a few ideas of my own. I was surprised to find so many unlinked items and so many double linked items. Anyway, I’m going to nominate it for ACR. If you have any last minute thoughts, let me know. Thanks again for your help! Pendright (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pendright:Looks good! I've made a few minor changes. I believe you are more than ready for ACR, but it was ready before you made the changes...it was good to begin with and you just didn't know it! Oh well, even better now. I wish you luck on your ACR and I will keep an eye on your progress as a cheerleader. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again! Pendright (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I’ve been a bit slow moving on the WAVES ACR. But, I did look over the articles undergoing ACR, and found each had an Infobox. The WAVES article does not, so I thought it a good idea to add one before the nomination. I have changed infobox information, but I have never inserted one in an article. Although I’ve reviewed the infobox information and did experiment, I just can’t seem to find a successful approach. It looks like the infobox military unit template would do the job, but how to navigate it and insert it puzzles me. If you can help put me on the right track, I’d appreciate it. In any case, thank you. Pendright (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pendright: Are you sure it needs one? WAVES and SPARS through your efforts got to Good Article without an infobox. I am tied up on some personal business for the next few days but would be happy to look at the infobox situation later on in the week. I did find Help:Infobox enlightening but have only had time to skim through it. Give me three days to finish personal business and I will get with you on some ideas and we will put something together for the WAVES article. I hope all is well with you, friend. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your question is found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, under the heading: Using infoboxes in articles:

"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." For now, I take this as a no. I think I'll press on with the ACR, and take it from there. Thanks so much for your willingess to help; I appreciate it. I'll stay in touch! Pendright (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pendright: What is the worst that could happen; the reviewer thinks you need one? If it comes down to that, contact me and I will help you if you need it, but I suspect that you won't need it because you are resourceful. Always glad to help if I can. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC):::::

Thanks! Pendright (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pendright: I ran across this and thought it was interesting: First Anniversary of WAVES. The website Naval History and Heritage Command has lots of historical documents. It might be worth a search for other WAVES information... Cuprum17 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Pendright (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

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 Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

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 planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

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 Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

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 two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

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 Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

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: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cuprum17. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

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: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Corkythehornetfan is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Corkythehornetfan 03:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

As a current or past contributor to a USCG article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! COASTIE I am (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)