Open main menu

HandbookEdit

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

Coordinator tasksEdit

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
Assessment
  • Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
    • Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
    • Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
  • Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
A-Class review
  • For each ongoing A-Class review:
    1. Determine whether the review needs to be closed and archived, per the criteria here.
    2. If a review has been open for seven days without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~
  • If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, move the existing A-Class review page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Article title/archive1 (increasing the number if there has been more than one review) without leaving a redirect. You will also need to adjust the article assessment history to reflect the new target page for the old review. This will make way for the normal A-Class review initiation process, so advise the nominator to initiate per the instructions.
Quarterly Reviewing Awards
Quarterly Reviewing Awards - manual process
  • At the end of each quarter, all editors that complete at least one A-Class review receive a Milhist reviewing award. Create a new thread on the Coordinators' talk page and paste the following boilerplate into the body, leaving the subject line empty:{{subst:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing Table}}. Save the thread, reopen it and change the months and year in the subject line and table, add a comment under the table, sign and save the thread again. Then tally the qualifying reviews:
    1. Tally A-Class Reviews. As only those editors who complete at least one Milhist A-Class review receive an award, start by tallying them. Go to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/201X]] (inserting the correct year) and click on the links to check all the A-Class articles that were promoted, failed, kept or demoted in the relevant quarter. Tally the number of articles reviewed by each editor. One suggested method is to use a simple pen-and-paper tally of usernames as you scroll through the relevant archive; another is to save the relevant reviews into a word processor and delete all content except the usernames of the reviewers, then tally from there. Regardless of which method is chosen, it can be time consuming so you may need to do it over several sessions. Once done, add each editor who completed an A-Class review to the User column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table, and add one point to the ACR column for each article that editor reviewed.
    2. Tally Good Article Reviews. Methods are to go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare revision history for the quarter and tally the articles added by each editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table or to use the Pages Created tool to isolate GA nomination pages created by a specific user. Add one point to the GA column for each MilHist article that those editors reviewed. Note that the accuracy of this method relies upon reviewers listing GAs per instructions.
    3. Tally Peer Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive and click on the links to open the archive pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the PR column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
    4. Tally Featured Article Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations, and click on the links to open the archive of review pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the FAC column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
  • Tally the total number of points for each editor and add them to the Total column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table.
  • Award all reviewers in accordance with the following schedule (the award templates are all available under "Military history awards" below):
    1. 15+ points – the WikiChevrons
    2. 8–14 points – the Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
    3. 4–7 points – the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes)
    4. 1-3 points – the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe)
  • Sign the Awarded column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table for each editor to signify that the award has been presented.

Quarterly reviewing awards are posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards page by the MilHistBot. As with other awards, change the status from "nominated" to "approved" to approve the award.

Member affairs
Miscellaneous

How to...Edit

Boilerplate and templatesEdit

Open tasksEdit

Topics for future discussionEdit

  • Collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, universities, and various other institutions (e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM)
  • Article improvement drives
  • Notability guideline for battles
  • Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks
  • Using the "Results" field in infoboxes
  • How far milhist's scope should include 'military fiction' (possible solution, see scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force)
  • Encouraging member participation in the various review processes (peer, GAN, ACR etc)
  • Recruiting new members (see User:The ed17/MILHIST, etc.)
  • Improving/maintaining popular pages
  • Motivating improvement from Stub to B-Class
  • Enabling editors to improve articles beyond B-Class (possibly utilising logistics dept, also see WP:FAT for related ideas)
  • Helping new members (possibly involving improving/deprecating welcome template; writing Academy course)
  • Recruiting copy-editors to help during ACR
  • Recruiting editors from external forums/groups/etc.
  • Simplifying ACR instructions (old discussion)

Missing academy articlesEdit

Open award nominationsEdit

Nominations for awards are made and voted on by coordinators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. An A-Class Medal nomination needs at least two coordinators' votes to succeed, and the Chevrons with Oak Leaves a majority of coordinators' votes. All coordinators are requested to review the following:

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: could someone please approve my most recent Diamonds? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Fulfilled.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ACRs for closureEdit

All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either the promotion or non-promotion of the article under review. Any A-Class review filed on or before 19 September may be closed by an uninvolved coordinator. A guide to manually closing A-Class reviews is available, but normally the closing coordinator just needs to change A-Class=current in the {{WPMILHIST}} banner to A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail. Please wait 24 hours after a review is listed here before closing it to allow time for last-minute reviews.

  • Also I picked up a couple of issues with the images, having carelessly missed Peacemaker's earlier image review. I am happy to be told that these don't need to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, Harrias is now supporting, so that makes four supports, image and source reviews also done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Annual driveEdit

The project has traditionally run an article editathon/assessment drive in March. Last year we ran it in April to tie in with a WP:Women in Red editathon. Any thoughts for this year? - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to be discussing March drives in December/January so we can better coordinator them. Not that we can't run them here, but if we actually had the extra time we could cross with other projects and see if they would be interested in joining us. Thats on me, too: I could have said something about this sooner but in between doctors appointments and tax paperwork it got away form me. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Tally hoEdit

  • S/O/N: 4/0/0

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: If we are doing this in 2019 we need to mobile fast, otherwise we will miss our window. Sound off for or against the march madness 2019 proposal, if you would please. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing against it, but will not have the time to do any set-up or participate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Support drive proposal. Kges1901 (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Are we doing this?Edit

There seems to be support to run a drive, this can only be of benefit to the project. Should we look to do something in the next few months? Say June? - Dumelow (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Usually the summer months are a bad time to run a drive because a lot of people are out on vacation, but if that is the consensus we can do that. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We should definitely run a drive and this can still be done in May if we set up the pages now. Kges1901 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've been a bit distracted with RW stuff over the last month or two, and obviously March fell by the wayside, but do you support running a drive this year, and if so, when is best?
  • We should still definitely do one this year, June seems best for now IMO. Kges1901 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Historically, May, June, July, and August are usually bad months because of the summer vacation that occurs in Europe and the Americas. If we want to do this in 2019, then at this point it would be best to aim for September or so in order to get enough people to make a drive effort worth while. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Uni exam periods factor in later in the year, so September does seem sensible. It coincides with the coord election, but I'm sure we can cope with both. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • September or any month nearby is good. Arius1998 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────OK, I'll start setting up the pages, if I can remember how. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to ask, I assume we're going for one like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2017? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I was also wondering about including GAN reviews, as there is a bit of a backlog developing. Anyone think that is a bad idea? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
OK @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've set up the main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai using the April 2018 backlog drive as a template, and have added points for doing a GAN review per my suggestion above. If you don't like the title, we can always move it to something else. I'll set up the worklists page shortly. Could you all have a look and make any tweaks you think are necessary? Perhaps if we discuss matters to do with the drive on the drive talk page? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @WP:MILHIST coordinators: just a reminder of this. Do we need to start publicising the drive? - Dumelow (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Suggest sending a mass message out within the next few days. Kges1901 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, and noted on the announcements page as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

January contestEdit

I've awarded the second-place winner his barnstar; if someone could be so kind as to handle the one for the winner, it would be appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Done. Congrats, Kges1901 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

February contestEdit

I apologize if I'm impatient, but could someone close the MILHIST contest? I would have done so myself, but I don't want to disrupt as I'm not a coord. L293D ( • ) 03:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Have closed the contest. Kges1901 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Joachim Müncheberg A-Class ReviewEdit

Joachim Müncheberg recently failed a Good Article Reassessment, so a reassessment of its A-Class status is in order as well. Is there a way that I can start that process or is this notification sufficient? –dlthewave 18:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You can do it yourself, Dlthewave, all you have to do is follow the process laid out at WP:MHR. Just be aware you need to move the old review page first without leaving a redirect, per the instructions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done I thought that was probably how it worked, but it wasn't immediately clear that a delisting review would follow the same process. Thanks! –dlthewave 17:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

March ContestEdit

I've closed out the contest, updated the tally box and have awarded the second-place finisher his barnstar. I'd be grateful if someone could do the same for the winner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing tallyEdit

Hi, and thanks for the WikiChevrons for quarter 1 reviewing. I like to have a look at how many reviews I have done each quarter and at which levels. Mostly so that I can check that I am putting in enough reviews to cover the reviews that others are doing of my work. Any chance of a link to the table showing the breakdown? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

David ScottEdit

Is there anything more I need to do on this nom for promotion? It's been a decade since my last, not counting the one I had to pull, so I'm not certain on procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No, nothing you can do. I see image and source reviews, but only two content reviews. I'll try to get to it today when I need a change from plowing through the USS Hornet article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I think there are three but your comments would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI regarding T-AKR-287Edit

Happened to be in Astoria during the first week of April and saw this ship entering the river on its way to Portland. The last comment I found about this ship was that it was in reserve. Moving to yard for modification?

Patrick Armstrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:121B:C58F:19F7:6D8D:919E:66FC (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A-Class reassessment processEdit

Hi coordinators,

I find these two recent rulings, see Hans Philipp (delisted) and Waldmann (kept), a bit asymmetrical in outcome. While the Hans Waldmann was kept at A-class with a vote of 5 keeps versus 4 delists (including the nominator), the Hans Philipp article was delisted following a vote of 3 keeps versus 3 delists (including the nominator). Although I disagree with the motivating arguments for delisting and alleged unreliability of the sources, I accept both decisions. However, I am wondering what the guiding principles in the decision making are? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: They were closed by different coordinators, for a start, so you are going to get different perspectives of the value of the different comments in support or against. It isn't just a bare vote. I am entirely open to my close of Philipp being reviewed if anyone wishes to do so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah sorry PM, it's not often we disagree but I think there's an error of process here. First of all, you've closed the review saying there's no consensus to promote. As far as A-Class is concerned, the article is already "promoted", the review is to determine if it's kept at A-Class, or demoted from A-Class. That leads us to the A-Class reappraisal guidance, which states that we close such reviews as "demote" if there's clear consensus to demote, or "keep" if: a) there's clear consensus to keep, or b) no consensus. I can't see how the discussion could be read as consensus, clear or otherwise, to demote; at most the review could be closed (as you've indicated") as "no consensus", but this means no consensus to change the current listing, which is A-Class. I agree that having been open three months (!) it should be closed, but it can only be closed as no consensus, defaulting to "keep". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day Ian Rose, I'm happy for that to happen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have re-opened the re-assessment, removed the article history additions by Milhistbot and changed the A-Class=fail to A-Class=kept. Hawkeye7 will Milhistbot pick up on this and make the necessary adjustments? Anything I've missed? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. I noticed that the review page was not closed, is that correct? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I've marked it as kept, but I'm just waiting on advice from Hawkeye7 on how to proceed so Milhistbot doesn't hit any hurdles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bot does many steps, and they all have to be reversed. I have done so, and everything should proceed correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I had a feeling that was the case. Sorry about the cock-up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have just stumbled across this. I had put quite a bit of time and thought into my vote and was, umm, upset about how it was closed. My view was much as Ian's above. However, it is good to know that such things can be, and are, picked up, discussed sensibly and, if appropriate, decisions reversed. Good stuff. Please all keep up the good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I had a brainfart, so say the least! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

September Coordinator ElectionsEdit

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: In approximately six weeks we will commence nominations and voting for the forthcoming coordinator tranche. Accordingly, I wanted to convene the current tranche to discuss the issue of the election and to determine the following:

  • How many coordinator spots should we open for election in September, and should that number include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, and
  • When do we want to start the nomination process?

Last year, we returned the 14-day nomination/14-day election format, if we wanted to keep that format then it should be ok to open the nominations on the 1st and let'em run to the 14th, then do the voting from the 15th to the 28th with the new term to take office starting the 29th. If however we wanted to drift back into the 10-day nomination/10-day election format, then we'd need to take a look a the calendar and figure a day to start the nomination process.

In addition, I would propose reaching out to both the nominees from last years historian and newcomer of the year awards as well as those who have placed in the milhist review tally since this time last year and see if any those editors would be interested in serve a term as a coordinator. It would also behoove us to send out a mention of the September elections in The Bugle, just to remind our editors that its almost time to elect the new tranche so they can start thinking about it too. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Tks Tom, you posted just in time to allow me to get a note into this month's Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we should repeat last year's schedule, which seemed to work well, and limit it to ten coords including the lead, with the usual scope to adjust if there is a tie for tenth position. I'm happy to create the election pages again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and created the pages, the main one is here. We can always adjust the parameters if we decide to go with something different from last year. Thanks for flagging this, Tom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I've left two additional messages with Pendright and CPA-5 since they've had high review numbers based on our quarterly tallies, extending an invitation to run for a coordinator's spot. I'll take a look at the Military Historian and Newcomer of the Year awards in a little bit and see if anyone there hasn't served, if not then we can reach out to them too. Can anyone else think of editors that we could reach out to? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I've left messages with the last of the editors I can think of to reach out to, if anyone has any other suggestions as to who we may reach out to for coordinator consideration please do act to get the word out. Hopefully, 1 September will be an interesting day for nominations. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, Tom. You beat me to several of them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

GANsEdit

  • Hey @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , I was wondering, could we have a cleanup in the GANs here? I mean most of them are almost two months old. Some of them like the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and the Brooklyn Army Terminal GANs are almost a year old. I think it's time to have a cleanup. This also could be the perfect end goal before the next co-ordinators' election will start in September. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── On this note, Pacific Pathways and Anglophone Crisis are in need of reviews. Since we've been able to reduce the ACR backlog to less than a month-old reviews, we should be able to take the GA backlog down to that as well given that GAs only need the effort of one reviewer. Kges1901 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point, also the backlog drive will also be awarding points for GAN reviews, so hopefully that will also reduce the number outstanding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

March Madness 2020Edit

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: It is very early to be considering this, however I want to bring up the concept of a 2020 March Madness drive because I want to see if it would be worth our while to reach out to other projects like the GOCE and WP:TRANSPORTATION on a collaboration drive with three goals: 1) Tagging and assessing articles, 2) updating the projects incomplete B-class templates, and 3) clearing out the backlog of GA, FAC, and other higher rated reviewed articles that have languished in review hell for what seems to be life plus forever. I want to start feeling this out now so we can hit the ground running in late winter/early spring with the pages and the notifications and such. Note that at this time nothing in concrete, I just want to get some sense as to weather it'd be worth going forward with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I struggle to be available at that time of the year, but it sounds worthwhile to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I initially wondered what role you envisaged for GOCE in the proposed collaboration. Then I reflected that a number of the older GANs may be perceived as having poor prose by potential reviewers who feel unequipped or unmotivated to tackle this. I assume that the nominators would need to agree before any such were tagged for GOCE attention [?] but that this is likely to be forthcoming if it greatly enhanced the nomination's chances of a speedy assessment. I am unsure as to what GOCE's view might be, but given that their backlog is at an all time low it is possible that a suggestion along these, or some other, lines would be favourably received. Could I suggest an early contact with the GOCE coordinators? who are a friendly and cooperative bunch. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Doing this in conjunction with GOCE sounds like a good idea, but WikiProject Transportation seems pretty inactive. Kges1901 (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Two big reasons. First, our higher assessment rated articles - particularly those whose main contributors are no longer around - end up with a lot clutter added in good faith but this has the net effect of degrading the article's tense, sentence structure, etc. The other reason is that if you look at the talk page template for the main milhist page you'll see several thousand articles needing attention just with spelling, grammar, and other editorial related issues, which is specifically what the GOCE does. Networking with their people does cause some headaches vis-a-vis milhist specific language and terminology, however the overall benefit is a net positive for both projects. As for transportation, I suggested that since most milhist related articles are built on things that move, but if they are inactive perhaps best to leave them out. The other project I may consider reaching out to would be the biography project since a lot of milhist articles are on noteworthy people, but again that is subjective and depends on overall interest in the idea her first. (BTW I'm in the middle of rearranging my house again, so my computer's been disassembled - again - to facilitate a move. I've gotten it put back together but I'm not sure if I'm gonna leave it where it is, so I may bo offline again for a while soon-ish. Maybe :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I (a GOCE coordinator) think it's a great idea. Please keep the Guild posted. All the best, Miniapolis 13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I (another WP:GOCE/COORD) am also interested in an inter-WikiProject drive with Milhist. March is one of our drive months, with about 20 copy editors completing 250 copy edits. This is split about 1:2 between requests (including FA and GA) and copyedit backlog articles (B-class and below). A couple thoughts: (1) It would be helpful if there were a way to guide editors to articles of a quality/assessment level that they can handle. We'd like to have at least some lower-quality/assessment articles for our newer copy editors. (2) I hope that some patience can be shown with our newer copy editors if you decide to invite us in. Like any other WikiProject, we don't have any control over who joins and how they choose to edit, but we try to guide them in the right direction. (3) Please check if Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history needs any updating, as we'll probably be using that as a general guide to the subject matter. Please keep me posted and let me know if there's anything I can do to help! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like the Guild and MILHIST look up to the challenge of a drive. I'd also consider reaching out to the biography project and seeing if they are interested in joining us. I'd also consider reaching out to the...women in red project I think its called(?) and see if they have any interest in joining us for the drive. They're interested in women's articles in general, and I've seen some stuff on their talk pages concerning military related articles for women. They may be willing to throw in with us - if there's interest in reaching out to them. Reidgreg The info looks up-to-date by my drive through pass, however one noticeably absent element there would be the use of terms like "decisive" and "tactical" and so forth to describe a victory or defeat in the milhist infobox. Right now we've no clear consensus on how to address the issue as it relates to the infobox, its come up periodically but its not mentioned there because its dealt with somewhat on a case by case basis here. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I've left messages with Wikiproject Biography and Wikiproject Women in Red, we'll see if we get any bites. Is there any other project anyone can think of reaching out to? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Women in Red is currently involved in your September drive "Backlog Banzai". See also Women in military history. I hope you, TomStar81, and any others reading this page will find time to take part. Let's see how successful it is before we plan anything for the spring. Personally I think one major focus on Milhist per year is sufficient for Women in Red unless we can combine it with any other relevant priorities or anniversaries. I think you should decide among yourselves whether to make collaboration with WiR an annual event for the spring or autumn. We would nevertheless appreciate your including our pertinent redlists in your spring drive even if we are not fully involved. There is ample room for coverage of many more Milhist women. In any case, please keep us posted on how things evolve.--Ipigott (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A-Class reviewsEdit

Hey guys there is something wrong with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review. Sinds the 45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) and older there is something really odd going on. Anything below 45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) has a line through. Has anyone an idea? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Errant strike syntax. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Six Million ArticlesEdit

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: According to the main page's statistics counter, we are closing in on our six millionth article and it is likely that we cross that threshold in the next 24-hours or so. It'd be a good chance on the outreach perspective to find out whose got the first milhist article and hand out a chevrons for starting us off on the other side of 6,000,000 and making a mention of both the editor and the article in the Bugle. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Is there a mechanism for identifying when an article is tagged as MilHist, or more specifically when a new article is published with a MilHist tag attached? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
There's a bot report here that tracks potential new MILHIST articles. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Election done and dustedEdit

G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , I've tidied up the election pages, handed out the stars, and updated the coord page. Welcome to the new coords and welcome back to those who were re-elected. If someone could hand out my lead coord stars, we'll be done. Here's to a great year! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead coord stars have been dished out as requested. All the best for the next 12 months everyone, looking forward to working with you all! Zawed (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Likewise Zawed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the notification system's been updated, did everyone get the ping? Also, In the interest of openness, does anyone have any long term plans for the project this term? If we can find some cross project support I'd personally press forward with the proposed March Madness drive, but outside of that proposal I don't have any long term tranche plans. I could use some help from the new coordinators though (if anyone's interested in lending their two cents) in identifying and either updating or adding material judged to be lacking or for want in our Become a coordinator Academy page. The returning veteran coordinators have done this enough times that we know what to expect, but you new guys may have a better sense for what the essay lacks that others in your shoes may appreciate knowing about in the lead up to and through the election process. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Reporting for duty per Becoming a coordinator - "Ask the lead coordinator how you might best contribute."
I have no long term thoughts, per "Take a pause".
I'll put reviewing the new coordinators guide on my to do list. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Good question Tom "Do not be afraid to ask questions before the elections and after if you have problems with an article or so to the coordinators." that'd be my answer to your question. Cheers.
Right now I do not have future plans/ideas for the Project. September was a busy month for everyone here. Speaking of September the drive is still ongoing and my eyes found out that more than 10 participants who signed their names in the "Participants" section didn't put an article or something else about MILHIST in their Worklists. Shan't we warn them, the drive is almost over and if they want to take part in the drive then they have to react now? Or is there a bot who warn them tomorrow on the last day itself? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles needing attention to taggingEdit

Most of the articles in the category are there because they contain a link to the United States Air Force portal, which no longer exists. I assume that the solution is to remove the United States Air Force portal tag from each of them? Just checking before I do it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking silence as consent, I removed the USAF portal tag from one and it resolved the issue. I shall wait 24 hours to see if anyone complains, including here, and then work through the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on, Gog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
We made need a larger effort though, in a routine pass through WP:AN and WP:ANI I spotted this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_delete_Portal_space. If it goes through (and honestly it seems like it will) then all portals save but for a precious and actually useful few will be torpedoed, which will in turn require cleanup across a larger space. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I've personally brought at least two dozen military portals to MfD – including Portal:Napoleonic Wars, Portal:Military of Greece, Portal:Military of ancient Rome, Portal:Military history of France, Portal:Military history of Africa, Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire, Portal:Arab–Israeli conflict, Portal:Royal Navy,Portal:Terrorism, Portal:Royal Air Force, Portal:British Army, Portal:Canadian Armed Forces, Portal:Royal Australian Navy, Portal:NATO, Portal:United Nations, Portal:United States Marine Corps, Portal:September 11 attacks, Portal:Ancient warfare, Portal:United States Air Force, Portal:United States Navy, Portal:United States Merchant Marine, Portal:United States Coast Guard, Portal:Military of the United States and Portal:United States Army. User:BrownHairedGirl has an AutoWikiBrowser set up that replaces the dead portal with a broader portal like Portal:War, but some zombie backlinks slip through. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
To me, there are two requirements for the retention of a portal: active maintenance and sufficient views. If a portal lacks either (or both) it probably shouldn't exist. We just need a way of cleaning up afterwards, which it looks like BHG has in hand (with the exception of the zombies). Any way of tweaking the AWB to make sure it is more thorough? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know, BHG's script is only replacing portal links in the article itself, not links in our project banner (which is what's throwing up these errors). Given that the way the portals are linked from the banner is completely different from how they're linked within the article, I suspect that significant changes would be required to the script to work in this scenario.
On the other hand, if we simply want to eliminate all of the errors en masse, we could just tweak the banner template to automatically hide links to deleted portals rather than flagging them as an error condition. Is that something we want to do at this point? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Full B-Class checklistEdit

Yesterday I was thinking about the September drive who just ended and I saw there were still 23,395 articles who need a full B-Class checklist. Those are a lot of articles and I do not think the drive took a lot of them out. They're mostly forgotten in the project. So my idea is to make it like the assessment department, a little contest with the people who (are interested and) want to work with these topics. And like the contest department, the top three get a reward to work hours and hours into those checklists, they'd get it at the start of the next month. At the start of the month, we can check the articles (whether they are really from them) they worked on or maybe (if possible) the bot can do that? My idea is to try to decrease the 23,395 articles who are getting more and more articles every day so I think it's safe to make it a contest of. Any ideas are welcome? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. The devil is in the detail, but I like the concept. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if we could roll it into the quarterly reviewing tally? Perhaps turn the whole thing into a monthly reviewing contest along the same lines as the article writing contest - different reviews would be worth different amounts of points. Or we could still run the quarterly bot report separately to catch people who do reviews but aren't interested in entering the contest (there's still value in recognizing their contributions, I think). Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been keeping half an eye on this category since it was set up in October 2017. A while ago I started clearing through from the start of the alphabet (someone else, not sure who, had started from the back and got up to V), but I haven't slogged through for some time. The numbers are actually slowly decreasing: it was 25,200 in February 2018. Over the course of September's drive the backlog actually reduced from 23,713 to 23,399 despite all the new articles tagged (although the April 2018 drive had no real effect on the number). I would support a concerted effort to reduce this backlog, which also should help us to meet our long term target of achieving 15% of all articles rated B-Class or better - Dumelow (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Those stats are interesting. I'm wondering if a bot could at least add an empty B-Class checklist to all Milhist tagged articles that a. don't have one, and b. aren't already FA, A or GA. I realise that would just move the work to the unassessed category, but it would massively reduce the amount of typing required in each assessment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added the data to User:Dumelow/MILHIST B-class assessment stats and drawn up some graphs. I haven't been that diligent in collecting data so there's some big gaps (generally between periods when I was active in working on the missing checklist backlog) but it shows a few interesting trends:
  • There's a few peaks and troughs but in general the missing B-class checklist backlog has been coming down
  • The April 2018 drive did not reduce the missing b-class checklist backlog but the September 2019 one did
  • Milhist drives significantly increase the number of B-class articles
  • The drives also significantly increase the number of articles tagged such that the overall article quality (as measured by the percentage completion against our long-term 15% of all articles at B-class or better target) remains broadly unchanged
  • In general the proportion of articles at B-class or better has been steadily increasing
I'll see if I can keep this stats page up to date now I am a bit more active. I have probably diverged far enough from CPA-5's original point above now so I'll shut up. But I am more than happy to chip into any backlog reduction drive - Dumelow (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a permanently running event, awarded quarterly, ie similar to the current review awards; based on the first three elements of the annual contest and with a similar scale of awards, but no first, second, third places. I am assuming that we could use much of the infrastructure of the annual contest, and so it would be easy to set up. Of course, this may reduce participation in the annual contast, but I doubt that it would reduce the annual total of tagging and assessing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a permanently running event or a monthly reviewing contest are both great ideas. I believe this can indeed reduce the number of articles. I do not think this is an issue. These are work points who can be solved to make the project smoother, this also would solve the long problem of forgetting this topic and how we should deal with this problem. I think we might stimulate some editors to take part in the new drive/contest. This would reduce the numbers a little bit faster than it is now. I think like Tom asked us this is my long term idea. Dumelow could you ping us when the stats' page is up to date? But are we doing this and what should it become? A monthly reviewing contest or a permanently running event? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What I'm getting from this is there are two things we need to achieve. One is a (preferably automated, given we are talking about 25,000 articles) way to add empty B-Class checklists to all articles that don't already have them, and aren't already FA, A-Class or GA, and the second is a perhaps quarterly? contest for filling out the B-Class checklists (ie assessment below GA), which would just need a permanent drive-type page like the monthly contest page, perhaps with a transcluded worklist page. Am I reading this right? Hawkeye7, is there any way that Milhistbot could do the former job? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, that shouldn't be a problem. I will prepare a Bot run to do this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, yes, you are. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and thanks Hawkeye. I think the only major variable will be whether a given banner already has the |class= field, in my experience, some do, some don't. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bot proposalEdit

From the look of it, each of them has a MILHIST banner with a |class= field filled in. They have been added manually by the New Page Patrollers. Some have blank (|b1=|b2=|b3=|b4=|b5=) assessments. All have been assessed as Start, C or B. To get them out of the category, the bot will need to fill in the assessments. Blank ones will not do. Now, the Bot knows the answers to b1, b3 and b5. That leaves b2 and b4, to which it can apply some heuristics, or can infer from the human assessment. So here is my proposal:

  • The Bot accepts the human-assigned class ratings
  • The Bot fills in the assessments
  • Where the Bot believes that the article deserves a B, it will flag it for human assessment

I realise that this goes beyond what you were thinking of, but 25,000 articles is too many for a drive. My feeling is that the overwhelming majority are Starts that are of little concern to us and could be swept up; I will generate some statistics on what the Bot's assessment of the situation is, and report back. We can start with assessment of a small number so we can inspect the results. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If it's easy to set up the bot, let's do a couple of hundred and have a look at them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I will do a sample run and report back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is a sampler, with the Bot looking at the first five of 25,000, with the proposed changes. In each case, the B-class checklist was missing or empty, and all the Bot is programmed to do is add it. Note that 2016 Indian Line of Control strike would be flagged for human review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
1: Talk:2015 Qamishli bombings
    prediction = C
    has infobox
    {{MILHIST|class=start|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
2: Talk:2016 Butig clashes
    prediction = C
    has infobox
   {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|Southeast-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
3: Talk:2016 Indian Line of Control strike
    prediction = B
    has infobox
   {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|South-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
4: Talk:2017 attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul
    prediction = Start
    has infobox
   {{WikiProject Military history|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|class=start|South-Asian-task-force=y}}
5: Talk:2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike
    prediction = C
    has infobox
   {{WikiProject Military history|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Middle-Eastern-task-force=y|Asian=yes|Post-Cold-War-task-force=yes|importance=Mid|class=start}}
Is this just adding an empty checklist, Hawkeye? It seems to be populating the checklist as well? I just looked at Talk:2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike and it currently has a class field (at the end) and a blank checklist? Just a minor point, could we put the blank checklist immediately after the class field in the same order as in the documentation for the template? Having the class and checklist in consecutive fields will make things a little easier for those doing the assessment, and there are some minor syntax quirks in the banner code which can play up if things aren't in the right order. One I know of is the |A-Class= field, it pops up into Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging if it isn't immediately behind the class field. I don't know that there are any with the positioning of the class and checklist fields, but better to just stick to the documentation. Thanks very much for your work on this so far, Hawkeye! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Now that I have actually read the proposal properly... I reckon this is a pretty good approach. I'm not sure that all pages will have a class field though, I was clearing out a category yesterday and there were several with just the bare {{WPMILHIST}} banner. I agree that where we really need to be doing some human checking is with B (and possibly C) class articles. I reckon the number of bot-assessed B-Class articles will be low, less than a hundred, so human checking all the Bs won't be at all onerous. I have a query about the bot logic. Is the bot just looking for a template at the end of each para for b1? If so, could it be picking up cn tags as citations? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I have come across articles which I would fail on B1 despite having each paragraph adequately referenced because they have extensive and entirely uncited infoboxes full of information not repeated in the article. Most 18th-century ships fall into this category. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how concerned we are or want to be about accuracy (and some of the following comments may be based on my misinterpretation of the criteria) but looking at the five sampled:

  1. 2015 Qamishli bombings: I am not sure why "b1=no", it looks fine to me. Surely b3 should be no; there is no attempt at a lead, the first section/paragraph goes straight into the event, and the second is labelled "Aftermath".
  2. 2016 Butig clashes: Looks good.
  3. 2016 Indian Line of Control strike: "b1=no"? There is a "citation needed" tag at the end of the "De-escalation section", which was picked up by the bot and reflected in the code and would make the prediction C, not B.
  4. 2017 attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul: what is the b1 issue? And b2 seems borderline; I would have given it for B class, but wouldn't have argued if a human editor had tagged it as no.
  5. 2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike: Looks good.

Overall I am impressed. I wouldn't mind another sample, perhaps a little larger, spread across a wider range of task forces, to make sure that what we're looking at is representative.

I agree, this is bloody good so far. Could we run one on a random letter of the alphabet, on say 25 or even 50 articles? That's only a fraction of what we are about to unleash it on, but will probably cover a good number of task forces to get a more representative sample and provide some additional quality assurance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

These are good questions:

  • In the case of a bare {{WPMILHIST}} template, the Bot will fill in the class and checklist. It has no instructions regarding task forces. It could assess these too though.
  • 2015 Qamishli bombings: The b1=no was because Bot was confused by the appearance of an infobox outside the lead. I will have to cater for this. The Bot cannot assess a lead based on its content. It looks like a lead, and was accepted as such.
  • 2016 Indian Line of Control strike: The Bot assessed b1=no based on a "citation required" tag. It therefore corrected rendered it as C class. However, the Bot's mission is to swee p up the Start and C class articles, and flag the B class ones for further checking. It therefore will flag if one of the following is true:
    1. The human has tagged the article as B class;
    2. The Bot thinks that all five of the checklist items should be true;
    3. The Bot thinks the article looks pretty good, based on its own judgement. It this case, it has flagged an article for checking where it missed out only by one tag.
  • 2017 attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul An error on my part; the Bot assessed b1 as yes and b2 as no, but I had them around the wrong way. Will correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
What a clever bot! A thought, no more, re "false leads": if there is no ToC, then b3=no. I suspect that this would work far more times than it wouldn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We could also try piggy backing on other project's assessments, IE if the bot sees its B-class for on and not the other it could reasonably infer that the article should be B-class across the board. I'm not sure how many articles or lists that would impact, but I know I've seen that in assessments on article talk pages before. Also, it may be a good idea to figure out a way to exclude articles that are subject to current events issues or ARBCOM rulings or such just to be sure a human double checks what the bot thinks and to avoid instances in which the bot may inadvertently create a backlash of sorts for us by mis-guessing or preliminarily tagging something that's making waves or subject to Wiki-oversight as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@TomStar81: I get through a lot of B class assessments - last month I did over 1,000 for the drive - and in my experience the grading of other projects is a very poor guide to how we would assess an article. I would guess that about 70-75% of the time where another project had assessed an article as C or B class, I assessed it as being lower. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: No surprise there, MILHIST tends to be the flagship project for assessment standards and a lot of other projects have copied what we have because it works so well. That being said, if this is SOCOM as it were then yeah, inviting the mall cops into the fold would be a very bad idea for several reasons, not the least of which would be the degradation of quality :) That being said, it is a pleasant fiction to assume that all projects have at or near the same level of assessment standards for moments like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This looks like an excellent development that could significantly reduce time spent reviewing articles. My concerns would be that, as a bot, it is blind to poor quality sourcing or copyright violations and that people could be put off if they've assessed an article as c-class, for example, and the bot downgrades it to a start-class. Provided the bot doesn't give out B-class assessments (ie. it just flags them for human review) and cannot downgrade classifications given by a human (it could flag these for review though), I am all for it - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dumelow: My understanding is that this will only apply to articles which have no B class checklist at all, not even a blank one. I don't think that there is any question of the bot ever overriding a human judgement. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't get my point across very well. There are articles in that category where a human has assessed the article as a C or B and edited the template mark-up accordingly but it doesn't show on the talk page because the checklist hasn't been completed. I could see people having an issue with the bot inserting "class=start" over the human-written "class=c" in the mark-up, even though the talk page currently shows it as start-class - Dumelow (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, understood. I was being a little slow there. Good point. Hopefully Hawkeye will set up the bot so that any such "downgrades" are flagged for human checking before they are actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The banner template will only show C-Class if b1 or b2 and all the rest are ticked yes. If someone has put |class=C but not filled out the checklist, it hasn't been properly assessed. So, given the bot will only be adding the checklist to articles that don't already have one, or filling it in where the checklist is there but blank, I don't think this is an issue. Is that right, Hawkeye? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If someone puts |class=C (or, for that matter, B) but has not filled out the checklist, then it displays as a Start. I don't foresee a problem here; edits can cause the class assessment to change. It is very true that the Bot cannot assess articles as well as humans can, and can bee fooled; but we can't assess 25,000 articles, and it can. I will post a larger sample in a day or two; I have been looking at some corner cases. In all, though, the results have exceeded my expectations. Some things to consider:
  • Should the Bot assess task forces as well?
  • Should it change the assessment for other projects? Currently the Bot adjusts the assessment of some other projects (Australia, Aviations, Ships etc) when it promotes articles to A-class.
  • In what cases should a human be asked to verify an assessment? We don't want this to happen too often, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I reckon the bot could do some work adding task forces, particularly if there are other WikiProject banners in place, or a particular type of infobox. For example, if it had WikiProject Australia, it could add the ANZSP task force, or add the weaponry task force if the WikiProject Knives banner was present. No doubt there are many more with all the national WikiProjects and some other specialist WikiProjects. In the case of infoboxes: if it had Infobox aircraft begin, it could be added to the Aviation task force; if it had Infobox weapon it could be added to the weaponry task force; or if it had Infobox ship begin it could be added to the Maritime task force. Infobox military person would result in adding the Biography task force.
  • I think we should only change the assessment for projects we have an agreement with, which is only Ships as far as I know? We should run it past any projects we are thinking of assessing via bot.
  • I think all B-Class assessments by bot should be checked by a human eyeball. I suspect that this will be manageable, as the vast majority of the 25,000 will be Start and a drive would smash it pretty quickly.
Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a run with 100 articles. Assessments are rarely downgraded; the usual direction is up. Note that none were actually changed. Just showing what the Bot would do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Microsoft (R) Build Engine version 16.0.42-preview+g804bde742b for Mono Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Build started 17/10/2019 9:45:47 AM. Project "/Users/ross/mono/AutoCheck.csproj" on node 1 (default targets). AutoCheck:

 /Library/Frameworks/Mono.framework/Versions/5.20.1/lib/mono/msbuild/15.0/bin/Roslyn/csc.exe /reference:Newtonsoft.Json.dll /reference:Wikimedia.dll /out:AutoCheck.exe AutoCheck.cs

Done Building Project "/Users/ross/mono/AutoCheck.csproj" (default targets).

Build succeeded.

   0 Warning(s)
   0 Error(s)

Time Elapsed 00:00:00.89 1: Talk:17 August 2019 Kabul bombing

   Original: {{MILHIST|class=C|South-Asian=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{MILHIST|class=B|South-Asian=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

2: Talk:2016 Indian Line of Control strike

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|South-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|South-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

3: Talk:2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|b1=|b2=|b3= |b4=|b5=|Middle-Eastern-task-force=y|Asian=yes|Post-Cold-War-task-force=yes|importance=Mid|class=start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Middle-Eastern-task-force=y|Asian=yes|Post-Cold-War-task-force=yes|importance=Mid|class=B}}</code>

4: Talk:2017 Moscow Victory Day Parade

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|Russian=y|class=start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|Russian=y|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

5: Talk:2017 North Korean nuclear test

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |Korean=y |class=C}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |Korean=y |class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

6: Talk:2017 Shayrat missile strike

   Original: {{MILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|US=yes|class=C|importance=Low}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{MILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|US=yes|class=B|importance=Low|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

7: Talk:2017 Western Iraq campaign

   Original: {{WP Military history|class=C|Middle-Eastern=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WP Military history|class=B|Middle-Eastern=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

8: Talk:2018 Eritrea–Ethiopia summit

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C |b1= |b2= |b3= |b4= |b5= |African=y |Post-Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|African=y |Post-Cold-War=y}}</code>

9: Talk:2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Japanese=y|Korean=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Japanese=y|Korean=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

10: Talk:2018 Tunisian protests

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|African=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=B|African=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

11: Talk:2018–19 Gaza border protests

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=C|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=C|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

12: Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|South-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|South-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

13: Talk:2019 Indanan bombings

   Original: {{WPMilhist|class=start|Southeast-Asian=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMilhist|class=B|Southeast-Asian=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

14: Talk:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|class=start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

15: Talk:2019 Kabul mosque bombing

   Original: {{MILHIST|class=start|South-Asian=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{MILHIST|class=C|South-Asian=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

16: Talk:2019 Khash–Zahedan suicide bombing

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|class=start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

17: Talk:2019 Military World Games

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=start|no=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|no=yes|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

18: Talk:2019 Qousaya attack

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|class=start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Stub
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

19: Talk:2019 Tripoli shooting

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|class=B}}</code>
   old rating = B
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern=y|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

20: Talk:2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=C|Post-Cold-War=y|South-American=y|Biography-task-force=yes}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=C|Post-Cold-War=y|South-American=y|Biography-task-force=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

21: Talk:A-7 (transceiver)

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Russian=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Russian=yes|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

22: Talk:A-235 anti-ballistic missile system

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |class=Start |Weaponry=yes |Russian-task-force=Low}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |class=Start|Weaponry=yes |Russian-task-force=Low|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

23: Talk:A. W. Bhombal

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Biography=y |South-Asian=y |Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=B|Biography=y |South-Asian=y |Cold-War=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

24: Talk:Abe no Yoritoki

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Biography=y |Japanese=y |Medieval=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C|Biography=y |Japanese=y |Medieval=y|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

25: Talk:Abner W. C. Nowlin

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Biography=y |US=y |ACW=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=B|Biography=y |US=y |ACW=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

26: Talk:Abraham Baldwin

   Original: {{MILHIST|class=start|importance=low|Biography=y|US=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{MILHIST|class=C|importance=low|Biography=y|US=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

27: Talk:Abram Trigg

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Biography=y |US=y |Early-Modern=y |ARW=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C|Biography=y |US=y |Early-Modern=y |ARW=y|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

28: Talk:Abu Sayyaf beheading incidents

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Southeast-Asian=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Southeast-Asian=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

29: Talk:ACE High

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Technology=y |SciTech=y |Intel=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start|Technology=y |SciTech=y |Intel=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

30: Talk:Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|Japanese=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Japanese=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

31: Talk:Acritic songs

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history| b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = <yes/no>
| b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no>
| b3 <!-- Structure --> = <yes/no>
| b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = <yes/no>
| b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> |class=Start |Medieval=y|Roman=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no|class=Start|Medieval=y|Roman=yes}}</code>

32: Talk:Action of 17 November 1865

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |Maritime=y |South-American=y |Spanish=y |class=Start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |Maritime=y |South-American=y |Spanish=y |class=C|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

33: Talk:Action of Sequalteplan

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |US=y |class=Start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |US=y |class=Start|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

34: Talk:Active service unit

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=start|British=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|British=y|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

35: Talk:Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defence Review

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |British=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C|British=yes|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

36: Talk:Adjutant General of Maryland

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=list|US=y}}</code>
   old rating = List
   prediction = C
   bot rating = CL
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=CL|US=y|list=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

37: Talk:Adjutant General of Texas

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start|US=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C|US=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

38: Talk:Administrative police in Nazi Germany

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|b1=|b2=|b3=|b4=|b5=|WWII=y|German=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|WWII=y|German=y}}</code>

39: Talk:Aérospatiale

   Original: {{WikiProject Aviation|class=start| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> =n
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy  --> =n
| b3 <!--Structure              --> = y
| b4 <!--Grammar and style      --> =n
| b5 <!--Supporting materials   --> =n|Aircraft=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Aviation|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Aircraft=yes}}</code>
   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=start|Aviation-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=B|Aviation-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

40: Talk:AFCEA

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C |Intel=y |SciTech=y |US=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C|Intel=y |SciTech=y |US=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

41: Talk:Affair at Galaxara Pass

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |US=y |class=Start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |US=y |class=Start|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

42: Talk:Afghan peace process

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Middle-Eastern=y|US=y|Post-Cold-War=y|South-Asian=yes }}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Middle-Eastern=y|US=y|Post-Cold-War=y|South-Asian=yes |b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

43: Talk:Afghan training camp

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C |South-Asian-task-force=yes}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = C
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start|South-Asian-task-force=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

44: Talk:Afrikan P. Bogaewsky

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =
|Biography=y|Russian=y|WWI=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Biography=y|Russian=y|WWI=y}}</code>

45: Talk:Agartala Conspiracy Case

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |B1 <!-- Referencing and citations -->=no |B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy -->=no |B3 <!-- Structure -->=yes |B4 <!-- Grammar and style -->=yes |B5 <!-- Supporting materials -->=no |Southeast-Asian=yes |Cold-War=yes |B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=no |B-Class-4=no |B-Class-5=no}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Southeast-Asian=yes |Cold-War=yes |B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=no |B-Class-4=no |B-Class-5=no}}</code>

46: Talk:AGM-179 JAGM

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class= start
<!-- Task force tags -->
|Weaponry-task-force= yes }}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=B|Weaponry-task-force= yes |b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

47: Talk:Agus Wirahadikusumah

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |Biography=y |Southeast-Asian=y |class=Start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |Biography=y |Southeast-Asian=y |class=Start|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

48: Talk:Ahmet Tevfik Pasha

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|Middle-Eastern=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Biography=y|Middle-Eastern=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

49: Talk:Air force academy

   Original: {{WPAVIATION|class=list}}</code>
   old rating = List
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = List
   Modified: {{WPAVIATION|class=List|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>
   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=List|list=yes
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =
|Aviation=y|National=y|SciTech=y}}</code>
   old rating = List
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = List
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=List|list=yes|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no|Aviation=y|National=y|SciTech=y}}</code>

50: Talk:Air Lanka Flight 512

   Original: {{WikiProject Aviation|class=start|Accident=y|Aircraft=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Aviation|class=C|Accident=y|Aircraft=y|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>
   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|South-Asian=y|Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|South-Asian=y|Cold-War=y|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

51: Talk:Air14

   Original: {{WikiProject Aviation|class=C|importance=}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Aviation|class=C|importance=|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>
   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=c|Aviation=yes|European=yes}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Aviation=yes|European=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

52: Talk:Airbus Defence and Space

   Original: {{WikiProject Aviation|class=start| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = N
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy  --> = N
| b3 <!--Structure              --> = Y
| b4 <!--Grammar and style      --> = N
| b5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = N|Aircraft-project=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Aviation|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Aircraft-project=yes}}</code>
   Original: {{WikiProject Military history
|class=start
|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=yes/no
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes/no
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes/no
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes/no
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes/no
|Aviation-task-force=yes
|UK-task-force=yes
}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history
|class=C|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=yes/no
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes/no
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes/no
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes/no
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes/no
|Aviation-task-force=yes
|UK-task-force=yes
|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

53: Talk:Airey Neave

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |b1 <!-- Referencing and citations -->=n |b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy -->=y |b3 <!-- Structure -->=y |b4 <!-- Grammar and style -->=y |b5 <!-- Supporting materials -->=y |Biography=y |British=y |WWII=y |B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=no |B-Class-4=no |B-Class-5=no}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Biography=y |British=y |WWII=y |B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=no |B-Class-4=no |B-Class-5=no}}</code>

54: Talk:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces First Air Force

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |class=List |US=y |list=yes}}</code>
   old rating = List
   prediction = Stub
   bot rating = List
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |class=List|US=y |list=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

55: Talk:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces Fourth Air Force

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |class=List |US=y |list=yes}}</code>
   old rating = List
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = List
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |class=List|US=y |list=yes|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

56: Talk:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces Second Air Force

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |class=List |US=y |list=yes}}</code>
   old rating = List
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = List
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |class=List|US=y |list=yes|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

57: Talk:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces Third Air Force

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |class=List |US=y |list=yes}}</code>
   old rating = List
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = List
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |class=List|US=y |list=yes|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

58: Talk:Akritas plan

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Cold-War=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Cold-War=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

59: Talk:Aktion Arbeitsscheu Reich

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=C|German=y|WWII=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = B
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|German=y|WWII=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

60: Talk:Al-Hasakah Governorate campaign (2012–13)

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Middle-Eastern=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=B|Middle-Eastern=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

61: Talk:Al-Hasan ibn Ubayd Allah ibn Tughj

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Muslim=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Muslim=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

62: Talk:Al-Hawl refugee camp

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Fortifications=yes|Middle-Eastern=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = C
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Fortifications=yes|Middle-Eastern=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

63: Talk:Al-Kabri incident

   Original: {{WPMILHIST
|class=start
|Middle-Eastern=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST
|class=Start|Middle-Eastern=yes|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

64: Talk:Al-Khurma dispute

   Original: {{MILHIST|class=start|Middle-Eastern=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{MILHIST|class=B|Middle-Eastern=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

65: Talk:Al-Manshiyya, Acre

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes|class=start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

66: Talk:Al-Qaa airstrike

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=start |Middle-Eastern=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start|Middle-Eastern=yes|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

67: Talk:Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|importance=mid}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|importance=mid}}</code>

68: Talk:Al-Shabaab (militant group)

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes|African-task-force=yes}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = FA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes|African-task-force=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

69: Talk:Al-Tawhid Brigade

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|b1=|b2=|b3=|b4=|b5=|Middle-Eastern=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Middle-Eastern=y}}</code>

70: Talk:Al-Ukhaydir, Tabuk Province

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C |Middle-Eastern=y |Muslim=y |Fortifications=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=B|Middle-Eastern=y |Muslim=y |Fortifications=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

71: Talk:Al-Walid ibn Tarif al-Shaybani

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=yes|Muslim=yes|Middle-Eastern=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Biography=yes|Muslim=yes|Middle-Eastern=yes|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

72: Talk:Al-Walid ibn Utba ibn Abi Sufyan

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C |Biography=y |Middle-Eastern=y |Muslim=y}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = B
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=B|Biography=y |Middle-Eastern=y |Muslim=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

73: Talk:Alan Randle

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Biography=y |British=y |WWI=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start|Biography=y |British=y |WWI=y|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

74: Talk:Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Gujarat

   Original: {{MILHIST|South-Asian=yes|class=c}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{MILHIST|South-Asian=yes|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

75: Talk:Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Ranthambore

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=c|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=|South-Asian=yes}}</code>
   old rating = C
   prediction = FA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|South-Asian=yes}}</code>

76: Talk:Albania–NATO relations

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Balkan=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=C|Balkan=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

77: Talk:Albania–Yugoslav border incident (April 1999)

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=List|importance=low|Balkan=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}</code>
   old rating = List
   prediction = C
   bot rating = BL
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=BL|importance=low|Balkan=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes|list=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

78: Talk:Albanian Land Force

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|National=y|Balkan=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|National=y|Balkan=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

79: Talk:Albanian People's Army

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Balkan=y |Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=C|Balkan=y |Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

80: Talk:Albanian Regiment (France)

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Napoleonic=yes|Balkan=yes|French=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = FA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=C|Napoleonic=yes|Balkan=yes|French=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

81: Talk:Albanians in Egypt

   Original: {{WPMILHIST |class=start|Balkan=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST |class=C|Balkan=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

82: Talk:Albemarle Barracks

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |b1 <!-- Referencing and citations -->=n |b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy -->=n |b3 <!-- Structure -->=y |b4 <!-- Grammar and style -->=y |b5 <!-- Supporting materials -->=n |US=y |Early-Modern=y |ARW=y |B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=no |B-Class-4=no |B-Class-5=no}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no|US=y |Early-Modern=y |ARW=y |B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=no |B-Class-4=no |B-Class-5=no}}</code>

83: Talk:Albert D. Richardson

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|US=y|ACW=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Biography=y|US=y|ACW=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

84: Talk:Albert E Smedley

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|Australian=y|WWI=y|Biography=y|class=start}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|Australian=y|WWI=y|Biography=y|class=C|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

85: Talk:Albert G. Lawrence

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|US=y|ACW=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Biography=y|US=y|ACW=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

86: Talk:Albert L. Ireland

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start |US=y |WWII=y |Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|US=y |WWII=y |Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

87: Talk:Albert M. Calland III

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|Maritime=y|US=y|Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|Maritime=y|US=y|Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

88: Talk:Alcohol in Afghanistan

   Original: {{WikiProject Military History|class=B|importance=mid|South-Asian=y}}</code>
   old rating = B
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military History|class=B|importance=mid|South-Asian=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

89: Talk:Aleda E. Lutz

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|US=y|WWII=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Biography=y|US=y|WWII=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

90: Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (American football) 91: Talk:Alemdar (ship)

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=start |B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5= |British=yes |importance=low}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|British=yes |importance=low}}</code>
   Original: {{WikiProject Ships|class=start |B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5= |importance=low}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Ships|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|importance=low}}</code>

92: Talk:Alenka Ermenc

   Original: {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Balkan-task-force=yes|National=yes|Biography-task-force=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST|class=C|Balkan-task-force=yes|National=yes|Biography-task-force=yes|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

93: Talk:Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016)

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =
|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|Asian=y|Russian=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|Asian=y|Russian=y}}</code>

94: Talk:Aleppo offensive (October–December 2015)

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =
|Middle-Eastern=y|Russian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|Asian=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = GA
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Middle-Eastern=y|Russian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|Asian=y}}</code>

95: Talk:Aleutian World War II National Historic Area

   Original: {{WPMILHIST
|class=start
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=
|US-task-force=yes|Fortifications=yes|WWII=y
}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WPMILHIST
|class=C|B-Class-1=
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=
|US-task-force=yes|Fortifications=yes|WWII=y
|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

96: Talk:Alex Boncayao Brigade

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|b1=|b2=|b3=|b4=|b5=|Southeast-Asian=y|Cold-War=y|Post-Cold-War=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Southeast-Asian=y|Cold-War=y|Post-Cold-War=yes}}</code>

97: Talk:Alex Younger

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Biography=y|Intel=y|British=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = C
   bot rating = B
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Biography=y|Intel=y|British=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}</code>

98: Talk:Alexander (supporter of Phocas)

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|Roman=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = Start
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Roman=yes|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}</code>

99: Talk:Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = |class=start|Biography=yes|Land-vehicles=yes|Technology=yes|Weaponry=yes|Russian=yes|WWII=yes}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = B
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|class=C|Biography=yes|Land-vehicles=yes|Technology=yes|Weaponry=yes|Russian=yes|WWII=yes}}</code>

100: Talk:Alexander Foote

   Original: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =
|Biography=y|Intel=y|British=y|Russian=y|WWII=y|Cold-War=y}}</code>
   old rating = Start
   prediction = Start
   bot rating = C
   Modified: {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Biography=y|Intel=y|British=y|Russian=y|WWII=y|Cold-War=y}}</code>

0 articles newly rated, 3 downgraded, 64 upgraded, 38 unchanged - total 105

A couple of initial comments. A few more Bs than I was expecting, I'll have a look at them individually and see how accurate the bot is. Maybe someone else could do that as well, to get another opinion? Two syntax-related things. 1. Could the bot remove the importance field from the banner where it exists, as we don't do importance? 2. Could the bot place the checklist immediately after the class field? An observation that the bot seems to get a bit confused where the existing banner has the checklist with the comments, and adds a second checklist. I'll post more once I've looked at the Bs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a coordinator, but I've been watching this discussion with interest, as I have some concerns about the ability of a bot to accurately assess articles (though I also have concerns about humans to do it too, so go figure!) Taking five of these that were bot-assessed as C-class, I have some worries about how it assesses b1 (Referencing and citations):
  • Abram Trigg: I can't see any justification for a b1=yes here. There is one inline reference in the whole article, leaving one complete section and another paragraph without one at all.
  • Alexander Foote: There are six inline references in this article, but again whole paragraphs without, and an actual {{which}} tag, and yet the bot says b1=yes.
  • 2019 Balakot airstrike: Conversely, this one appears pretty solidly referenced, but the bot doesn't think so?
  • Action of 17 November 1865: No complaints, this seems reasonable.
  • Aleda E. Lutz: Again, not complaints for this one.
Maybe I just struck it unlucky, but three out of five with quite obvious problems suggests to me that the bot needs further calibration for judging against b1? Harrias talk 23:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Military Historian and Newcomer of the Year awardsEdit

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: In approximately six weeks we will open the nominations for the Military historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards. Not withstanding opposition to the term "historian" we still have a problem with these nominations in that the nominations are disproportionately tilted towards our content contributors at the expense of others who do tagging and assessing, photography and FP related work, news related work, coordination, etc. To that end I wanted to reach out and see if it would be possible to get people thinking about this ahead of the nomination period so we could make an honest attempt at diversifying the field this year. I know MilHistBot tallies reviews, surely we can find a veteran and a newcomer versed in article reviewing from that list, but the other areas would need manual nominations and the best people to do that would be those who contribute to the project. If we could encourage people to start thinking about it now perhaps the field and the nominees would widen a little this year, which would be good for us and the project. What you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A good reminder, Tom. I think, in terms of gnoming, those that made significant inroads during the recent drive might be nominated? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep. We need buglers, too: Op-Ed writers and such. I suppose we can look at those who have helped with featured pictures, free souring, etc. Wherever we can find them. If the coordinators can collectively find at least one editors in each field for nomination it should help show that this is for everyone including content contributors, not just exclusively content contributors. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
As a suggestion, it might be a good idea to introduce an award for military history wiki gnome of the year (preferably with a better name - 'grunt of the year' perhaps?) to recognise editors who focus on these sorts of contributions. Tom makes an excellent point by observing that they're often under-recognised across Wikipedia despite the importance of their contributions. There's a risk of over-complicating the awards though, but this would probably be a worthwhile experiment. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking along the same lines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
"Grunt of the Year"! :-) 'Military History Project Logistician of the Year' perhaps? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. I was thinking of "Quite 'Nuff Sayer" (for contribution to the Bugle), "Keeper of the Flame" (for tagging and assessing), "Photographer Maximus" (for images), and "Defender of the Realm" (for taking on ArbCom). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps "Walled Gardener" for the latter? :) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New Academy page?Edit

I've been toying with this idea for while now but I wanted to float it here first: I have in my head it would be a good idea to create a coordinator-specific academy page to track certain site wide rulings and issues that impact the project just so those who end up coordinators can look through them and familiarize themselves with the relevant information. This theoretical page would list ARBCOM, Editing Restriction and LTA editors in a non linked capacity along with a simple summary of the findings to allow coordinators to get a quick feel for what is expected by ruling in the relevant editing zone. Any thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Military history/Coordinators".