User talk:Ian Rose

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

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

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

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

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

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April[edit]

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

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

May[edit]

May

Rapeseed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Ian

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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