Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

I expect to be online, at least briefly, most days for the next few weeks. I plan to update this message when this changes. 02:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I have added a prioritized to do list to my user page. These have been getting done much more slowly than intended because of coordinator tasks and other unanticipated editing that needed more immediate attention. Donner60 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new messages at the very bottom of the page.

To clarify:

• The new item should not be below this message and not below the message about this in the collapsible section but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page.
• Add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), use a link so I can find it more quickly.
• Sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply.
• Keep an eye on this page. You should be notified here and continue any discussion here if I click the reply box when responding - which I will do unless there is something unusual about the post. I will add a ping if I think it is necessary. I may respond on your talk page if I think that would be helpful to expedite communications.
• Note that as far as I know, IP addresses/temporary user accounts (which are numbers), can not be pinged so checking back here will be necessary to continue communications.
• When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already.

Related information: I may not reply to (but will try to thank for) messages which I think are just for my information and do not appear to call for a reply.

If you have come here for information, or to complain about something in a civil manner, please read the information at the pertinent links in the collapsed sections, which expands some on the points mentioned above - at least if you are unfamiliar with posting talk page messages.

I will not respond to vandalism, disruptive, uncivil, insulting, abusive or nonsensical posts. I will simply delete them but depending on their nature, I may post a vandalism warning on your talk page. This was especially pertinent when I was doing more vandalism patrolling since such messages occurred from time to time. I suppose such a message could possibly still be left for any number of other reasons.

If you send me an e-mail please leave a talk page notice in a new section at the bottom of the page. Note: I am not always prompt at looking for new e-mails at the listed address so you are more likely to get a reply, or a quicker reply by notifying me on this page that you have sent an e-mail to me. In most cases, unless the message is confidential, I am likely to be informed the fastest, and reply more quickly if the message is left as a new section below. Thanks.

Current talk page items follow these sections.

		The American Civil War Barnstar
		For all your excellent help with Gettysburg, Hobart Ward, Stonewall's arm, and many other articles. Hog Farm Talk 17:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your help in saving Battle of Gettysburg at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was glad to help. The Battle of Gettysburg is such an important milestone in U.S. history that it should be kept to a good standard. Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the work you put in checking the military history writing contest entries. Hog Farm Talk 23:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's something I can do for the project which relieves the frequent contributors from the task and can be spread out over a month. Donner60 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your work reviewing the backlog of Italian Army articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Thank you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! At least 40 more to come soon. The editor has done a good job of bringing these up to B class. He will be posting the remainder in the near future. Donner60 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		I was curious, seeing as I remembered you reviewing another article I did some work on, William Henry Harrison Seeley, so I decided to check the history of the Military History assessment requests section; of the past 500 edits made there, you contributed 348 of them. That to me is an absolutely incredible figure, and I think you definitely deserve this. CommissarDoggoTalk? 23:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Most of the articles put up for manual assessments are easy enough to review due to the many outstanding contributors that we have to the project. Most are interesting as well. Donner60 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Donner60 for collecting more than 5 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between January and March 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

		The Military Barnstar
		G'day Donner60. Just popped by to say what a brilliant effort you have been making on checking the B-Class auto assessments. Thanks for all your work for the project! Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sent. Donner60 (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military ranked Barnstar
		This award is for your heroic efforts over many months to review B-class military history articles. Djmaschek (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between April and June 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Flavian dynasty retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you, Donner60, for your straightforward review of the “Charles Thau” article. Your expertise (and time) to help get my 1st wiki article to B‑class status are deeply appreciated.

— Milwaukee911 (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your truly outstanding work in helping Battles of Lexington and Concord retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Edward Porter Alexander retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Siege of Fort William Henry retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Coordinator stars
		On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of creating a CW wiki page for the Battle of James City

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2015/10/10/a-spectator-would-have-said-that-the-opponents-were-afraid-of-each-other-the-battle-of-james-city/

Should I create one and have it reviewed on the military history group? How do I create the geohack page with all the geolocation links? And where do I find casualties? I just saw one mention in the War of the rebellion records.

I made this one:

1st Maryland Cavalry Battalion (Confederate)

already but no battle pages. Thanks qstor2 Qstor2 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the pages listed at Template:Navigation and positioning systems. If that does not provide an answer, you could ask a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse. The archive of past questions is so massive, I am not sure whether you can find the answer from the archives of that page. I am not familiar with the templates. I have copied some from existing articles and determined how to use them so many years ago, I would need to relearn them myself.

At https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026937642&seq=935, you will find that Dyer's Compendium, a comprehensive work from 1904 which is the public domain, has an entry for October 10, 1863, which shows the Union casualties at 10 dead, 40 wounded. There are a few other compilations or sources for Union records but you would need to search them out. Dyer is a frequently used source.

Confederate casualties are more difficult to find overall, especially for small engagements. Even estimates are rarely found unless an author has tracked down some entry in the Official Records or some other source. Many Confederate records were destroyed near or at the end of the war. I don't know about any alternate sources besides the Official Records and the works of authors on specific subjects offhand.

In some cases, for new or relatively new editors, asking for a review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation is probably the best first step. For military history articles, you can request a peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review. You will see that requests there can be directed to the military history project where one, sometimes more than one, users will provide comments. If you ask for an assessment, you may just get an assessment grade and often not much advice, other than a few general comments, on how to improve or upgrade the article. So that is not the best alternative for a more thorough review. I think that peer review is the best option to receive more comments.

Wikipedia:Reviewing, a list of pages to consult about reviews at different levels or for other purposes, might have more information about reviews and reviewing overall.

If you do not have the Backus and Orrison book, I can tell you that you find only a little more information than in Orrison's article about his upcoming book, the one just noted. I have a copy. The Confederate casualty figures are not given. There are a few more facts than there are in the earlier review. Other books that might have information about this action include Hunt, Jeffrey Wm. Meade and Lee at Bristoe Station: The Problems of Command and Strategy After Gettysburg, from Brandy Station to the Buckland Races, August 1 to October 31, 1863. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie LLC, 2019. ISBN 978-1-61121-396-6 and Tighe, Adrian G. The Bristoe Campaign: General Lee's Last Strategic Offensive with the Army of Northern Virginia, October 1863. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Corp., 2011. ISBN 978-1-4535-4990-2.

There are a number of online sources that can be accessed, even without a subscription in you do not need to download an article. JSTOR comes to mind. I can access, but not download, up to 100 articles per month. One problem I have with JSTOR is that the search engine returns far more results than are useful from the search items that I submit. I often don't need to look through all of them to find a few that appear to be useful (or occasionally to give up in frustration, I must admit) I am not sure whether the viewing of 100 articles was a break given to those who signed up during covid and has been extended for such users or whether it is genuinely available. In any event, JSTOR allows anyone to view old or government articles that are in the public domain without registering. You can find other sources at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.

In general, you usually may get more information from more than one editor by asking such questions on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. On a question relating to the American Civil War, I am glad to answer a question as best I can. So I might have answered on that page as well. There are other experienced editors who answer questions posed on that page as well. Some know as much or more than I do about the war and about some of them know more about templates and the like. I am by no means an expert on that topic.

I think you may have enough information to write an article on this action. I tend to be in favor of adding articles on small engagements, especially if there were casualties and some detail can be given, including where they fit into the scheme of things. Some might think that adding a section to the Bristoe campaign article would be enough. I think that a small summary of this action should be added to that article in any event since the campaign article now does not include anything about it. Donner60 (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the pointers! I do have the Backus and Orrison. I'll submit the article for review and edit the Bristoe campaign page to add the battle. Qstor2 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the casualties because the OR shows that one unit the 120th NY reported 114 casualties. But I didn't see anything for Kirkpatrick cavalry.

See towards the bottom of the page re 120th NY:

https://www.jggscivilwartalk.online/index.php?threads/battle-of-james-city.2313/

So I'm a tiny bit confused as to use the 50 from Dyer or the 114.

I found a free original source at:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29660/29660-h/29660-h.htm

and an article in the NYT from 1863 on the battle:

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1863/10/25/78709484.html?pageNumber=8

So I think I'm set for sources. Just have to figure out the GeoHack page. Qstor2 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I were writing this, I would use the OR and add a footnote that Dyer gives 50. I would also note that the cited sources do not give a number for the Kirkpatrick cavalry (if any). That should preclude any disagreements about sources and show that you looked at the best original and secondary sources for the numbers.

Also, if someone wants to be picky about using "primary sources", you can state that you mentioned Dyer, a secondary source. Also, I think that casualty reports are not the kind of statistic that a unit commander would overestimate for any reason that I can think of at this point. Sometimes I see assertions that no primary sources should be used but I don't think the guideline is written in a way that precludes them in all situations.

There are suspicions, perhaps with good reason, that some original sources aren't entirely trustworthy because they want to minimize or ignore mistakes or unfavorable facts or inflate accomplishments. But if there are no other reliable sources or the ones used appear reasonable for other reasons, I don't see any trouble with citing them. I wouldn't state those comments about the sources in the article or footnotes but you could use them as answers to any talk page question or comment, or to contest any attempt to delete or revert the numbers, if necessary. Donner60 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a draft if you had time to look at it. Thanks

Draft:Battle of James City Qstor2 (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been offline since November 11. I was out of town for much of this time. I am just getting back to editing. I saw that the article was still rather short and in draft form so it should not take much time to review it carefully. I think it also won't take a significant amount of time away from this month's backlog reduction drive work. I plan to take another look at it late today or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you! Some of the lesser battles weren't that long. I didn't set up the GeoHack page though. Not sure how to do that I can expand it if you think it needs "fleshing out" Qstor2 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not found it yet, go to Wikipedia:GeoHack. In turn, that will direct you to a MediaWiki page GeoHack which appears to explain how to to do this. I have rarely used this so I can't add more about this from memory. I will take a few minutes within the next few days to see if I have any comments on whether and in what respect this can be expanded, or needs to be, for a B class assessment. Donner60 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will do Qstor2 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally taken a close look at the draft. I have the Backus/Orrison and Tighe books and two other directly related to the campaign. A little more could be said about the prior movements to James City. The draft has the gist of the engagement; only a few more details could be added. You might consider adding an aftermath section which would include a summary of movements and actions on either the following day or even the next several days. I think this could get a B class assessment. An article that is this brief would not likely get to GA. Donner60 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy holidays. I'll tweak it and ping you again. Qstor2 (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping P. G. T. Beauregard retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Siege of Yorktown retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For your efforts in fairly mediating a lengthy and drawn-out dispute on Battle of Maritsa, which ended in a suitable compromise thanks to your suggestions. Keep up the good work! Botushali (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Donner60, this is to let you know that a request for dispute resolution has been filed regarding the Battle of Maritsa article. You can see the request here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Battle_of_Maritsa_discussion

You are receiving this message because you were listed as an involved editor. -Aeengath (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works Op-ed: Nick-D on 20 years with Wikipedia Timeline: This month in military history

Hi Donner. I'm continuing work on the List of military electronics of the United States and the two sub-pages. You had made some recommendations, and said you would soon followup on some thoughts you needed to research. That conversation was removed from the assessment request page, so I hope you don’t mind my asking here… Have you come to a conclusion about every entry on a list article requiring cited sources? Thanks in advance. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹(Tadg^Talk-Email) 19:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to continue the discussion here rather than on your talk page. I am reasonably sure that every item requires a source, either individually or, if one citation covers all entries, to put the citation in the section caption or at the last entry. The last entry possibility is in line with a general citation guideline while the caption is an option accepted by military history project coordinators and experienced assessors. (If an article is assessed by the bot, the bot will not accept either option. However, I have not noticed the bot reassessing changes in articles so there is a possibility that old assessments may be outdated and uncorrected.)

I want to go back and gather up the various pages or sections from which I come to my conclusion - which I neglected to do as I went through them because I had not thought there would be several to consider when I looked around. I think there also may be the option of simply turning the now overall introductory article into a disambiguation page and inserting anything from that article that is not already repeated in the sub-articles into the new article's leads or introductions. That may or may not be the choice you will make, of course. It may depend in part on whether you leave the main article as CL class if needed to retain it. I also will probably run this past a current or emeritus coordinator for another opinion. I will want to wait a few days until the backlog drives are over.

Thanks for your patience with this. It is a useful exercise for me because this situation is a little out of the ordinary but could arise again. It will be helpful to have more detailed background or guidelines to have more certain class assessments and explanations. Donner60 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TadgStirkland401: Sorry for the delayed and rather long, but yet still incomplete, response. A similar article, with a list of items which are all Wikipedia pages, has come up again, as I thought it might. So some follow-up to get definite guidance about the need for citations in tables or lists when the entries are Wikipedia articles still needs to be made.

I realized that the general assessment information page did not include some detailed pages from the military history project academy. I added a link to the most relevant of those pages on the general assessment information page. That is: "For specific (b1) citation requirements for a B-class article for this project see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references." The "When to cite?" and "What to cite?" sections are the most relevant.

Even though there are essays and comments which indicate that lists need references, I still cannot point to any guideline or information page that I think cite the details for sources in lists definitively - at least definitively for lists in which all the entries are Wikipedia articles. I think it is clear that if an entry is not a Wikipedia article, it must have a citation.

The bot, and human assessors, consider each bullet point or other entry in lists or tables to be a paragraph. The project guidelines require each paragraph to end in a citation. So the only question that might remain is whether the listed Wikipedia article is itself a citation or whether a citation from that article must nonetheless be shown in the list.

I think these comments make some progress, or at least a better explanation of the considerations and guidelines to be taken into account. While the information cited here gives us some guidance or leads toward a conclusion, I think I need to ask other coordinators for comment. In the meantime, I still need to remain with the conclusion that B class lists require individual items to be cited, or that one citation in the caption or at the end of the list is required, until I can more certainly determine that Wikipedia articles are their own citations. And of course, one citation is not likely to work for lists or tables of articles. Donner60 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Donner60,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. By the power vested in me by nobody in particular, I appoint thee a member duly authorized to display the {{User Fifteen Year Society}} userbox and/or the {{15 Year topicon}} as desired.​

Best regards, ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This also may show that occasionally someone looks at my user page! Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!!!! A.Cython (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, maybe a bit of a null question but how do I know if a GA nomination has gone through? I nominated talk:Maurice Gamelin but that was however many hours ago and the bot hasn't added it to the top of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I saw this, the article had appeared on the project page. I am reasonably sure that the military history bot (milhistbot) transfers the article name from the GA nomination page. So you obviously proceeded correctly. As I recall, the bot only sweeps through new articles and other pages related to the project intermittently, possibly as infrequently as once per day. So while the nomination may have been recorded immediately, the bot did not see it until some time later. I am not a bot expert but I do know that some bots work immediately while others take their time. If something doesn't move for 24 hours or perhaps a little longer, there is probably something wrong with the nomination. Earlier than that, the user/editor will need to wait until the bot gets to it to see it on the project page.

This is long and tedious enough but FWIW, the bot only posts B class assessments on new articles that it makes, rather than human assessors make at the assessment request page, once per month. Eventually, a coordinator reviews those bot assessments because the bot occasionally gets an assessment wrong, including showing an article as a military history article when it actually doesn't meet the criteria on the main project page. Sometimes coordinators come across them earlier by chance, usually if a user/editor makes a request for assessment but the bot has already assessed the article. The bot apparently is not set to go back and change an assessment after improvements are made, however. In those cases, the user/editor must make a request to get the article reassessed. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you! Sorry for wasting your time. ~2025-38838-41 (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. One responsibility of coordinators is to help new users get started on the right track and more knowledgeable about Wikipedia. It is not all obvious. Someone who becomes more familiar with guidelines, templates, advice pages, etc. will become a more productive contributor to Wikipedia. I tend to elaborate a little more than some others. I think it is more helpful to be more detailed. It usually doesn't take me too long to go over facts and interpretations that I already know. Others do tend to be a little more specific and to the point, however. Perhaps that is better at least for some or in some cases. Donner60 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I very much appreciate it. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2025. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I am pleased to reward your performance - 95 points - in the November 2025 Article Improvement Drive with this award. Congratulations! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Donner60 for collecting more than 4 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's NOV25 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 6,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		For Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Long Island/1. TompaDompa (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm and Hawkeye7 review five recent releases Timeline: This month in military history

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

Abishe (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And the same wish to you. Happy New Year! Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 9, 2 January 2026

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between October and December 2025. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I didn't make this article, but it does clearly need assessment, I'm probably not allowed to place articles that I didn't make on there, but the weird thing about this one is that it bypassed the AfC process, although that's not a bad thing, just a weird thing I noticed. I'm only placing this here because again, I did not make this article but it does need attention from this project, and as one of its coordinators and to be honest, hardest working contributors, you seem like the right person to assess this. Thanks in advance! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While non-registered users need to submit articles to Articles for Creation, registered users can bypass AfC if they have accounts that are 4 days old and have 10 good edits. For them, AfC is voluntary. Strange, but true. This article was indeed written and posted by a new user.

This article was reviewed as a new page by Scope Creep, a longtime contributor and new page reviewer. The article was passed. That may just mean that the reviewer did not find anything wrong or suspicious about it. Obviously, the reviewer did not assess it but scope creep was not required to. It has not been submitted to the military history project for assessment and apparently not to the general request for assessment page. I only recently discovered this general request page when I began to wonder whether there might be such a page because many of the topic projects are inactive or outright defunct.

It would seem that milhistbot should have assessed the article by now. The absence of a bot assessment of an article that clearly is a military history article seems strange to me. I will look at this again and assess it if it remains unassessed for several days. I am a little backed up right now, however, and will soon be offline except perhaps for a few brief looks between January 5 and January 13. (Real life will be intervening.)

I am glad you noticed this. It does make me wonder whether this occurs often or whether this has somehow escaped the bot's notice. As far as I know, the bot runs at least once per day. I will not ask other coordinators for more details about the fine points of the bot's operation for the time being, however. Hawkeye7 was the bot's creator and maintains and modifies it as needed. Donner60 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SignedInteger: A user put a general banner shell and C class assessment on this article - no project banners and no individual b class criteria checklist. I removed this and added the military history project banner and kept the C class assessment because some citations are needed. If this were to go to GA eventually, a few additional sentences may need citations or need to be rewritten. They may be user's analysis if not supported by citations which would be original research. There are nearby citations later in the paragraphs but they are not accessible so they may or may not support the tentative conclusions or analysis. It is probably not worth probing into at this rating because structurally it could be adequately sourced. Thanks for noticing this. The bot may not have noticed this article with that general assessment already on it. Donner60 (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

---

story · music · places

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donner - I have added the two missing page numbers to the Edward Neufville Crosse page, and hope that it can now keep the B class rating! Would appreciate your view if you get a chance. Thanks! BBWood1908 (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You added the page numbers for citation missing pages. Of course, I cannot say what Hawkeye7 saw as missing in addition to those two. Here is what I see in the Citations (References).

The following references in some cases definitely appear to need page numbers and others which I cannot access could require page numbers or an explanation of their layouts.

There are still missing page numbers for references that have more than one page such as "Issue of 28 April 1945". The Illustrated London News," and "Gulabin, Henry. "Army Commands 1860". Perhaps most importantly I suspect War Diary of 100th Anti-Aircraft Brigade, 1944 (WO 171/1087), which is cited numerous times has page numbers. Not only that, but I assume you cite this in the other article. I am not attempting to look at that article at this both due to my suspicion about page numbers for this source and because Hawkeye7 has worked on this and I think should follow through. I may have missed something that because of his greater experience he may have noted.

For some reason that is not clear to me, Hawkeye7 has not returned to this though I pinged him to be sure he saw your comments. Since his assessments and comments need to be addressed, I suggest you ping him directly after you give attention to my comments.

The same main or may not be true for Fold3 and Ancestry dot com which are behind paywalls. This needs to be explained.

I suspect that the Caledar of Wills and Adminstorations, "1901 Census of England and Wales — household of Thomas George Crosse" and

The National Archives (UK) could have page numbers but these web cites are not appearing for me when I click on those references. If you have seen a lack of page numbers on these pages, please let me know.

The Private Papers of Brigadier E N Crosse CBE MC is only an introductory page, not one with the information shown in the text.

I tend to make longer comments in some cases than other assessors do without moving them to the talk pages. That is discouraged somewhere on this page or in the guidelines. These comments are obviously lengthy. So I am glad that, due to my response, you have raised this on my talk page.

I hope that in any future responses to you I can be more definitive more quickly. In this case, I am looking at previously reviewed articles that I need to take into account. (Irrevant perhaps but I am dealing with some real life time pressures and various backlogs here. I hope both of these can be reduced in coming weeks.) Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Donner, I will take a look at those and ping Hawkeye. Can I ask your guidance, though? On something like the Illustrated London News, where I'm not cititng a page in that case I am, instead, drawing attention to the full copy, should I just list it as a ppx-xx? The same applies to a few of the War Diary references, but I can definitely make some of them more specific, as I have on the other article.

On things like census records, there are page numbers but I'm not sure how relevant they'd be? E.g. the 1901 census is page 27, but I assume that's page 27 of the ledger in use in that specific parish/borough/constituency. How can I further cite that? Same is true of marriage records, e.g. it's p37 but it's p37 of that specific ledger...

If there is a page of guidance on this, feel free to just point me there! Cheers. BBWood1908 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the pages of the Illustrated London News relevant? You could cite a range of pages, even a range of all of them if they are all releavant. I think the question about the page numbers is answered by one of the general principles. Cite the specific edition or relevant identifier for the specific ledger in addition to census ledger, marriage records and so on. As you note, there are already page numbers so those can be cited from the identified edition, volume or ledger (whichever best describes the works we are discussing). I hope that helps. Donner60 (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donner, thanks for your feedback/guidance here and elsewhere. All of the references now have a page number, and I have reformatted many of them. The only exception is the 1943 war diary, because I haven't got a copy of it - I will be back in The National Archives on Monday to retrieve that missing page number. Aside from that, are you now happy with the referencing? I will also ping Hawkeye. Thanks! BBWood1908 (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 10, 18 January 2026

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2026 (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 review four books Op-ed: Nick-D on the Stanley Military Cemetery in Hong Kong Timeline: This month in military history

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Donner60 and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Ongoing discussions	News	Current statistics
What to do if nominator has been blocked? Commentary ability for Good Article reviewers (at Village pump)	Sign up for the February 2026 GAN backlog drive	Number of GAs: 43,228 (+40) Number of nominations: 968 (+68) GAs for reassessment: 64 (–4)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

---

Ongoing discussions	News	Current statistics
What should ChristieBot do when an article is moved mid-review? How should ChristieBot notify nominators of malformed nominations? Amount of articles in video game categories Lack of spot check References in a GAN article; and the associated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Identifying locations in sources without page numbers	February 2026 GAN backlog drive continues. Two reviewers are looking for mentors. WikiProject Food and Drink hits 500 Good Articles, with Chiswick Chap and Another Believer together contributing a third.	Number of GAs: 43,446 (+218) Number of nominations: 841 (–127) GAs for reassessment: 46 (–18)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]