This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Revista de Historia Militar (ISSN 0482-5748) published by the Ejército de Tierra de España
Hello,
So, this magazine/academic journal by the Ministerio de Defensa of the Kingdom of Spain has been published twice a year since 1957. I created its article (duly referenced to CSIC = the
Spanish National Research Council), to Dialnet (an academic research network) of
University of La Rioja, to the Real Colegio de Artillería, to the Ministry itself (ejercito.defensa.gob.es), and to a book, namely ISBN 978-84-617-2104-7, citing page 59.
Well, the English Wikipedia entry about Revista de Historia Militar has just now been draftified, four months later, and after others have contributed to it. I would appreciate it if you could have a gander at it, and, if you think it fair, push the big blue button "submit the draft for review!" if you deem it appropriate.
Note: a version of this article (in Spanish)
exists at wikipedia in Spanish (I know we consider other wikipedias irrelevant, but it probably does not hurt to mention it).
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
Our current coordinator tranche is set to expire in 8 weeks, give or take. Given this, I feel its time we start discussing the upcoming coordinator elections, to determine how many we want, whether that number should include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, when the election should start, how long it should run, and what format we want to use. Thoughts, anyone?
TomStar81 (
Talk)
09:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the format we've used the last couple years has worked fine and would support keeping it generally the same as last year.
Hog FarmTalk16:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder - I won't be standing again, as I've been busier in real life lately and I anticipate a new job within the next few weeks that will unfortunately cut further into my editing time.
Parsecboy (
talk)
12:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
With a couple coords not returning for the new year, I've been reaching out to some potential candidates, and I don't think it would hurt for others to do the same.
Hog FarmTalk00:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and sent it out now (which should [hopefully] become obvious in a few minutes). I resisted the urge to begin the message with "Hey y'all", which is probably something my employer wants me to start leaving out of work emails as well.
Hog FarmTalk17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason why we shouldn't bask in the sense of a mission completed for a while. I see no rush to set new targets - although obviously we will need to at some stage.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Witold Pilecki has been nominated for six months and has collected one oppose and four supports. has source and image reviews. I feel that the nominators have adequately addressed the objection. Recommend closure.
{{
@MILHIST}} - As it is past the end of the voting period, I've closed the 2022 co-ordinator election. The new term will start on 1 October; there will be enough of time to prepare for the new trench. Many thanks to the outgoing coordinators for their work during the past year and congratulations for the newcomers! Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk)
00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Well done to all the newly elected (and returned) coords, and to Hawkeye for being elected lead coord. Thanks for putting your hands up to help keep the project running smoothly. Bravo Zulu.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
06:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not throwing an error, but assumes that all the nominators use the same format. This will be tricky to work around, so I'll have to think about it a bit.
Hawkeye7(discuss)04:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks like I accidentally deleted Fort Southerland. Unfortunately, I can't add it back just yet, because it would be the third one, and would mess up the award processing. I'll re-add it next time you get an A-class article promoted.
Hawkeye7(discuss)04:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Also has Georgejdorner listed twice with different articles. Is this something we can sort out manually, or will doing that throw the bot off?
Hog FarmTalk17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I've added some stuff for myself; I think it would be nice if we could get at least 3 or 4 coordinators to do a little write-up.
Hog FarmTalk18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Happy to chip in but I wonder if we could consider doing it as a "column" introducing the coordinators two or three at a time. That way we have some "easy-to-generate" Op-Ed content for the next few months?
Zawed (
talk)
09:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
That's a thought, Zawed! For variety, as we have the new lead coord and a returning coord already, it'd be great to see one from a
newcoord as well; I was also considering doing one as a representative of the coord emeriti. Three or four in total is probably enough for the next Bugle, then we could aim for a similar number in the next couple of of issues. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
10:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I could write a little paragraph introducing myself. If Pickersgill-Cunliffe also wants to introduce themselves that would be cool.
Schierbecker (
talk)
20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
if any coord would like to add a blurb about themselves to the
November Bugle op-ed page, similar to what we did last month, we'd love to see it! Note that Nick and I are making a conscious effort to get issues out in the first week or two of the month now, so whoever's interested, pls make it a priority -- two to four entries would be fine. Also if someone could add October's contest results to the
Project News page that'd be excellent. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
18:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello again guys, still like to get at least one or two more coords to introduce themselves at the December op-ed page... Also could we pls get the November contest results on the December Project News page? Tks/cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
00:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
As you can see, my quixotic effort to get the backlog down below three months is not making much progress, as we are still working through the June/July hump. However, there are only two articles from August and one from September.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
- Any ideas on a coordinated way for the project to pick up on some of these? It really feels like ACR has been stagnating lately, and I'm not sure what the best way to "liven up the party" at ACR is.
Hog FarmTalk18:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we can AGF for most. I mean, we could check your reviews if you insist, but why? We could just random sample the rest and rely on nominators to howl in really egregious cases. Similar to how GoCE work. What's the worst that can happen - someone gets an undeserved barnstar? If they are that desperate, they should email me, and I'll just give them one. I'm happy to do the lion's share of random sampling.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
18:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought that might be contributing. Let me take the lead on the checking. (I used to lead what were known as "verification teams": non-random, risk-based checks. Happy days.)
Gog the Mild (
talk)
19:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
At least for Americans, November and December are probably bad months to run a reviewing contest. Any ideas for a good month in early 2023 to run it in?
Hog FarmTalk14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
- any further thoughts on putting something together for January or February? Of our 12 ACR noms and one reassessment currently open, the reassessment and 7 of the 12 nominations are all at least 2 months old.
Hog FarmTalk20:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The GA backlog drive runs on points for reviews, and more points resulting in better barnstars. I don't see why a similar system couldn't be used here, with the assumption that unlike the GA drive we'll be able to actually finalise the rewards quickly after the end of the event! For MILHIST specific awards I think the service stripes and WikiChevrons could be used. Barnstars like the WikiProject Barnstar and Content Review Medal could also be used. I'm not entirely au fait with which awards are seen as more valuable, but something like WikiChevrons > service stripes (1,2,3) > WikiProject Barnstar > Content Review Medal could work for an order, with the WikiChevrons being the reward for the lowest point threshold. Assuming points are the way to go, would someone get the same points for a content review as they would for a source or image? More questions than answers I'm afraid, but I don't see why it isn't possible..!
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
For awards, we could probably base something off the quarterly reviewing awards we already do. (Looks like we do WikiChevrons > The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) >The Milhist reviewing award w/ between 1 and 3 stripes). Source and image are just as necessary as content reviews, and are sometimes harder, so I'd say to weight it all equally.
Hog FarmTalk22:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
How would it be announced? Is this a mass message appropriate situation? Also, organising how we illustrate what needs to be done; assuming a contest page is created for it, do we let reviewers individually list off what they're working on/have completed, or do we create a table/checklist that people can sign up on to fulfil a certain task? (or something completely different?)
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
We did something kinda similar last year, and I think we did a mass message because I remember getting the numbers of days in the month wrong on a mass message I sent to everyone. We had a format set up for the prior one, but I don't remember where exactly it's located (also, I don't know if we ever handed out the awards). FWIW, the prior one was for all levels of assessment, because there was a GAN backlog and we were pretty far behind on the monthly autocheck at that point.
Hog FarmTalk22:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Autocheck seems to be pretty settled right now, and there's hardly anything available for picking up at warfare GANs. Could add points for FAC reviews, I suppose? They're not in any particular difficulties (AFAIK) but can always do with more look-overs. Copying something else from the GA drive, it might be good to include extra points for reviews on articles that have been waiting for longer than others.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
September contest
Hi all, I have sorted out the September contest and dished out the second place prize/done the competition write up for the Bugle on the basis of the points table as it stands. My entries still have to be verified and the first place prize dished out. Cheers,
Zawed (
talk)
09:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As you can see, there are two nominations inactive for already more than a month and two nominations that are almost ready for promotion. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk)
20:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Reading list & December Bugle
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
Hi guys, last year we ran the coords' 2021 reading list in the December Bugle. If a few of you would like to get cracking on a 2022 list, Nick and I would be happy to run that in next month's (200th) issue. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
We've run the Military historian of the year and the newcomer of the year every year since 2008, and it looks like last year we opened nominations on December 1. @
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
is this something we're planning on doing again?
Hog FarmTalk14:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It's up now. I don't see anything in my user talk page archives suggesting that we ran a mass notification. If it's deemed necessary I can send one out, but I'm going to try to add it to the announcements header to give it at least some visibility.
Hog FarmTalk00:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
It was missing part of the do not archive template. I've put the template up so that it won't be archived for four weeks (can be shortened if needed).
Hog FarmTalk15:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh shoot ... had inlaws visiting and forgot to start the voting period. Yes, that's open now. @
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
- I've got to go soon - would anyone be willing/able to set the voting portion up? I think last year we made new sections for the voting. The candidacy period didn't get input from very many editors, so does anyone have thoughts about a mass message? I think some years we've sent one, and other years we haven't.
Hog FarmTalk20:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I suppose one could try linking specific revisions. Which would also have an advantage of showing how an article grows and changes, as you could use the same article. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.2% of all
FPs. Currently celebrating his
600th FP!18:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I've started to curate a Milhist-themed library at
User:Schierbecker/sandbox. I've collected about 70
Jane's year books so far. All of these are available to browse online courtesy of the
Internet Archive Books to Borrow program. My goal is to make these sources—fully formatted in citation style—available to all of the subprojects of Milhist. I welcome your feedback. Please also feel free add to this work in progress if that interests you.
Schierbecker (
talk)
23:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a really good idea. I also have a wide range of works on the Internet Archive favourited due to its not very good search system, and would be happy to share them. I found out yesterday that what looks like the entire British official history of the Second World War is on the site! Would there be interest in setting up a Internet Archive library for the project? (eg, at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Internet Archive books or similar) so members can share what they've found? It's an excellent resource, but frustrating to use due to the difficulty of finding anything.
Nick-D (
talk)
23:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to add. Search is indeed definitely not one of Internet Archive's strong suits. In the future it may be worth exploring a partnership between a collection and WP:Milhist to scan books that are not yet in the Internet Archive's library. There is currently
a lawsuit by Hatchett against the Internet Archive for its book-lending service, so this is all somewhat up in the air. BTW, I was also thinking about setting up a shared Google Drive/OneDrive for sharing public domain pdfs. What do you think?
Schierbecker (
talk)
01:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for December
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Revista de Historia Militar (ISSN 0482-5748) published by the Ejército de Tierra de España
Hello,
So, this magazine/academic journal by the Ministerio de Defensa of the Kingdom of Spain has been published twice a year since 1957. I created its article (duly referenced to CSIC = the
Spanish National Research Council), to Dialnet (an academic research network) of
University of La Rioja, to the Real Colegio de Artillería, to the Ministry itself (ejercito.defensa.gob.es), and to a book, namely ISBN 978-84-617-2104-7, citing page 59.
Well, the English Wikipedia entry about Revista de Historia Militar has just now been draftified, four months later, and after others have contributed to it. I would appreciate it if you could have a gander at it, and, if you think it fair, push the big blue button "submit the draft for review!" if you deem it appropriate.
Note: a version of this article (in Spanish)
exists at wikipedia in Spanish (I know we consider other wikipedias irrelevant, but it probably does not hurt to mention it).
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
Our current coordinator tranche is set to expire in 8 weeks, give or take. Given this, I feel its time we start discussing the upcoming coordinator elections, to determine how many we want, whether that number should include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, when the election should start, how long it should run, and what format we want to use. Thoughts, anyone?
TomStar81 (
Talk)
09:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the format we've used the last couple years has worked fine and would support keeping it generally the same as last year.
Hog FarmTalk16:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder - I won't be standing again, as I've been busier in real life lately and I anticipate a new job within the next few weeks that will unfortunately cut further into my editing time.
Parsecboy (
talk)
12:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
With a couple coords not returning for the new year, I've been reaching out to some potential candidates, and I don't think it would hurt for others to do the same.
Hog FarmTalk00:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and sent it out now (which should [hopefully] become obvious in a few minutes). I resisted the urge to begin the message with "Hey y'all", which is probably something my employer wants me to start leaving out of work emails as well.
Hog FarmTalk17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason why we shouldn't bask in the sense of a mission completed for a while. I see no rush to set new targets - although obviously we will need to at some stage.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Witold Pilecki has been nominated for six months and has collected one oppose and four supports. has source and image reviews. I feel that the nominators have adequately addressed the objection. Recommend closure.
{{
@MILHIST}} - As it is past the end of the voting period, I've closed the 2022 co-ordinator election. The new term will start on 1 October; there will be enough of time to prepare for the new trench. Many thanks to the outgoing coordinators for their work during the past year and congratulations for the newcomers! Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk)
00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Well done to all the newly elected (and returned) coords, and to Hawkeye for being elected lead coord. Thanks for putting your hands up to help keep the project running smoothly. Bravo Zulu.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
06:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not throwing an error, but assumes that all the nominators use the same format. This will be tricky to work around, so I'll have to think about it a bit.
Hawkeye7(discuss)04:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks like I accidentally deleted Fort Southerland. Unfortunately, I can't add it back just yet, because it would be the third one, and would mess up the award processing. I'll re-add it next time you get an A-class article promoted.
Hawkeye7(discuss)04:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Also has Georgejdorner listed twice with different articles. Is this something we can sort out manually, or will doing that throw the bot off?
Hog FarmTalk17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I've added some stuff for myself; I think it would be nice if we could get at least 3 or 4 coordinators to do a little write-up.
Hog FarmTalk18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Happy to chip in but I wonder if we could consider doing it as a "column" introducing the coordinators two or three at a time. That way we have some "easy-to-generate" Op-Ed content for the next few months?
Zawed (
talk)
09:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
That's a thought, Zawed! For variety, as we have the new lead coord and a returning coord already, it'd be great to see one from a
newcoord as well; I was also considering doing one as a representative of the coord emeriti. Three or four in total is probably enough for the next Bugle, then we could aim for a similar number in the next couple of of issues. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
10:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I could write a little paragraph introducing myself. If Pickersgill-Cunliffe also wants to introduce themselves that would be cool.
Schierbecker (
talk)
20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
if any coord would like to add a blurb about themselves to the
November Bugle op-ed page, similar to what we did last month, we'd love to see it! Note that Nick and I are making a conscious effort to get issues out in the first week or two of the month now, so whoever's interested, pls make it a priority -- two to four entries would be fine. Also if someone could add October's contest results to the
Project News page that'd be excellent. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
18:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello again guys, still like to get at least one or two more coords to introduce themselves at the December op-ed page... Also could we pls get the November contest results on the December Project News page? Tks/cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
00:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
As you can see, my quixotic effort to get the backlog down below three months is not making much progress, as we are still working through the June/July hump. However, there are only two articles from August and one from September.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
- Any ideas on a coordinated way for the project to pick up on some of these? It really feels like ACR has been stagnating lately, and I'm not sure what the best way to "liven up the party" at ACR is.
Hog FarmTalk18:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we can AGF for most. I mean, we could check your reviews if you insist, but why? We could just random sample the rest and rely on nominators to howl in really egregious cases. Similar to how GoCE work. What's the worst that can happen - someone gets an undeserved barnstar? If they are that desperate, they should email me, and I'll just give them one. I'm happy to do the lion's share of random sampling.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
18:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought that might be contributing. Let me take the lead on the checking. (I used to lead what were known as "verification teams": non-random, risk-based checks. Happy days.)
Gog the Mild (
talk)
19:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
At least for Americans, November and December are probably bad months to run a reviewing contest. Any ideas for a good month in early 2023 to run it in?
Hog FarmTalk14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
- any further thoughts on putting something together for January or February? Of our 12 ACR noms and one reassessment currently open, the reassessment and 7 of the 12 nominations are all at least 2 months old.
Hog FarmTalk20:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The GA backlog drive runs on points for reviews, and more points resulting in better barnstars. I don't see why a similar system couldn't be used here, with the assumption that unlike the GA drive we'll be able to actually finalise the rewards quickly after the end of the event! For MILHIST specific awards I think the service stripes and WikiChevrons could be used. Barnstars like the WikiProject Barnstar and Content Review Medal could also be used. I'm not entirely au fait with which awards are seen as more valuable, but something like WikiChevrons > service stripes (1,2,3) > WikiProject Barnstar > Content Review Medal could work for an order, with the WikiChevrons being the reward for the lowest point threshold. Assuming points are the way to go, would someone get the same points for a content review as they would for a source or image? More questions than answers I'm afraid, but I don't see why it isn't possible..!
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
For awards, we could probably base something off the quarterly reviewing awards we already do. (Looks like we do WikiChevrons > The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) >The Milhist reviewing award w/ between 1 and 3 stripes). Source and image are just as necessary as content reviews, and are sometimes harder, so I'd say to weight it all equally.
Hog FarmTalk22:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
How would it be announced? Is this a mass message appropriate situation? Also, organising how we illustrate what needs to be done; assuming a contest page is created for it, do we let reviewers individually list off what they're working on/have completed, or do we create a table/checklist that people can sign up on to fulfil a certain task? (or something completely different?)
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
We did something kinda similar last year, and I think we did a mass message because I remember getting the numbers of days in the month wrong on a mass message I sent to everyone. We had a format set up for the prior one, but I don't remember where exactly it's located (also, I don't know if we ever handed out the awards). FWIW, the prior one was for all levels of assessment, because there was a GAN backlog and we were pretty far behind on the monthly autocheck at that point.
Hog FarmTalk22:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Autocheck seems to be pretty settled right now, and there's hardly anything available for picking up at warfare GANs. Could add points for FAC reviews, I suppose? They're not in any particular difficulties (AFAIK) but can always do with more look-overs. Copying something else from the GA drive, it might be good to include extra points for reviews on articles that have been waiting for longer than others.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
September contest
Hi all, I have sorted out the September contest and dished out the second place prize/done the competition write up for the Bugle on the basis of the points table as it stands. My entries still have to be verified and the first place prize dished out. Cheers,
Zawed (
talk)
09:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As you can see, there are two nominations inactive for already more than a month and two nominations that are almost ready for promotion. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk)
20:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Reading list & December Bugle
@
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
Hi guys, last year we ran the coords' 2021 reading list in the December Bugle. If a few of you would like to get cracking on a 2022 list, Nick and I would be happy to run that in next month's (200th) issue. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
We've run the Military historian of the year and the newcomer of the year every year since 2008, and it looks like last year we opened nominations on December 1. @
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
is this something we're planning on doing again?
Hog FarmTalk14:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It's up now. I don't see anything in my user talk page archives suggesting that we ran a mass notification. If it's deemed necessary I can send one out, but I'm going to try to add it to the announcements header to give it at least some visibility.
Hog FarmTalk00:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
It was missing part of the do not archive template. I've put the template up so that it won't be archived for four weeks (can be shortened if needed).
Hog FarmTalk15:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh shoot ... had inlaws visiting and forgot to start the voting period. Yes, that's open now. @
WP:MILHIST coordinators:
- I've got to go soon - would anyone be willing/able to set the voting portion up? I think last year we made new sections for the voting. The candidacy period didn't get input from very many editors, so does anyone have thoughts about a mass message? I think some years we've sent one, and other years we haven't.
Hog FarmTalk20:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I suppose one could try linking specific revisions. Which would also have an advantage of showing how an article grows and changes, as you could use the same article. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.2% of all
FPs. Currently celebrating his
600th FP!18:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I've started to curate a Milhist-themed library at
User:Schierbecker/sandbox. I've collected about 70
Jane's year books so far. All of these are available to browse online courtesy of the
Internet Archive Books to Borrow program. My goal is to make these sources—fully formatted in citation style—available to all of the subprojects of Milhist. I welcome your feedback. Please also feel free add to this work in progress if that interests you.
Schierbecker (
talk)
23:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a really good idea. I also have a wide range of works on the Internet Archive favourited due to its not very good search system, and would be happy to share them. I found out yesterday that what looks like the entire British official history of the Second World War is on the site! Would there be interest in setting up a Internet Archive library for the project? (eg, at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Internet Archive books or similar) so members can share what they've found? It's an excellent resource, but frustrating to use due to the difficulty of finding anything.
Nick-D (
talk)
23:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to add. Search is indeed definitely not one of Internet Archive's strong suits. In the future it may be worth exploring a partnership between a collection and WP:Milhist to scan books that are not yet in the Internet Archive's library. There is currently
a lawsuit by Hatchett against the Internet Archive for its book-lending service, so this is all somewhat up in the air. BTW, I was also thinking about setting up a shared Google Drive/OneDrive for sharing public domain pdfs. What do you think?
Schierbecker (
talk)
01:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for December
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment: