Welcome to the discussion area for the Military history WikiProject's monthly newsletter, The Bugle! This page is mostly used for general discussions about the overall structure, format, and content of the newsletter; individual articles have their own discussion pages, and comments regarding them should be directed there. If you have a question, concern, or suggestion, please feel free to leave us a note! |
This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 28 November 2011. |
Currently, book reviews focus on non-fictional works, which is entirely appropriate and what one wants at a project with this name. However, there are some newly and fairly recently works of fiction that contain military history information of a high quality. It would be interesting to read reviews or commentaries on some of these novels and how they pertain to various historical periods; to avoid opening the door to truckloads of low-quality fiction anyone writing such a review could be encouraged to choose a novel of either high quality or high prominence. The point wouldn't be to evaluate the novel but really to connect it to historical events and to offer project members/visitors a chance to look at some related fiction that is interesting and accurate. Would anyone be open to experimenting with this or moving forward a revised version of this idea? dci | TALK 22:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion there is a problem with presenting fiction because you can't use a novel as a source for Wikipedia when there is a science book of the same theme and if there isn't one, you can not verify the facts in the novel. Second a novel normally does not name any of it's sources which is non-scientific. The big problem I see is that if novels are presented here, the people can think they are good sources to need for historical facts. And as a second there is the danger that not a single academic institute would take the project serious. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 13:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Two questions regarding the organization of this page:
Any comments or suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] 14:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I asked myself should it be able to write a book review for The Bugle of a book which hasn't been in english language until now. Are there any opinions about that? I ask because I just finished reading an, in my eyes, excellent book which is only published in german. As en:Wiki is quite international this could be an interesting option for people that speak the language of the book reviewed. All others can look forward for a possible english edition. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 06:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you think it would be okay to move forward with a fiction review? dci | TALK 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to draw a few editors' attention to this little competition, which was started to clean up some of the serious problems described here. Many hands make light work! bobrayner ( talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Would it be worth putting a dedicated special project page into monthly bugle edition so that the special project's can independently added information related to their editorial areas? I know OMT is the most active, but we have three others, and perhaps a little extra sauce from our publications would help keep the other special projects afloat. In particular, such a page in the bugle could be used to broadcast ongoing discussions and proposals for special projects, which could be used to attract the attention of special project members who either do not have occasion to keep a project talk page watchlisted or who may have missed pertinent news do to RL or other reasons. What do you think? TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, can I put something in the next issue about WMUK's World War I editathon? And if so, where should I put it? It probably should have gone in the last issue, but I've been travelling a lot since then and Chris only mentioned the idea to me last weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I know this isn't something most members concern themselves with, but at the moment there are two open requests on the Bounty Board for milhist related articles, and it might be nice to note that in the upcoming bugle publication so those interested in helping Wikipedia along can try their luck. Incidentally, If its not too much trouble, might I ask that future publications of the bugle include information relating to milhist articles at the Wikipedia:Bounty Board and Wikipedia:Reward Board? I am uncertain as to how much help it will be, but a little info on whats up on these boards and whats in it for the editors could help or pages move through these boards a little faster, and as an added bonus, may inspire our members to add their own requests up here as well. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea, when I began to discuss the fiction review, that I would be this busy in real life right now. I will have more time by the Labor Day weekend, which is when I can promise one by. I do have one question, however - should this be a new book, or would a fairly recent one do? dci | TALK 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If you search for it, there are a lot of recent scientific books and articles abouth military history and related fields released in the internet. As it is said, you have to search for it and the possibility is high to miss something of high interest for Wikipedia work. So I thought about how it would be to include a section in the monthly Bugle in which new free contents can be gathered and presented to the subscribers? -- Bomzibar ( talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, I have written up a book review. I see that there is already one for the September edition, so I would like to offer it for the October edition when that comes online. I have a couple of questions, though: (1) is there a word limit (it is about 660 words so far, including wiki mark up)? and (2) the book I've reviewed is a bit narrowly focused and old (published in 1986). Is that an issue? If so, no dramas, I will send my review to a professional journal that is interested in it. If it was to run, it would probably be best to run it alongside a review of a recent work that is a bit wider in its target audience. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I've had a go at a paragraph of news on the Fortifications progress; I've left it here. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nick 'n' everyone, back and slowly easing into things... Was able to visit many war memorials on our trip to North America and Hawaii, so there's at least a review essay of my impressions in that, though I may not get round to it until next month. Am I right is assuming the only op-ed on the boil is Bomzibar's, mentioned under Submissions on the main Newsroom page? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Very much support turning the Bugle into a general history newsletter, and an op-ed arguing for and against WP:MILHIST swallowing WP:HIST. Also, can we get the Signpost-style comments section at the bottom added, where people can leave thoughts? I had to page through multiple pages to get here and I'm still not sure I'm in the right place. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I've just closed the Kosta Pećanac ACR, but cannot figure exactly where to put the newsletter notice, since no pages exists for December, January or February (which is where the guide links to). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there an op-ed ready for this month? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
To hazard an observation, if you are missing an op-ed for the month, you could consider taking a piece from the academy and publishing it as the op-ed. This would help draw attention to the academy, and could help us fill in some of the pothole we still have over there. Just some food for thought :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. Wikimedia UK is a part of a very broad partnership of organisations looking to commemorate the centenary of the First World War. We're hoping to recruit as many volunteers to participate as possible. We are also looking for volunteers to suggest, design and deliver projects relating to the commemoration. If you are interested in taking part in any of this (regardless of your location) please do get in touch! You can find more details on our blog here or get in touch via my talk page on the UK wiki. Thank you! Stevie Benton (WMUK) ( talk) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there still time to contribute a review to the Bugle for this month? — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 19:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, what would you think of creating a Bugle template similar to Template:Signpost-subscription? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Issue 218, June 2024 |
Published by the Military history WikiProject |
Are the archives no longer being updated? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If its alright with the news crew, I'd like to formally inaugurate a new page into the bugle for this issue, and have it carry over for the next four years. The new section would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2014/World War I timeline, and would be dedicated to maintaining a timeline of the war by month with articles on the relevant battles, campaigns, and political developments of the war in a manner similar to what I introduced for the GA, A, and FA articles in the bugle some time back. Are there any objections to this, and do I need any special layout or format options on a Bugle page? TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
|Task10= World War I timeline |Link10= Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2014/World War I timeline |Status10= Not started |Notes10=
Many thanks for this. I've just commented on the two recent editions of this timeline. If you ever need a hand with this (it will be quite a task to keep it going for four years), let me know as I'd be happy to help. BTW, I think the latest edition of The Bugle posted to user talk pages has links to the previous month (three of the four links went to September instead of October). Carcharoth ( talk) 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I made this edit changing one of the links from September to October. Hope that was OK. No idea how to fix the September links in the bot-delivered (well, Mass Messaging) version of the newsletter. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention that I have been awarded the the fifth ever Genghis Khan Edition Conquest of the Wiki World Triple Crown. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a new book review here. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a display issue with {{
Bugle-subscription}}. Something with the coding for the text maybe?
Chris Troutman (
talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
We're a bit over-due with this month's edition.
Thanks all Nick-D ( talk) 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm after some guidelines on what can be included in the project as reviews on books and articles, especially in languages other than English, and if there is a process to follow. Thanks & regards, DPdH ( talk) 02:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that we're a bit over-due again:
Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 06:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
We are developing a MediaWiki extension that will enable users to subscribe to community newsletters much more easily. We are very excited to hear your feedback on the features we have planned. Feel free to share your thoughts here. - Tinaj1234 ( talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Nick-D and Ian Rose, do you guys want this for the Bugle as well? It's going to run in the Signpost this week, so I don't know if you'll want to. Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 03:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: I'm going to be out of town until Thursday with no Wikipedia access. Everything is done other than copy editing the final version of Tom's op-ed (thanks Tom!), WW1 timeline if Tom has capacity to also contribute this, the FP (where I'd suggest only including a single image from the set!) and finishing off the project news page. Nick-D ( talk) 10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys: I'm assuming you use a bot to deliver the Bugle to your contributors. May I ask which one? We're trying to get a project newsletter off the ground, and a bot would sure help to speed up delivery! Thanks, MeegsC ( talk) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
G'day gents, might be worth highlighting Tomandjerry211's first ACM. Last one was Dudley nearly a year ago, and prior to that, Georgejdorner in January last year. Doesn't happen that often these days... Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 02:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I ran across Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Book reviews and saw that under Recent external reviews that
Typically archives of talk pages have an hat-notice and/or edit-notice that the page should not be edited. There is no similar message on this page of the Bugle issue. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I was on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Book reviews and wanted to ask the Bugle project people about if I can edit the page. I discovered that the Bugle's footer template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Footer, does not provide for an intuitive way for people unfamiliar with your project to get to the project's page. I first clicked About the project and it took me to a page with zero mention of the word "Bugle". I then clicked Visit the Newsroom, was taken to what looks like the Bugle's project page, and so clicked Talk to so I could add this message.
The header, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Header, is better. The logo links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News which is confusing at first but I'm guessing it's the current issue. The current issue's page though has "• About the project • Newsroom • Subscribe • Archives •" across the bottom with "About the project" never mentioning the Bugle. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: could you please do the FAs and FPs and the from the editors column? @ TomStar81: I've copy-edited the op-ed: does it look OK? Thanks both, Nick-D ( talk) 10:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have another book review for whenever someone wants it. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: I think that this should be good to go. @ AustralianRupert: @ TomStar81: @ Hawkeye7: thanks very much for your contributions. Nick-D ( talk) 00:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: @ TomStar81: I'm going to be out of town this weekend, so can you please finish this off? I think that the only bits of the edition left are the op-ed (please feel under no obligation to finish this Tom if you're short on time though!) and the last bits of the project news page. Thanks Nick-D ( talk) 10:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have a second book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: Could you please handle the From the editors page this month? I think that the reviews and Tom's two pages are now good to go, with the ACR blurbs and photos being done. @ Adam Cuerden, Hawkeye7, and TomStar81: thanks a lot for your contributions! Nick-D ( talk) 02:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I have another User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews, for whenever you want it.
Also: since a few people written essays on World War I, would it be possible to submit an Op-Ed on the Australian Army on the Somme? I'm not sure when the next slot would be. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day gents, just thought it might be nice to highlight another example of a first ACM in the next Bugle, just awarded to KAVEBEAR. I think each first timer should be highlighted as a way of encouraging continued connection to the project, but also to encourage others. It only happens a couple of times a year these days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, my first crack at a book review for the Bugle. Feel free to improve my prose. User:Peacemaker67/Review of Shepherd Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have a new book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 ( talk) 06:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 07:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one for the December issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one for the January issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 11:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a new one for the April issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a new one for the May issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a new one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I have two new ones at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have one for the September issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I have one for the October issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I have an essay on the Manhattan Project articles for a future issue in User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox2. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7: I've just posted this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2016/Review essay - please feel free to edit it further, of course. Thanks for the article! Nick-D ( talk) 22:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose and AustralianRupert: Do either of you want to mention Peacemaker67 being the first to earn the Golden Wiki for Military Historian and Newcomer of the Year in this months Bugle edition? Its the first time this has happened, so I wanted to bring this to your attention to give you the chance to add a mention to that effect before it goes out. TomStar81 ( Talk) 12:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding things in the Bugle archives. For some reason, the isssue numbers in the archive don't match those of the issues. And January 2017 is missing. Could someone have a look. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have an Op-Ed for the April edition here. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the book review, I have an Op-Ed for September or October here Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I have a new Op-Ed for an upcoming (January, February) edition
here.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly when the rest of the September dates currently shown on the bugle page are going to be changed to October dates, but in the event I'm gone when that happens I wanted to let someone know that October's Op-Ed draft is done and sitting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2017/Op-ed. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that the article on the British hydrogen bomb programme (which I created from scratch) is my 100th A class MilHist article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the Op-Ed (above), I also have a new book review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tom, should we expect a timeline for the January Bugle? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Nick (or anyone else watching), dumb question, but how have we determined in the past that an FP is MilHist? Do we just judge it as such because it's of a castle or a soldier or whatever, or is there a place in the image file where it's claimed by projects as on article talk pages? I honestly can't recall even though I've checked for FPs in our purview in the past... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
New book reviews at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I also have another Op-Ed piece for an upcoming issue. User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox5 I presume someone will write about the German Spring Offensive in the March issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Two new reviews at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. You might want to hold them over until May, or run them separately. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Another new review available at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: @ Nick-D: I've drafted a potential book review for The Bugle in my sandbox on a 2016 work, The Katangese Gendarmes and War in Central Africa: Fighting Their Way Home. I think it might add some diversity to our regular catalog of military history book reviews. Let me know what you guys make of it and if you are interested in running it in a future edition. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: @ Nick-D: After seeing this discussion on the project talk page, and particularly the suggestion that The Bugle can be "lacking international scope", I decided to throw together a feature on the role of military newspapers in East Africa during World War II. I've lodged it in the ol' sandbox for the moment. Not particularly surprising or of much consequence to our membership but it's something to read. Should you choose to run it, perhaps it will serve my dastardly scheme to spur interest in Africa topics *maniacal laugh*. - Indy beetle ( talk) 06:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Indy beetle: I've just posted the op-ed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2018/Op-ed - please feel free to edit it further, and thanks again for your understanding around the timing. @ TomStar81:, we can easily have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2018/Op-ed2 if there's something you'd like to contribute as well - the timing for this would be great as we head into the Christmas period where many people have a bit of spare time to catch up with their reading. Nick-D ( talk) 22:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day Ian and Nick, User:Peacemaker67/Review of Gapps is a review of a recently published book on the Australian frontier wars that you might like to use in The Bugle. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
If no one volunteers an Op-Ed for the Bugle for January 2019 by the end of the week I'd be happy to keep the WWI series going with a post WWI-related Op-Ed, however I'd be cautious about doing that without a green light here first since there was a sense among the community that I've hogged the section enough over the last four years. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've written some thoughts on (mis)-use of the result parameter in the military conflict infobox, intended as an Op-Ed, if you're interested. It's 1st draft at the moment, but covers what I consider to be all the important bits. You can find it at User:Factotem/op-ed. Happy to discuss. Factotem ( talk) 17:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ian and Nick. I have drafted a potential op-ed for the April edition of The Bugle in my sandbox. It covers the 40th anniversary of Idi Amin's overthrow in Uganda and reflects on some of the challenges of covering a topic of military history where there is only a sparse historiography to work with. - Indy beetle ( talk) 23:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
G'day guys, see User:Peacemaker67/Military History Book Reviews for a review of a 2017 book on the Syria and Lebanon Campaign I just finished reading. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67: As there's a bit of a backlog of reviews, I've posted both of Hawkeye's and Peacemaker's to clear it. Thanks for these contributions. Nick-D ( talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If there are no objections I have a WWI Op-Ed piece i'd like to include in the next issue. I considered but ultimately decided against co-opting the section without feeling out where the op-ed should go, hence the post here first. Once I know where (if?) you want it I'll move from there. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to run an op-ed for june if we can find space for it. Its when the peace treaty was finally signed. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
At User:Peacemaker67/Military History Book Reviews, on a recent book by Peter Brune on the Hundred Days Offensive. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day Hawkeye7, it seems Milhistbot is posting Oak Leaves awards to on Project News of the upcoming issue using the wrong image file name? It should be using File:WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).png. Also it seems to be posting them in a strange order, with oak leaves being posted above medals, but with diamonds at the bottom. I assume Nick and Ian have to make these minor adjustments, and I know there aren't major, but it would probably help them if Milhistbot was tweaked. I assume the order should be medals, oakleaves, swords, diamonds, crosses? In the interests of continuous improvement, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I have an Op-Ed article on creating a biographical article at User:Hawkeye7/Op-Ed. This is intended to be a new Academy article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: I have a new Op-Ed article at User:Hawkeye7/Op-Ed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, this is a proposed book review. I was told to contact someone here by Hawkeye7. Thanks for your time. I will appreciate any criticisms of the book review you may have and will be on hand to improve. Thanks, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Nick-D: I have a couple of new book reviews for December. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: Just a reminder that there are a couple of book reviews available here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review for the next issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review for the next issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC) @ Nick-D: New book review. Feel free to hold over to the next issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: Two new book reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review for the next issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, should user names usually be linked? Eg in the contest results report? Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I just happened to come across these tables at WP:TOLN that suggest milhist has seen a 2478% growth in GAs over the past ten years and a 403% in FAs (See them here under "Tree of Life's growing featured content". Perhaps worth a mention? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Could we add {{ Newsletters}} to the bottom of the Bugle main page? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I've recently read a nonfiction book about the Atlanta campaign of the ACW and I'm interested in attempting a book review draft in my userspace. What are the exact recommendations (length et al.) for this? Hog Farm Bacon 04:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
My first attempt at a book review can be found at User:Hog Farm/Book review. Feel free to use/edit/ignore/delete it as you need be. Hog Farm Bacon 03:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
G'day guys, see User:Peacemaker67/Review of Freivogel 2019 for a review for use when you have space. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I have another one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
One more at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
One for the next edition at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that the Bot has instructions to add new awards, A class article notices etc to next month's issue. So it is currently adding them to September; but the August issue has not yet appeared. Would it be more convenient if it added material to the next issue, or keep it as it is? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
G'day guys,
I couldn't find the new pages for October, so herewith the blurb:
The quarterly reviewing awards for July to September have been handed out, with a total of 182 FA, FL, A-Class, GA and peer reviews conducted by 19 editors in the last quarter. These numbers are an improvement on last quarter, but still down on 2020, where the lowest quarter had over 230 reviews. Top of the list was Buidhe with 25 reviews, Nick-D (20), Hog Farm (20) and Hawkeye7 (16) also receiving the WikiChevrons. Thanks to all who reviewed, you made a significant contribution to the throughput of quality content by this Project.
Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The big year-end older FA review initiative is looking to post some progress/update reports once the year is over, would the Bugle be interested in doing something with that related to the MILHIST-relevant ones? I don't think there'd be any pickiness with interview, short paragraph, etc. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I've written up a short review essay of 8 American Civil War historic sites at User:Hog Farm/Historic sites review, if the Bugle would be interested in running it. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Two new book reviews at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Two more at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Three more at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Yapperbot/Pruner is currently in use on WP:FRS, pruning the names of inactive editors from newsletter subscriber lists so their respective talk pages don't become over-filled with newsletter announcements. When I was Signpost's publication manager I irregularly scrubbed our list after finding massmessage error reports showing which talk pages were too big to receive messages. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea if this might be considered newsworthy, but in March I had my 50th FAC and 100th GAN promotions. For the chronologically ordered lists, see here. By a curious twist of near symmetry my 25th ACR was promoted in February. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Bugle issue numbering got a bit eccentric in the previous few months. I have corrected the archives and the back issues. The May issue should be CXCIII. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
In a mark of his confidence as a scholar, Kennedy does not gloss over his reliance on that online encyclopedia. He quotes from Wikipedia liberally in the main text, cites it more often than any other single source and regrets that he cannot acknowledge so many “fine though anonymous” authors by name. And indeed, Wikipedia does not deserve much of the disparagement often aimed against it. As a “first look” reference, it is a handy tool; this reviewer even consulted it while writing this review. Wikipedia’s articles on military history have improved in recent years, and many contain information not easily found elsewhere on the web. But, by Wikipedia’s own account, studies measuring its accuracy and reliability have been mixed, and its crowdsourced model means that any page can be edited by anyone, at any time, anonymously. For that reason, Wikipedia “does not consider itself to be a reliable source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings.” Many university professors would mark down a student paper that included uncorroborated Wikipedia citations. For a major university press to include more than 80 in one volume may be unprecedented. What on earth is going on in New Haven?
[2] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if you'd be down to be interviewed as part of a WikiProject report with a special focus on WikiProjects that use internal publications and how they create them. I'm still drafting some questions off-wiki but thought I'd ask now. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
There's {{ Roman}}, which makes it easy. CharredShorthand ( talk) 10:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
As part of my Sisyphean EiC duties I am looking through every Signpost page to find whatever random crap needs to be taken out, like abandoned drafts from decades ago. I came upon Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Featured content dispatch workshop/Spotchecking plagiarism, which seems to have been published as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/June_2011/Op-ed. As far as I'm concerned, this makes it yours -- I am moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Newsroom/Featured content dispatch workshop/Spotchecking plagiarism. I looked through the PrefixIndex of your project's newsroom and I couldn't find anywhere else more appropriate to put this. If you don't want it (all of the content has already been published in that op-ed), I will G6 it. jp× g 06:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of adding an Op-Ed and a book review. Hope you don't mind. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure whether the publication should lower itself to include these, but have had a go with a simple one here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Hawkeye, I'd like to despatch this month's issue in the next 24 hrs so just checking with the usual suspects if there's any book reviews you have up your sleeves... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 17:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the discussion area for the Military history WikiProject's monthly newsletter, The Bugle! This page is mostly used for general discussions about the overall structure, format, and content of the newsletter; individual articles have their own discussion pages, and comments regarding them should be directed there. If you have a question, concern, or suggestion, please feel free to leave us a note! |
This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 28 November 2011. |
Currently, book reviews focus on non-fictional works, which is entirely appropriate and what one wants at a project with this name. However, there are some newly and fairly recently works of fiction that contain military history information of a high quality. It would be interesting to read reviews or commentaries on some of these novels and how they pertain to various historical periods; to avoid opening the door to truckloads of low-quality fiction anyone writing such a review could be encouraged to choose a novel of either high quality or high prominence. The point wouldn't be to evaluate the novel but really to connect it to historical events and to offer project members/visitors a chance to look at some related fiction that is interesting and accurate. Would anyone be open to experimenting with this or moving forward a revised version of this idea? dci | TALK 22:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion there is a problem with presenting fiction because you can't use a novel as a source for Wikipedia when there is a science book of the same theme and if there isn't one, you can not verify the facts in the novel. Second a novel normally does not name any of it's sources which is non-scientific. The big problem I see is that if novels are presented here, the people can think they are good sources to need for historical facts. And as a second there is the danger that not a single academic institute would take the project serious. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 13:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Two questions regarding the organization of this page:
Any comments or suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] 14:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I asked myself should it be able to write a book review for The Bugle of a book which hasn't been in english language until now. Are there any opinions about that? I ask because I just finished reading an, in my eyes, excellent book which is only published in german. As en:Wiki is quite international this could be an interesting option for people that speak the language of the book reviewed. All others can look forward for a possible english edition. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 06:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you think it would be okay to move forward with a fiction review? dci | TALK 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to draw a few editors' attention to this little competition, which was started to clean up some of the serious problems described here. Many hands make light work! bobrayner ( talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Would it be worth putting a dedicated special project page into monthly bugle edition so that the special project's can independently added information related to their editorial areas? I know OMT is the most active, but we have three others, and perhaps a little extra sauce from our publications would help keep the other special projects afloat. In particular, such a page in the bugle could be used to broadcast ongoing discussions and proposals for special projects, which could be used to attract the attention of special project members who either do not have occasion to keep a project talk page watchlisted or who may have missed pertinent news do to RL or other reasons. What do you think? TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, can I put something in the next issue about WMUK's World War I editathon? And if so, where should I put it? It probably should have gone in the last issue, but I've been travelling a lot since then and Chris only mentioned the idea to me last weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I know this isn't something most members concern themselves with, but at the moment there are two open requests on the Bounty Board for milhist related articles, and it might be nice to note that in the upcoming bugle publication so those interested in helping Wikipedia along can try their luck. Incidentally, If its not too much trouble, might I ask that future publications of the bugle include information relating to milhist articles at the Wikipedia:Bounty Board and Wikipedia:Reward Board? I am uncertain as to how much help it will be, but a little info on whats up on these boards and whats in it for the editors could help or pages move through these boards a little faster, and as an added bonus, may inspire our members to add their own requests up here as well. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea, when I began to discuss the fiction review, that I would be this busy in real life right now. I will have more time by the Labor Day weekend, which is when I can promise one by. I do have one question, however - should this be a new book, or would a fairly recent one do? dci | TALK 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If you search for it, there are a lot of recent scientific books and articles abouth military history and related fields released in the internet. As it is said, you have to search for it and the possibility is high to miss something of high interest for Wikipedia work. So I thought about how it would be to include a section in the monthly Bugle in which new free contents can be gathered and presented to the subscribers? -- Bomzibar ( talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, I have written up a book review. I see that there is already one for the September edition, so I would like to offer it for the October edition when that comes online. I have a couple of questions, though: (1) is there a word limit (it is about 660 words so far, including wiki mark up)? and (2) the book I've reviewed is a bit narrowly focused and old (published in 1986). Is that an issue? If so, no dramas, I will send my review to a professional journal that is interested in it. If it was to run, it would probably be best to run it alongside a review of a recent work that is a bit wider in its target audience. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I've had a go at a paragraph of news on the Fortifications progress; I've left it here. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nick 'n' everyone, back and slowly easing into things... Was able to visit many war memorials on our trip to North America and Hawaii, so there's at least a review essay of my impressions in that, though I may not get round to it until next month. Am I right is assuming the only op-ed on the boil is Bomzibar's, mentioned under Submissions on the main Newsroom page? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Very much support turning the Bugle into a general history newsletter, and an op-ed arguing for and against WP:MILHIST swallowing WP:HIST. Also, can we get the Signpost-style comments section at the bottom added, where people can leave thoughts? I had to page through multiple pages to get here and I'm still not sure I'm in the right place. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I've just closed the Kosta Pećanac ACR, but cannot figure exactly where to put the newsletter notice, since no pages exists for December, January or February (which is where the guide links to). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there an op-ed ready for this month? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
To hazard an observation, if you are missing an op-ed for the month, you could consider taking a piece from the academy and publishing it as the op-ed. This would help draw attention to the academy, and could help us fill in some of the pothole we still have over there. Just some food for thought :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. Wikimedia UK is a part of a very broad partnership of organisations looking to commemorate the centenary of the First World War. We're hoping to recruit as many volunteers to participate as possible. We are also looking for volunteers to suggest, design and deliver projects relating to the commemoration. If you are interested in taking part in any of this (regardless of your location) please do get in touch! You can find more details on our blog here or get in touch via my talk page on the UK wiki. Thank you! Stevie Benton (WMUK) ( talk) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there still time to contribute a review to the Bugle for this month? — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 19:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, what would you think of creating a Bugle template similar to Template:Signpost-subscription? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Issue 218, June 2024 |
Published by the Military history WikiProject |
Are the archives no longer being updated? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If its alright with the news crew, I'd like to formally inaugurate a new page into the bugle for this issue, and have it carry over for the next four years. The new section would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2014/World War I timeline, and would be dedicated to maintaining a timeline of the war by month with articles on the relevant battles, campaigns, and political developments of the war in a manner similar to what I introduced for the GA, A, and FA articles in the bugle some time back. Are there any objections to this, and do I need any special layout or format options on a Bugle page? TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
|Task10= World War I timeline |Link10= Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2014/World War I timeline |Status10= Not started |Notes10=
Many thanks for this. I've just commented on the two recent editions of this timeline. If you ever need a hand with this (it will be quite a task to keep it going for four years), let me know as I'd be happy to help. BTW, I think the latest edition of The Bugle posted to user talk pages has links to the previous month (three of the four links went to September instead of October). Carcharoth ( talk) 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I made this edit changing one of the links from September to October. Hope that was OK. No idea how to fix the September links in the bot-delivered (well, Mass Messaging) version of the newsletter. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention that I have been awarded the the fifth ever Genghis Khan Edition Conquest of the Wiki World Triple Crown. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a new book review here. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a display issue with {{
Bugle-subscription}}. Something with the coding for the text maybe?
Chris Troutman (
talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
We're a bit over-due with this month's edition.
Thanks all Nick-D ( talk) 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm after some guidelines on what can be included in the project as reviews on books and articles, especially in languages other than English, and if there is a process to follow. Thanks & regards, DPdH ( talk) 02:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that we're a bit over-due again:
Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 06:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
We are developing a MediaWiki extension that will enable users to subscribe to community newsletters much more easily. We are very excited to hear your feedback on the features we have planned. Feel free to share your thoughts here. - Tinaj1234 ( talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Nick-D and Ian Rose, do you guys want this for the Bugle as well? It's going to run in the Signpost this week, so I don't know if you'll want to. Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 03:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: I'm going to be out of town until Thursday with no Wikipedia access. Everything is done other than copy editing the final version of Tom's op-ed (thanks Tom!), WW1 timeline if Tom has capacity to also contribute this, the FP (where I'd suggest only including a single image from the set!) and finishing off the project news page. Nick-D ( talk) 10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys: I'm assuming you use a bot to deliver the Bugle to your contributors. May I ask which one? We're trying to get a project newsletter off the ground, and a bot would sure help to speed up delivery! Thanks, MeegsC ( talk) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
G'day gents, might be worth highlighting Tomandjerry211's first ACM. Last one was Dudley nearly a year ago, and prior to that, Georgejdorner in January last year. Doesn't happen that often these days... Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 02:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I ran across Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Book reviews and saw that under Recent external reviews that
Typically archives of talk pages have an hat-notice and/or edit-notice that the page should not be edited. There is no similar message on this page of the Bugle issue. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I was on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Book reviews and wanted to ask the Bugle project people about if I can edit the page. I discovered that the Bugle's footer template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Footer, does not provide for an intuitive way for people unfamiliar with your project to get to the project's page. I first clicked About the project and it took me to a page with zero mention of the word "Bugle". I then clicked Visit the Newsroom, was taken to what looks like the Bugle's project page, and so clicked Talk to so I could add this message.
The header, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Header, is better. The logo links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News which is confusing at first but I'm guessing it's the current issue. The current issue's page though has "• About the project • Newsroom • Subscribe • Archives •" across the bottom with "About the project" never mentioning the Bugle. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: could you please do the FAs and FPs and the from the editors column? @ TomStar81: I've copy-edited the op-ed: does it look OK? Thanks both, Nick-D ( talk) 10:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have another book review for whenever someone wants it. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: I think that this should be good to go. @ AustralianRupert: @ TomStar81: @ Hawkeye7: thanks very much for your contributions. Nick-D ( talk) 00:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: @ TomStar81: I'm going to be out of town this weekend, so can you please finish this off? I think that the only bits of the edition left are the op-ed (please feel under no obligation to finish this Tom if you're short on time though!) and the last bits of the project news page. Thanks Nick-D ( talk) 10:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have a second book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: Could you please handle the From the editors page this month? I think that the reviews and Tom's two pages are now good to go, with the ACR blurbs and photos being done. @ Adam Cuerden, Hawkeye7, and TomStar81: thanks a lot for your contributions! Nick-D ( talk) 02:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I have another User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews, for whenever you want it.
Also: since a few people written essays on World War I, would it be possible to submit an Op-Ed on the Australian Army on the Somme? I'm not sure when the next slot would be. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day gents, just thought it might be nice to highlight another example of a first ACM in the next Bugle, just awarded to KAVEBEAR. I think each first timer should be highlighted as a way of encouraging continued connection to the project, but also to encourage others. It only happens a couple of times a year these days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, my first crack at a book review for the Bugle. Feel free to improve my prose. User:Peacemaker67/Review of Shepherd Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have a new book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 ( talk) 06:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 07:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one for the December issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one for the January issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 11:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a new one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a new one for the April issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a new one for the May issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a new one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I have two new ones at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have one for the September issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I have one for the October issue at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I have an essay on the Manhattan Project articles for a future issue in User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox2. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7: I've just posted this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2016/Review essay - please feel free to edit it further, of course. Thanks for the article! Nick-D ( talk) 22:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose and AustralianRupert: Do either of you want to mention Peacemaker67 being the first to earn the Golden Wiki for Military Historian and Newcomer of the Year in this months Bugle edition? Its the first time this has happened, so I wanted to bring this to your attention to give you the chance to add a mention to that effect before it goes out. TomStar81 ( Talk) 12:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding things in the Bugle archives. For some reason, the isssue numbers in the archive don't match those of the issues. And January 2017 is missing. Could someone have a look. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have an Op-Ed for the April edition here. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the book review, I have an Op-Ed for September or October here Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I have a new Op-Ed for an upcoming (January, February) edition
here.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly when the rest of the September dates currently shown on the bugle page are going to be changed to October dates, but in the event I'm gone when that happens I wanted to let someone know that October's Op-Ed draft is done and sitting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2017/Op-ed. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that the article on the British hydrogen bomb programme (which I created from scratch) is my 100th A class MilHist article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the Op-Ed (above), I also have a new book review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tom, should we expect a timeline for the January Bugle? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Nick (or anyone else watching), dumb question, but how have we determined in the past that an FP is MilHist? Do we just judge it as such because it's of a castle or a soldier or whatever, or is there a place in the image file where it's claimed by projects as on article talk pages? I honestly can't recall even though I've checked for FPs in our purview in the past... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
New book reviews at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I also have another Op-Ed piece for an upcoming issue. User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox5 I presume someone will write about the German Spring Offensive in the March issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Two new reviews at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. You might want to hold them over until May, or run them separately. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Another new review available at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: @ Nick-D: I've drafted a potential book review for The Bugle in my sandbox on a 2016 work, The Katangese Gendarmes and War in Central Africa: Fighting Their Way Home. I think it might add some diversity to our regular catalog of military history book reviews. Let me know what you guys make of it and if you are interested in running it in a future edition. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: @ Nick-D: After seeing this discussion on the project talk page, and particularly the suggestion that The Bugle can be "lacking international scope", I decided to throw together a feature on the role of military newspapers in East Africa during World War II. I've lodged it in the ol' sandbox for the moment. Not particularly surprising or of much consequence to our membership but it's something to read. Should you choose to run it, perhaps it will serve my dastardly scheme to spur interest in Africa topics *maniacal laugh*. - Indy beetle ( talk) 06:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Indy beetle: I've just posted the op-ed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2018/Op-ed - please feel free to edit it further, and thanks again for your understanding around the timing. @ TomStar81:, we can easily have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2018/Op-ed2 if there's something you'd like to contribute as well - the timing for this would be great as we head into the Christmas period where many people have a bit of spare time to catch up with their reading. Nick-D ( talk) 22:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day Ian and Nick, User:Peacemaker67/Review of Gapps is a review of a recently published book on the Australian frontier wars that you might like to use in The Bugle. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
If no one volunteers an Op-Ed for the Bugle for January 2019 by the end of the week I'd be happy to keep the WWI series going with a post WWI-related Op-Ed, however I'd be cautious about doing that without a green light here first since there was a sense among the community that I've hogged the section enough over the last four years. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've written some thoughts on (mis)-use of the result parameter in the military conflict infobox, intended as an Op-Ed, if you're interested. It's 1st draft at the moment, but covers what I consider to be all the important bits. You can find it at User:Factotem/op-ed. Happy to discuss. Factotem ( talk) 17:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ian and Nick. I have drafted a potential op-ed for the April edition of The Bugle in my sandbox. It covers the 40th anniversary of Idi Amin's overthrow in Uganda and reflects on some of the challenges of covering a topic of military history where there is only a sparse historiography to work with. - Indy beetle ( talk) 23:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
G'day guys, see User:Peacemaker67/Military History Book Reviews for a review of a 2017 book on the Syria and Lebanon Campaign I just finished reading. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67: As there's a bit of a backlog of reviews, I've posted both of Hawkeye's and Peacemaker's to clear it. Thanks for these contributions. Nick-D ( talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If there are no objections I have a WWI Op-Ed piece i'd like to include in the next issue. I considered but ultimately decided against co-opting the section without feeling out where the op-ed should go, hence the post here first. Once I know where (if?) you want it I'll move from there. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to run an op-ed for june if we can find space for it. Its when the peace treaty was finally signed. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
At User:Peacemaker67/Military History Book Reviews, on a recent book by Peter Brune on the Hundred Days Offensive. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day Hawkeye7, it seems Milhistbot is posting Oak Leaves awards to on Project News of the upcoming issue using the wrong image file name? It should be using File:WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).png. Also it seems to be posting them in a strange order, with oak leaves being posted above medals, but with diamonds at the bottom. I assume Nick and Ian have to make these minor adjustments, and I know there aren't major, but it would probably help them if Milhistbot was tweaked. I assume the order should be medals, oakleaves, swords, diamonds, crosses? In the interests of continuous improvement, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I have an Op-Ed article on creating a biographical article at User:Hawkeye7/Op-Ed. This is intended to be a new Academy article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: I have a new Op-Ed article at User:Hawkeye7/Op-Ed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, this is a proposed book review. I was told to contact someone here by Hawkeye7. Thanks for your time. I will appreciate any criticisms of the book review you may have and will be on hand to improve. Thanks, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Nick-D: I have a couple of new book reviews for December. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: Just a reminder that there are a couple of book reviews available here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review for the next issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review for the next issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC) @ Nick-D: New book review. Feel free to hold over to the next issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: Two new book reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: New book review for the next issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, should user names usually be linked? Eg in the contest results report? Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I just happened to come across these tables at WP:TOLN that suggest milhist has seen a 2478% growth in GAs over the past ten years and a 403% in FAs (See them here under "Tree of Life's growing featured content". Perhaps worth a mention? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Could we add {{ Newsletters}} to the bottom of the Bugle main page? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I've recently read a nonfiction book about the Atlanta campaign of the ACW and I'm interested in attempting a book review draft in my userspace. What are the exact recommendations (length et al.) for this? Hog Farm Bacon 04:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
My first attempt at a book review can be found at User:Hog Farm/Book review. Feel free to use/edit/ignore/delete it as you need be. Hog Farm Bacon 03:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
G'day guys, see User:Peacemaker67/Review of Freivogel 2019 for a review for use when you have space. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I have another one at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
One more at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
One for the next edition at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that the Bot has instructions to add new awards, A class article notices etc to next month's issue. So it is currently adding them to September; but the August issue has not yet appeared. Would it be more convenient if it added material to the next issue, or keep it as it is? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
G'day guys,
I couldn't find the new pages for October, so herewith the blurb:
The quarterly reviewing awards for July to September have been handed out, with a total of 182 FA, FL, A-Class, GA and peer reviews conducted by 19 editors in the last quarter. These numbers are an improvement on last quarter, but still down on 2020, where the lowest quarter had over 230 reviews. Top of the list was Buidhe with 25 reviews, Nick-D (20), Hog Farm (20) and Hawkeye7 (16) also receiving the WikiChevrons. Thanks to all who reviewed, you made a significant contribution to the throughput of quality content by this Project.
Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The big year-end older FA review initiative is looking to post some progress/update reports once the year is over, would the Bugle be interested in doing something with that related to the MILHIST-relevant ones? I don't think there'd be any pickiness with interview, short paragraph, etc. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I've written up a short review essay of 8 American Civil War historic sites at User:Hog Farm/Historic sites review, if the Bugle would be interested in running it. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
New book review at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Two new book reviews at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Two more at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Three more at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Yapperbot/Pruner is currently in use on WP:FRS, pruning the names of inactive editors from newsletter subscriber lists so their respective talk pages don't become over-filled with newsletter announcements. When I was Signpost's publication manager I irregularly scrubbed our list after finding massmessage error reports showing which talk pages were too big to receive messages. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea if this might be considered newsworthy, but in March I had my 50th FAC and 100th GAN promotions. For the chronologically ordered lists, see here. By a curious twist of near symmetry my 25th ACR was promoted in February. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Bugle issue numbering got a bit eccentric in the previous few months. I have corrected the archives and the back issues. The May issue should be CXCIII. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
In a mark of his confidence as a scholar, Kennedy does not gloss over his reliance on that online encyclopedia. He quotes from Wikipedia liberally in the main text, cites it more often than any other single source and regrets that he cannot acknowledge so many “fine though anonymous” authors by name. And indeed, Wikipedia does not deserve much of the disparagement often aimed against it. As a “first look” reference, it is a handy tool; this reviewer even consulted it while writing this review. Wikipedia’s articles on military history have improved in recent years, and many contain information not easily found elsewhere on the web. But, by Wikipedia’s own account, studies measuring its accuracy and reliability have been mixed, and its crowdsourced model means that any page can be edited by anyone, at any time, anonymously. For that reason, Wikipedia “does not consider itself to be a reliable source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings.” Many university professors would mark down a student paper that included uncorroborated Wikipedia citations. For a major university press to include more than 80 in one volume may be unprecedented. What on earth is going on in New Haven?
[2] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if you'd be down to be interviewed as part of a WikiProject report with a special focus on WikiProjects that use internal publications and how they create them. I'm still drafting some questions off-wiki but thought I'd ask now. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
There's {{ Roman}}, which makes it easy. CharredShorthand ( talk) 10:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
As part of my Sisyphean EiC duties I am looking through every Signpost page to find whatever random crap needs to be taken out, like abandoned drafts from decades ago. I came upon Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Featured content dispatch workshop/Spotchecking plagiarism, which seems to have been published as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/June_2011/Op-ed. As far as I'm concerned, this makes it yours -- I am moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Newsroom/Featured content dispatch workshop/Spotchecking plagiarism. I looked through the PrefixIndex of your project's newsroom and I couldn't find anywhere else more appropriate to put this. If you don't want it (all of the content has already been published in that op-ed), I will G6 it. jp× g 06:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of adding an Op-Ed and a book review. Hope you don't mind. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure whether the publication should lower itself to include these, but have had a go with a simple one here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Hawkeye, I'd like to despatch this month's issue in the next 24 hrs so just checking with the usual suspects if there's any book reviews you have up your sleeves... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 17:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)