Archives:

2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 · 2024 · 2025 · 2026
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)


Tech News: 2026-25

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 16:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 242, June 2026

edit
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your nomination of Edward Victor Appleton is under review

edit

Your good article nomination of the article Edward Victor Appleton is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Anniversary

edit
Celebrating 21 years!
Celebrating your 21 years of editing Wikipedia and illustrating your achievements with the first image you uploaded to Commons – General Brehon B. Somervell. Oronsay (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh wow! Thanks for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day!

edit

Happy First Edit Day!

edit
Happy First Edit Day, Hawkeye7, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 15:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your nomination of Edward Victor Appleton has passed

edit

Your good article nomination of the article Edward Victor Appleton has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 21 June 2026

edit

GA mentoring

edit

Thank you for the assist! Mme Maigret (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2026-26

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 13:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2026-27

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 11:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2026 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

  • MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
  • Ohio Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
  • Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
  • A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
  • Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations from the Military History Project

edit
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 13 reviews between April and June 2026 Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

WikiCanberra July 2026

edit

We hope to see you at the next WikiCanberra meetup on 18 July!

FYI: error msg in Manhattan project article

edit

FYI I was looking at Manhattan project and saw a red error msg in the cites:

138. Nichols 1987, p. 47 Cite error: The named reference "Nichols 1987 47" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Thought you'd want to know. Great article! Noleander (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I've fixed it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Promotion of Ernest J. King

edit
Congratulations, Hawkeye7! The article you nominated, Ernest J. King, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2026-28

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 13:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The 2026 Core Contest Winners!

edit

The winners of the 2026 Core Contest are announced 🎉. A huge turnout that resulted in one of our trickiest deliberation sessions. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners!

  • First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his dual efforts on Flatbread and Tortilla! One, formerly an unsourced list-like article, and the other, once a poorly sourced and spotty overview, both now number 250+ citations from an impressively academic source pool. We particularly commend the efforts to globalize content, treat the topics comprehensively and thoughtfully select illustrations. Both articles (one now a GA) are of a uniquely high quality amid the often underserved food topics on Wikipedia. Bravo!
  • Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs), a Core Contest regular who has once again shown a mastery of big topics, with his dual efforts on Agnosticism and Premise—both now GAs (one, with a review by our first place winner!). With immensely thorough sourcing improvements, alongside carefully nuanced text on these often misunderstood topics, both articles are a pleasure to read.
  • Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to MCE89 (talk · contribs), whose improvements to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands article have led to a triumphant FA declaration. The incredible balance of detail between human, geographical and flora-fauna elements is a great achievement, and sets a high standard for future island articles.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

June 2026 Good Article Backlog Drive

edit
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Hawkeye7 for accumulating at least 7 points during the 2026 June GA backlog elimination drive. Thank you for your efforts! -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Greetings

edit

Nice to bump into you at DYK! It has been a while since we met at the stay in Esino! Hope you are doing well. Shyamal (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gosh! That was a long time ago! I'm still here. Still active at DYK although I never got the 500 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: June 2026

edit




Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The Signpost: 13 July 2026

edit
  • News and notes: An exclusive club
    Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger gets a community ban for canvassing.
  • In the media: Battle for a soul – who won?
    Commissars, winners and losers, blocks or bans, a Wiki red card, social engineering on wikis, and Swift action!

Tech News: 2026-29

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 16:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

III Armored Corps vs. III Corps

edit

Hey Hawkeye7, Got an issue for the Military History Lead Coordinator that I don't know how to solve without it becoming edit-revert-edit-revert ad infinitem. The entry for what should be III Corps (United States) is currently given as III Armored Corps. This is completely inaccurate and confusing, but sadly also sustained by the actual III Corps website (https://home.army.mil/hood/units-tenants/iii-corps). I've even written the III Corps PAO to see what their response is, but have not received a response yet. I will paraphrase from that note to identify the issue:

When was the unit redesignated as "III Armored Corps"? I find no corroborating evidence that the name has changed from III Corps from either the U.S. Army Center of Military History (CMH), which is responsible for the lineage and honors of units within the United States Army, or by The Institute of Heraldry (TIOH), which is responsible for designing, approving and maintaining unit insignia, etc.
And for the historical record, according to the Army Lineage Series Armies, Corps, Divisions, and Separate Brigades, p. 95, published by the CMH, there was an actual III Armored Corps (its SSI was the Armor triangle with the Roman numeral "III" in the top yellow corner), which existed in the early days of World War II from 7 July 1942 to 10 October 1943, at which point it was redesignated at the XIX Corps, and served with distinction in the European Theater of Operations attached to either the First or Ninth Armies.
The CMH lineage ( Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, III Corps ) also does not recognize the current III Corps as having any common lineage with either the III Armored Corps or the XIX Corps.

Do you have any suggestions how to fix this? The knock-on effects are pretty wide ranging for Wikipedia. If you want III Armored Corps (actual, aka XIX Corps), you land on the III Corps page. Likewise, if you are looking for III Corps (actual), it is hard to find (it doesn't even show up in the autofilled hits) because it is misnamed; and if you know there was a REAL III Armored Corps, search hits give III Corps (actual) and incidentally XIX Corps. Also, if we fix the naming problem, how many other articles are affected that reference the article that need to be fixed to redirect to the corrected article?

What a mess! Appreciate any ideas you may have. Regards, Greg Bilhartz (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. In the early part of World War II, the United States Army formed five armoured corps, copying the German panzer corps. The type corps was abandoned in 1943. Patton's I Armored Corps became the Seventh Army; the other became regular corps: II Armored Corps became XVIII Corps, III Armored Corps became XIX Corps, IV Armored Corps became XX Corps and V Armored Corps became XXI Corps. The SSI of each was the Armored Force triangle with the corps' Roman numeral (divisions used the triangle with arabic numerals). Only the I Armored Corps saw action before being renamed.
The present day III Armored Corps is what was known as the III Corps and uses its SSI (the caltrop) and lineage. It was deactivated in 1946, reactivated in 1951 and deactivated again in 1959 before being reactivated at Fort Hood (where it remains) in 1962. Its main constituents are the three armored divisions: the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, and the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley. Despite the names, all three are armored divisions. I'm not sure when they started calling it the III Armored Corps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Hawkeye7. Yes, I'm familiar with the histories you recount (actually have all those armored corps patches in my collection!).
The problem is, III Corps is claiming a title that officially is not theirs. The Wikipedia problem is, by doing so, Wikipedia is unable to provide accurate links to the correct organization and perpetuates the disinformation promulgated by the unit.
Regardless of how "III Armored Corps" styles itself, it is officially III Corps. Personally, I would say the Wikipedia entries should reflect their official designation and perhaps include a note that recaps what I explained in my first note to you.
However, I'm not about to do that without getting some topcover from you and the editors and get into an edit/revert war.
I'm asking for some guidance on how to proceed. Do we follow III Corps's lead and muck up the historical record? Or do we lay out the truth, include a note of clarification, and be the sort of definitive reference we try to be? Thank. Regards, Greg Bilhartz (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, we lay out the truth but note WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
But to put it succinctly: If someone types "III Armored Corps", it should redirect you to XIX Corps. Yes? Taking you to the Phantom Corps is factually wrong and confounding to someone who does not have our knowledge of military history. Regards, Greg Bilhartz (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think it should go to III Corps, as that is most likely what the user is looking for. An explanatory note would be good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

III Corps is what we called it when I was assigned to it during the '80s and what was on the HQ building, for what it's worth.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was at Fort Hood in the 1990s and the III Armored Corps name was in use then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

23 Parachute Engineer Regiment

edit

Hi Hawkeye. Would you mind taking a look at 23 Parachute Engineer Regiment#Death of Connor Morrison? I noticed the section when checking on some other stuff in the article. I don't really do much editing of articles about military units, but the section seems a little bit WP:UNDUE, at least to me. I figured I'd ask someone involved with MILHIST to take a look at it to see whether it's OK. Since you're listed as the lead coordinator, I thought you'd be a good person to ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Articles for Creation backlog drive

edit

Hello Hawkeye7:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 243, July 2026

edit
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

National Science Week Edit-a-Thon

edit

Hello! You're invited to The IBiS Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon taking place on 22 August, 2026 as part of National Science Week. We look forward to seeing you there!

For local Canberra Wiki meet-up regulars, this event will count as our monthly meeting for August.

Born to Barnacle (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2026-30

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 05:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply