Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Membership comings and goings, and the ramifications thereof

I've just been looking at membership figures (no, they're not neatly tabulated, I'm afraid). Over the last eight months, we've had about twenty members a month joining and about five a month leaving. This is very healthy. One of the interesting things that has come out of T&A workshops has been that newbies often join up as a way of (1) immediately participating and (2) learning the ropes. This suggests that a low-level permanent drive of some description, mentioned on the welcome template, might be a good way of getting new members involved and immersed. This coincides with a suggestion by Suyogaerospace to run a "Tag 30 a month" drive. I suggested he might want implement this as "Tag one a day" drive, run from a page in the special projects dept. He'll probably need a hand setting this up. I can think of a couple of editors who may well like to help but before I punt it, has anyone any thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, is it worth recruiting a bot to do the election notifications? Two lots of individual messages to 820+ members is becoming an increasingly tall order. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the bot distribution of election notice idea, that would save time and ensure everyone gets the message at just about the same time. As for the low level drive idea, I like the concept, and it would be a good way to attack the backlogs in the down time between T&A drives. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Would creating a contest page similar to our current contest department for a perment low level T&A drive be an option? We could either use a similar criteria to the drives or use a criteria similar to that used in the contest department to award people for participating by using the service awards, with the chevrons going to the overall monthly winner. Would something like this work? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It might do but there was little enthusiasm for a new drive a couple of weeks back. Without worklists, policing work done becomes a problem and we have already had one case of massively overclaiming work done in order to scoop gongs. I suppose there is also the danger that if it is poorly supported we would end up dishing out gongs for too low a level of achievement and that could undermine the whole thing. Perhaps the way forward is to kick it off in Special Projects and if, it develops significant momentum, invest more effort in promoting and running it. I think we may have to radically restructure the way our drives work soon anyway if we are to get decent results, simply because our format has been copied, and is losing its lustre. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot = good idea. We could ask Cbrown if it would be able to do it. In terms of having a tagging contest, I think we need to find a new way of doing these drives, and this might be a good idea. It would certainly be better than the backlog building up, though personally, I think the emphasis has to shift away from tagging towards article improvement. I think there is only so much tagging we can do. I could see problems with administering this drive though, it would take a lot of upkeep and would divert a lot of resources at the end of each month. Although, it might give us a chance to use the Wikipedia:MHCON#Special contest header for the first time! ;) Woody (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiUpdate

I was asked by User:Ironholds to do an interview on this wikiproject for this podcast, but don't have the necessary technology (Skype or equivalent). Is anyone else interested? Nick Dowling (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pity to let an outreach opportunity slip by. I have Skype and can do it if no one else wishes/is able to. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing Business

With a little over two weeks left before we enter the next coordinator elections I think it would be a good idea to check and see if we have any outstanding business that needs to be handled before the elections or anything that the next administration will need to deal with. In particular, we need to look at

• The T&A drives and the proposal that we keep a low level drive open for newbies,
• The apparent unfamiliarity some members have with regards to the C-class and our non-adoption of it,
• The descion by Davies to shift some energy from our parent pages to the task forces page and the selection of coordinators to the task forces,
• Overseeing the implementation of the new A-class criteria.

On the whole I think most of these issues can be handled without incident by the next nine coordinators since some of us will certainly run for reelection, but I figured I would list them here anyway.

Two things I would like to suggest is that we come up with a way to enure that newly created task forces do have there two-three coordinator overseers (when the military land vehicals task force was created no one really volunteered to step up and oversee it). Two, I think that we may want to hold a referendum on C-class in with the elections like we did with the lead coordinator position last time. It may be a better way of getting project wide input on the matter of implementing C-class, although I will be honest and say I do not think anything will change much if we do or don't do this. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You've raised a lot of stuff there, Tom :)

• A Handover list might be good idea (drawn up, say, 15th September-ish) though we can't really bind incoming coordinators to anything we've set up.
• I've an entirely open mind on C-Class and whether we have a referendum on it. I'll go with the flow :)
• As another possible election agenda item, I'd like to propose to the membership that Kirill becomes an emeritus coordinator indefinitely. (At present, he's just co-opted until the end of the current term.)
• For the elections, I'd really like to see a set of standard questions for each candidate to answer, loosely based on the RfA ones. Thoughts?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectively:

• It wouldn't so much be binding as it would be a list of things the previous adminstration thought the incoming adminstration should/would be interested in continuing or more probably should be aware of becuase it is or was ongoing (feedback from T&A, for example).
• A think the referendum would be a good idea for C-class so we can settle the issue on a community basis once and for all.
• I would support making Kirill coordinator emeritus permently.
• I'm all for standard questions, but I think if we do adopt standard questioning we include some sort of line in the sand, becuase the rfa process doesn't have one and the questions there are sometimes based more on personal issues than issues of proffessionalism.
• I would also like to put forward a referendum to shift the Chevron w/oak leaves criteria a little so as to permit the nomination of a standing coordinator provided the establishment of consensus and the presentation of the award are not made while the coordinator in question holds office (for example, if I was nom'ed now we would accept the nom but freeze any action on it until I left office, at which point the nom would go 'live' such as it were and continue as any other nom would). Also, in light of your Kirill comment, it may be a good idea to specify that the award can go to a standing coordinator if the coordinator was appointed to his/her postion outside normal channels, in this manner we can justify awarding the chevrons to anyone else who ends up in Kirill's shoes (appointed by the coordinators rather than through community consensus). It may be a bit extreme, but in the long run could be benifical for us. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Yes to the referendum.
• I don't really think an incoming coordinator to-do list would be that helpful. I would assume that anybody elected would know what we are doing/have been doing anyway. I would support making Kirill's position one of "...Kirill is a coordinator as long as he wants the job."
• Standard questions: Personally, I think the current setup is ok. Perhaps, a couple of standard questions would be ok, but I don't really think that anymore than that will be productive: the questions will become generic and unhelpful, as will the answers. I think it is the personal questions and answers that distinguish a candidate, though RFA is a joke when 15 questions becomes the norm.
• Tom, if we accept noms, and then wait for the person to leave office, why don't we wait until they leave office anyway. Otherwise, we are simply guaranteeing the coordinators the chevrons, which, from most angles, looks like back-slapping. Woody (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We can do that too. I'm just tossing out ideas here, nothings binding until people form a consensus on doing something. In this particular case I brough this up becuase I remeber having a similar proposal here during the last election (or maybe it was the one before that, I can;t remember) and there seemed to be some support for it at the time. I figured now is as good a time as any to revisit the idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against ideas Tom ;), just trying to point out any issues with them now, rather then when we put it to members. I do remember a discussion on Co-ords but don't remember it ever being put to members. Woody (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the idea had some support here (like two or three coordinators, me included) but never got to the needed five or six which is usually the minimum number needed to go before the members. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_7#Two Suggestions It was suggested right on the election boundary and so got lost in it all I think. Though, as I say, if I was a coordinator back then I would have opposed. To me, it just seems to be an exercise in nepotism, if they deserve it now, then surely they will deserve it when they step down as a coordinator. It is simply a bureacratic process of postponing the inevitable I suppose. I don't see it making any difference to be honest. They will still (I would hope) receive the nomination in the future, as they would today. But, that is only my viewpoint. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Oakleaves. I'm with Woody (and historically Wandalstouring) on this and would resist change.

re: Referenda. Is this support for the Kirill proposal AND revisiting C-Class?

re: Drives. I'm keener on article improvement than tagging drives too.

re: Bot. Contacting Cbrown sounds good. Can Woody arrange this? We can re-use last year's messages, I suppose.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are my comments:

• I don't think that a handover list is needed - historically, most of the coordinators have been re-elected each election, so there should be a strong continuity. If we all get voted out then a list would be a useful service for our replacements though.
• I'm a bit reluctant to have a referendum on C-class given the low level of support for it when it was raised on the project's talk page, but I don't see what harm a vote could do here
• I agree with a vote on Kirill being made permanent (assuming he wants to stay on, of course!)
• A few standard questions for candidates for the coordinator positions seems like a good idea
• I'd also prefer a focus on article improvement drives over tagging drives
• I don't think that there's a need to change the arrangements for the Oaklaves Nick Dowling (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Handover list is a brilliant idea.

Make Kirill a constant member of the coordinators. Let the project vote on this as part of the elections.

standard questions are a good idea.

Tagging drive is a good idea because it helps the article improvement. People are more eager to achieve something if thez see the material gets thoroughly tagged. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think a handover list is needed only if there are major changes in the coordinating team - if something like 5-6 new coordinators are elected (I disbelieve this would happen).
• Regarding the C-class referendum, I share Nick's opinion, is it really necessary? Past discussions on talk page resulted in a strong oppose besides C-class introduction.
• Kirill has been and will always be one of the greatest benefits for our project and we should do anything to keep him close. I would propose the "coordinator for life" title :).
• Standard questions would be good in my opinion, in order to reveal what each candidate intends to do within the project if elected.
• A tagging drive can never be bad for the project, so I would always support it. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I think we have consensus on the following:

• A Handover List is in principle a good idea but is probably only really necessary if there's a radical change in the coordinator line-up;
• Float a proposal to make Kirill "coordinator emeritus" for as long as he wants the job at the same time as the coordinator election;
• No need to take the C-Class issue again to the membership as there was so little support for it first time round;
• No change to the convention excluding sitting coordinators from eligibility for the "Oakleaves";
• A limited number of standard questions for candidates is a good idea.

Is this accurate? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Aye Captain, I concur. Woody (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me too. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Alright then. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

ACR medal idea

It might be a good idea to have our own ACR medal, to reflect the new higher standards. I was thinking that something like this:

could awarded to editors making significant contributions (determined by adding ten or more new references) to A-Class articles promoted under the new criteria (ie from 1 August 2008 onwards). I suggest that the minimum threshold be set at significant contributions to ten articles and that, for quality control purposes, the award be confirmed by the coordinators (as per Oak Leaves). Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean adding ten footnotes to an article? That doesn't sound right. The older articles also need cleaning up for MOS...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a shameless crib of the Triple Crown requirement ("ten line citations"). If you have an alternative idea, I'd love to hear it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice that....that seems easily gameable. I'd already reffed up about 15 olden-day FAs that didn't have refs but I didn't consider myself to be a major contributor...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How about to an editor who has contributed signifigantly to an article and clears one of our articles in the ACR system without getting any opposes? Thats setting the bar high, but would encourage people to get all there ducks in a row before going to ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. But maybe instead of having one article pass without opposes maybe having two or three. Kyriakos (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why passing without opposes is necessarily a good thing - in FACs its common for editors to address the concerns raised in oppose votes but the person who voted never comes back to change their vote. How about awarding it to people who sucessfully nominate three articles for A-class? Nick Dowling (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can go for that. Two questions though: should it be retroactively awarded to those who already have three (or more) A-Class articles under our belts, and should there be some kind of time limit on the award (like within 90 days or something of that nature) or should it just be three A-class articles? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm for the medal but it shouldn't be done retro-actively as the original point was to recognise the higher standards at A-Class. I don't think a time-limit is a good idea; I think it would encourage rushing and going in for ACR before the articles are ready. Woody (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Woody Nick Dowling (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it ought to be retrospective either and would prefer to see the bar set significantly higher than three A-Class articles. I would like to see this medal awarded as infrequently as the Oakleaves, to make it really worth aspiring to. I'm not keen on it applying to nominators – this could create the situation were articles are nominated by people who have done little or no work on the content – and would prefer something, as mentioned above, like the ten line citations rule used for the Triple Crown. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to be careful with how obtainable you want to make this. In terms of a nominators viewpoint: Why would you want to concentrate on A, when you just go for FA. Surely if you use A as a FA stepping stone which is what the new criteria effectively do, then you will get the Oakleaves anyway for the sheer number of featured content that you produce.

In terms of being awarded for nomination, I think that is wrong. It encourages drive-by noms which should be discouraged. Take Napoleon I of France. All of the article work has been done by User:Tpbradbury over the last two months. User:Db48x has now nominated it for A without ever having edited the article. I know that if this happened at FAC, Sandy wouldn't appreciate it. Do we want to encourage it? Personally, I would say that significant contributors should get the "score" for the article. Woody (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is an excellent one, which hadn't crossed my mind.

On the second point, do we wish to exclude drive-by noms from the ACR process altogether?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to discriminate against drive-bys altogether, e.g someone might work on an article and then go an extended wikibreak. Then we have a potential A-Class article that couldn't be nominated. I think we have to follow the FAC line, we should ask the significant contributor(s) whether they feel it ready to be nominated for A, whether they have finished the work they wanted to do to the article. Woody (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you but for slightly different reasons. My main concern is to avoid the ACR process becoming too process driven and, as there isn't the same cachet attached to ACR as FAC, the nominator is less important than the content of the article itself. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sharpening up

How about something like this:

• The award is open to any editor who has made a significant contribution (defined by adding ten or more line citations) to three or more Milhist A-Class articles promoted since 1 August 2008. Nominations for the medal must be confirmed by three or more Milhist coordinators prior to the award being made.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would remove the definition from it. I wouldjust leave it at significant contribution and this could then be assessed by a COORD. It only takes a quick look at [1] and then judge whether they are "significant" edits. Though I could then see how this could be gamed with a few minor edits to the article, or the addition of poor quality refs. It is that old problem of defining significant contributions. I think this will be a good place for coord discretion. Woody (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Woody but other than that it looks good. Kyriakos (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Woody and Kyriakos Nick Dowling (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No problems with the amendment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Woody and Kyriakos. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've now done everything to set this up, which involved re-organising the awards pages a bit. It'll probably need fine-tuning a bit, so please check it through and tweak away. (I assume everyone is cool with the design of the medal itself as there's been no comment on it.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My internet time has been limited for the last weeks, so excuse my late interference. I would suggest a little amendment to the A-class medal regulations. It can also be given for a lower number(1-2) of articles if these are viewed by lots of people or were very difficult to write. This way we can at least try to counter the problem that high quality material is about obscure topics, while our top viewed material is mostly B-class and we do encourage works on topics that are difficult to research and require more work than other A-class articles. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagging drive

I've broken this out from the discussion above because it seems there's a way to go before we reach agreement. The main options are probably:

• Low-level tagging (the "one tag a day" team), loosely coordinated on a Special projects sub-page.
• A beefed-up version of the above, run within the Contest dept, and tied into a monthly tagging competition
• Something else.

Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I cannot convince myself that the impetus exists for a beefed-up drive right now. The request for a drive came from one editor. Continuous high-profile tagging drives probably bore people and make it more difficult to recruit for the biggies later on. Drives take time to organise and administer, and we are already faced with sharply diminishing returns. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment Roger, and prefer encouraging ongoing low-level tagging. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a cleanup drive on all teh old A-class articles. Some of them are looking a bit retro... although I think that the A-class criteria aren't being enforced all that much....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are indeed. I agree with you about A-Class enforcement and have started (coincidentally just before your message) actually referring to the criteria in A-Class reviews. Perhaps it will catch on :)

It would be quite easy to set this up (and< I suspect recruit for it, especially if it's not called a "drive") and would have the added advantage of expanding awareness of the new criteria.

A longer-term candidate is clearing the Category:Military history articles with no associated task force, currently running at about 8,000 articles. The thing here, I suppose, is segmenting it somehow into (1) articles which haven't yet been allocated a task force and (2) articles for which no appropriate task force exists. I suspect there's an awful lot of double- and triple-handling going on of the second group. Perhaps the solution is to create a pseudo-task force (parameter "NA=y"?) for articles which cannot be allocated to a task force.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New criteria are best enforced if all old material gets reviewed. However, we can do this with a slow drive. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is how best to achieve this. As project consensus determines whether an article is A-Class or not, it ought to be the community that reviews the articles' status. Perhaps a way to start is to list the A-Class articles somewhere by date of promotion (oldest first), then one by one use the existing A-Class demotion procedures to see if there's (1) support for nominating for a demotion review and (2) support for individual demotion. It's longwinded but perhaps the best way to do it. Oh, and reviewing 80-odd articles will indeed be a slow drive :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of our A-class articles: This could be a great opportunity to get the task forces on board and offer them a chance to compete to see who can get there A-class articles up to compliance first. We could offer the ACR medal to the task force with the most participation in a dash to get there articles up to the new A-class standards. Just something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, some task forces don't really have that many. I've started a unilateral MOS drive in any case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should make it a standard that all our A-class material gets checked because we don't only have to cope with new standards, but also with the loss of quality if old articles are not maintained. So setting up an A-class review drive should work as a standard procedure all the time, not only now. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes a lot of sense though I'm not sure how many articles actually need much revising. I've had another look at the pre-2008 A-Class articles and they're mostly not too bad at all. The oldest, the Gettysburg ones, probably just need more citation and a copy-edit. The ones that probably need most attention are Jacques Le Gris and Jean de Carrouges, which turned out (at FAC) to be principally sourced to an historical novel. I also found one that may have been promoted by typo :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Luckily it seems that most articles passing trhough A-class go on to be FA-class, or at least make a serious run at FAC class, so that if they were soft As to begin with they won't be once they pass or try to pass FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(od) Here's this, for quick reference:

Table of pre-2008 A-Class articles

User:Roger Davies/A-Class pre-2008

Eyes on Wikipedia:Coordinators

I have started the porcess to get this instated as a guideline, but would like some extra eyes on it to ensure that the important points have all been adressed before this goes official. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need this? I presume it's up to separate WikiProjects to do this. Somehow I suspect that some WikiProjects with maybe < 10 active content creators and < 4,000 articles might take the guideline to be a measure of "maturity" and we will have all these projects making up rules and processes to appear to be more effective. I can think of one wikiproject with only 2000 articles and about 5-6 active signed up editors, except they have about 4 taskforces....and I think that if this becomes a guideline maybe everyone will start doing it just for the show. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I threw it togather after noticing that there was no such page on the subject on Wikipedia, and seeing that two or three other projects (religion among them) were looking to adopt a coordintor system. I thought it might help some project some where. It may end up merged when all is said and done though, so this may ultimetly be a mute point. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tom. I don't think that this needs guideline status, but a central guide to what a coordinator is and isn't is needed and this does the job nicely. Since being elected a few editors have wrongly thought that I have extra influence over articles and their content because I'm a coordinator, so it's important to stress that the role of coordinators is to do background stuff and serve as a point of contact/advice and that we can't impose solutions on disputes or that whatever our view is carries extra weight. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's our definition of coordinator. Others may have different ideas. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually they seem to say the same thing, no matter where you look. At least that is what I have observed (although maybe you have seen other projects that I haven't and noticed some differentiations). At any rate, it seems that the page will be obsorbed into the greater WP:Project Council page and its points. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Election stuff

1. I've created (which is rather a grand word for heavily edited last February's) the election page here in my user space. Any thoughts or updates? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

2. We agreed to include a small number of standard questions. Here are a couple of drafts to kick the ball off:

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?

What skills/qualities can you contribute as a milhist coordinator?

Any comments, improvements, amendments, additional questions? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Added to Election page, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Cbrown1023 has very kindly agreed to deliver the call for nominations and the election start notification to the whole project by bot. this will save a load of work! I've tweaked the headings but otherwise the text is per last time.

Are these okay? Any changes or improvements? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

All looks good to me. Woody (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'd suggest changing the heading for the first notice to be "Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election". Kirill ^(prof) 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems good to me. Kyriakos (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, though I agree with the amended wording suggested by Kirill. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that we talked about it earlier, but discussion has restarted today at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#C-class_question. Perhaps we should revisit including it in the election. Woody (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Best I think is to encourage that discussion to run and see whether significant support for C-Class develops. Then, if it does, put it to the membership on 15 Sep for a straw poll. I'll add a comment to this effect. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, it really surprises me how little interest there is in Milhist in C-Class. Could it be that editors are reluctant to support it because they're terrified they'll be asked to tag and assess X thousand Start / B-Class articles singlehanded? :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is the use of "!vote" in the second message intentional? Since this is unabashedly a regular election, I don't really see the need to put a fig leaf on it. Kirill ^(prof) 13:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[chuckle] Well, yes and no. I started tweaking the text very early this morning to accommodate possible A-Class straw polls/referendums, and it got complicated so I thought better of it. The "!" needs to go. (And indeed has now gone.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We didn't mention the referendum during the last election in the announcements, and nobody really seemed to complain. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That was one of the better thoughts :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is this ready for distribution? Woody (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It ought to be, we have been working on it for the last week or so. The sooner this heads out the better. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing A-Class reviews

I know that the traditional practice here is for coordinators to add their support (to make the three required) so that they can close the review. The question is whether this appropriate under the new tougher regime. First, it's in the project's interests for as many editors as possible to comment and swift closure prevents this. Second, as the four-day time shut-off has gone, there's no pressure to meet a deadline. Third, the closing coordinator ought really not be partisan. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the main reason for the traditional practice was the four-day deadline; the closing coordinator would support in order to avoid having to fail the article merely due to lack of a third support. (But it was equally common to simply promote an article with less than three supports, incidentally.) Given that there's no longer a real deadline, I don't see any real need for the practice; and, in the interests of minimizing questions of partisanship, we should probably avoid having a commenter close the discussion (similarly to how FAC, RFA, etc. work). Kirill ^(prof) 13:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

They can just implicitly make a judgment by explaining the close reasoning I guess, that's fine with me. But no prior participation is ideal I guess...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Roger and Kirill - this is no longer needed, and isn't a good look given the stricter criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Roger, Kirill, and Nick. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, the closing coordinator shouldn't be partisan. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A NAG for people to consider nagging A-class candidates for ndashes in numerical ranges and consistent use of footnote formatting wrt full stops and commas or lack thereof. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ACR technical question

Is there any cunning way the review pages could point back to WP:MHR#A-Class review instead of WP:MHA. It would make it easier to go from one review to another. Or would this involve major re-organization? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, by changing the subpage tree by making the review pages under /Review rather than /Assessment. We'd just have to change the template on the ACR section and on the MILHIST talk page template. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

...And another MOS-enforcement nag—I'm sure to become very unpopular (or I could fix all the articles...) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this would place PR and ACR subpages in the same location, so there would no longer be any easy way to distinguish between the two. A better approach would be to place them at, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class/Article name, where the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class subpage would be a redirect to WP:MHR#A-Class review; but that would still involve renaming all the existing subpages by hand, which may be more trouble than it's worth unless we could get a bot to do it. Kirill ^(prof) 11:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for the redirect. If you created a page MILHIST/R/A/article the top will automatically have links to MILHIST MILHIST/R and MILHIST/A/R and if the third of these doesn't exist it wouldn't matter. Moving isn't hard either, just click "move" and then cut and paste and extra "review" into the field. It can't take longer than cutting and pasting and pressing block for a guy who created 200 single-use disposable socks that got weeded though. Just a lazt 2 hours for me...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Roger wanted a link specifically back to the ACR section on the review page, not to the review page as a whole; the only way I can think of getting that is by creating the extra redirect. Kirill ^(prof) 12:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right. It's only for swift navigation when reviewing. I had thought of a specific ACR template but lack the know-how to implement such a thing. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The first 100 would be easy: move with subpages, but that is the throttle limit. I'm sure a bot could be found, though is it really worth the effort? Woody (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Navbox accessibility issues

According to what's being reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force#Navigation templates, our normal navigation box design (navbox stacked under infobox) may be in violation of accessibility guidelines. I'm not sure how big of an issue it'll turn out be in practice; but it might be something to keep in mind, given how much of our template design strategy is oriented around that particular layout. Kirill ^(prof) 03:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MILCON question

Piotrus has opened up an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Contest#What about...?. Essentially: change the rules to judge articles "post facto." Personally, I don't think it is feasible long term, or in the spirit of the contest, but other comments are welcome over there. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for Guadalcanal Campaign

Would a coordinator please check if this A-class review could now be closed? If so, I'd like to go ahead and nominate it for FAC. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done,. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you:) Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Special Projects Department

I have just recently re-done the layout of this page to show the information better. Any suggestions, comments, etc. are welcomed. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The table is much neater but I'm personally not wild about all the symbols (not instant enough). The data in the secondary table could probably just be run on in a box. Incidentally, wouldn't this be better on the special projects talk page? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I though the advice of the coordinators would be a better medium since there are more of you than those signed up at MHSP at the moment. What about the symbols are you not wild about? Is it the amount of them, because I can eliminate a few. I have a few other planned improvements I'm currently working on. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For this kind of thing, I don't think icons add much. They take time to decode and are less "instant" than simply saying for instance "ex-FA", "B-class" and so forth. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the icons are OK, anybody who knows wiki-icons can quickly figure out what they mean. If this is not the case one round of training is enough and you can read them faster than a written comment. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ACR / PR reviewers

Here's a league table of the last three month's reviewers. Per custom, I'm proposing the Content Review medal for those in double figures (ie the top nine). Interestingly, 71 reviewers participated, which is up (from memory) 15 on June (when I last did this). It might be better to do this monthly in future as (1) it takes ages to do three months worth at a go and (2) a monthly /announcement and /newsletter mention helps keep the issue fresh in people's minds. It is probably also a good idea to post this in a new reviewers section in the Review Dept so people can leave messages for individual reviewers if they want to drum up extra reviewers. The problem seems to be not that we don't have enough reviewers but that most of them don't review frequently enough. I'll do a little remainder mailing, I think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

PS: this is based on historic reviews (ie archived/promoted/failed ones) 1 June to 2 September and doesn't include any currently active ones. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor	A-Class reviews	Peer reviews	Total
Borg Sphere (talk)	16	11	27
Cla68 (talk)	26		26
Eurocopter tigre (talk)	19		19
Nick Dowling (talk)	10	6	16
TomStar81 (talk)	10	6	16
Woody (talk)	10	6	16
Catalan (talk)	10	4	14
Brad101 (talk)	7	4	11
Cam (talk)	9	2	11
Blnguyen (talk)	5	2	7
Dhatfield (talk)	4	2	6
Kirill Lokshin (talk)		6	6
Buckshot06 (talk)	3	2	5
Jackyd101 (talk)	1	4	5
Jappalang (talk)		5	5
Skinny87 (talk)	3	2	5
Parsecboy (talk)	3	1	4
Wandalstouring (talk)	3	1	4
Ed! (talk)	3		3
Geoff Plourde (talk)	3		3
Giggy (talk)	1	2	3
Leithp (talk)	1	2	3
Oberiko (talk)	1	2	3
Ryan4314 (talk)		3	3
The Land (talk)		3	3
Bellhalla (talk)	1	1	2
Enriquecardova (talk)	2		2
Factotem (talk)	1	1	2
Guyinblack25 (talk)	1	1	2
Ham (talk)	1	1	2
Hargrimm (talk)	2		2
Hawkeye7 (talk)		2	2
Juliancolton (talk)	2		2
Kariteh (talk)		2	2
Kyriakos (talk)	2		2
Llywrch (talk)	1	1	2
MBK004 (talk)	2		2
Serviam (talk)	1	1	2
Yannismarou (talk)	2		2
ALR (talk)		1	1
Bart133 (talk)	1		1
Bedford (talk)		1	1
Binksternet (talk)	1		1
Born2flie (talk)		1	1
Bukvoed (talk)	1		1
David Fuchs (talk)		1	1
David Underdown (talk)	1		1
Dean B (talk)	1		1
Doncram (talk)		1	1
Ealdgyth (talk)		1	1
EyeSerene (talk)	1		1
Gary King (talk)	1		1
Harlsbottom (talk)		1	1
Izno (talk)		1	1
Jim Sweeney (talk)	1		1
Krator (talk)		1	1
Ktr101 (talk)	1		1
Looper5920 (talk)		1	1
Maralia (talk)		1	1
Marathi_mulgaa (talk)		1	1
MisterBee1966 (talk)		1	1
Mrg3105 (talk)	1		1
MuZemike (talk)		1	1
MWAK (talk)	1		1
Mzajac (talk)	1	1	2
Neovu79 (talk)		1	1
Rebel Redcoat (talk)		1	1
Ruhrfisch (talk)		1	1
Sandpiper (talk)	1		1
Str1977 (talk)	1		1

That's OK. We can make it a rule that anybody participating in 10 or more project reviews gets a shiny piece for decorating of his userpage. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

I've decided to be a little bold and do something that I thought has been lacking. I've created userboxes for the coordinators of this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Userbox.
What you see fit to do with them is up to all of you. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice! I've just added it to my user page. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Very nice indeed. I've copied the listing over to the main list of templates above, to make sure it doesn't get lost. Kirill ^(prof) 04:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Neat! Thanks for doing that :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

C-class referendum?

Are we going to put this out there for the voting public to consider during the Coordinator elections, or are we going to defer until such a time as it becomes an issue again? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted a comment on this yesterday and there's been no response so far. My feeling is to defer it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. Just didn't want to bring it up there unnessisarily. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no enthusiasm for introducing it, and no rush to make a permanent decision one way or the other. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no need to rush it. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with GTC

Now, whilst I disagree with the need for GTC, it has now been created as a Wikipedia process and as such, what do we wish to do about it? Should we list it in the project showcase along with the other featured content? Note that we do not currently recognise GAs in our showcase. Should candidates be listed in the announcements template and on the review page? I bring this up now as we have Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814 up at WP:GTC. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to review our position regarding GA as a whole. Many many Milhist editors participate in it (both as nominators and as reviewers). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Some may be in it for other reasons. I only go through GA becuase it is a prerequist for the awarding of a triple crown. I am of the opinion that the GTC should not be included here, although if there was such a thing as a ATC I would be open to allowing that here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to bring this issue before the project and let them decide our stance towards the G-material. However, we may beforehand craft some proposals. I think it is no good idea to clutter our review template with more entries. Instead one G-material link to a project page disambiguating GTC, GT review, GAC and GA review (and possibly G-picture or what else may come) should do it. We may also introduce such a page for featured material if the project requests this. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what you say about further entries on the review pages, though they could easily be added to the showcase. Yes, let's bat about some ideas. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd certainly be possible (if rather time-consuming) to include GA-level articles in the showcase. It might be worth doing so even if we don't provide full listings of the underlying GA-level reviews themselves, for that matter; there's going to be a technical problem with trying to track the reviews in detail (no subpages to transclude) regardless of what our collective stance towards the process winds up being. Kirill ^(prof) 09:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't advice to keep them in our showcase. It ranks too low for that. Just link to the reviews for G-material. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirill, they do have subpages now, should be at Talk:Article/GA1 and so on. But, that is only created by the reviewer once they select the article to be reviewed, and not when the editor nominates it for GA. Personally, I am up for providing a link to GAs in the showcase and listing the GT as it is a more substantial area of work, that should be audited at the GTC stage. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7 Notice

It appears that the 0.7 team is picking articles for the next release version. I would propse that we move the selected articles to the special projects department so we can check all the information in the articles and address any issues with the article before they go offline, in this manner we can ensure the infomration adheres to all needed policies and address any concerns with regards to maintence tags and policy issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a very good idea. Any idea how many? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot. It took a while for the list to load on my laptop, although thats wireless and the home pc is broadband, so it made load faster at home. A a minimum, we will need to eyeball all project FA-class articles since those are automatically included as candidates for any release version. It would prbably bo a good idea to check the A-class and GA-class articles as well, since those rank highly on our assessment scheme. Perhaps we should consider an adopt an article drive to get editors familar with the policy and MoS guidelines to participate and checking and clearing the designated articles? If we offer medals and barnstars for people willing to spend the needed hours to aid us then we could help clear the articles for an offline debut faster and more efficently. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that FAs are not being automatically included here (although they may wind up in the release anyways); so that might not be a productive direction to go regardless. Kirill ^(prof) 09:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of A-class and FA-class articles, most of mine for instance, do not make the cut, because it didn't score 1250 points; most of the points are dependent on popularity, by pageviews, intwerwiki links and incoming links. So some very popular and very dreadful articles like Vietnam War are high up the list. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ver batum from the classical warfare task force talk page, the 0.7 notice reads as follows:

“ A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 02:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

”

The links and other relevent info are all in that message, so we can start with this and plan our next moves. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A drive sounds like a good idea. However, we should learn from the last drives and keep the minimum workload small and include lots of different topics in each worksheet. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I hadn't realised it was 1133 articles. That is a huge mountain to climb, especially given the specialist nature of the editing and familiarity with policy required. What do we do? Find sixty experienced editors prepared to edit twenty articles each? To be honest, I can't see this happening. And the big question is going to be "Why do we need to do this when they're already recognised as top-notch?" --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too difficult as some of the articles are B-class articles that are there mainly because they have high readership stakes and are clearly unsalvageable due to uneven coverage, such as the Vietnam War. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We can start by subdeviding the list into more managable task force portions, then eliminate the articles which have more than one tag for a related project (For example, Iowa class battleship and Montana class battleship have our tag and the WP:SHIPS tag, so we can let those slide out on the assumption that the other projects will check'em for quirks and such). That should leave us with a much more managable group of article to comb through. I think more about this tomarrow, but right now I am heading for bed, its after 3.00 AM here and I have school in the morning... :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We can do all those things but even they will take a considerable amount of time to set up. Then there is the problem of recruiting enough good people and administering it. If we can up with something, I'd be all in favour of something altogether simpler – like flicking though the articles and trying to deal with any tags (fact, npov etc) – but for the top end stuff, even this needs to be done by people really familiar with the subject matter. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too concerned for the top-end articles, actually; the bigger issue, in my view, is that the 0.7 selection algorithm is picking up a great many Start-Class articles. Regardless of how much copyediting we set up, we're still going to be left with a large portion of the selection that's simply deficient in terms of core material rather than MoS rules; given that, I'm not convinced that it's worth going out of our way to fiddle with 0.7 at all. Kirill ^(prof) 09:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we need MOS compliance as top priority for all material? That's the major hindrance to recruiting otherwise competent editors. We should limit MOS-checks to FA and have them in special worksheets (they have been mostly checked for MOS, so it shouldn't be too much work). Another group can consist of GA and A-class material, checking this group has priority over B-class and possibly Start-class(Start-class should only be checked superficial). Worksheets with 20-40 articles are a very good idea and we will have several editors doing multiple worksheets, so this can probably be managed by 30 editors. I disagree with eliminating double-tagged articles from our worksheets, except we do know for sure that someone from another project is working on them. We owe that to our reputation. Another issue is recruiting copyeditors. Maybe we give them an alert and check how many of them are willing to contribute. If a checked article can be fixed with a copyedit we can direct them directly to the target. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the algorithm, anything that is rated B-class by several projects is included. The problem is that many projects didn't yet have a BCAD with the new criteria. We may voice this concern, perhaps these articles that do not comply with the new B-class criteria can be eliminated. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By "MoS" I mean something aking to copyeditting, just a basic check to ensure that everything is still propserly squared away, more with regards to our MoS that the Wiki MoS. Simple things like checking that dates are unlinkied and combat pages are properly categorized and the infobox parameters are correctly filled out and stuff like that. For most article this won't be a problem, but for some of the high traffic articles this could pose a problem, hence the suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the list of articles at Wikipedia:Release Version is very patchy. I agree with Roger that the task is too big to be a 'must do' (especially as I can't see many people really wanting Wikipedia on DVD...). The best approach may simply be to post notifications on the project's talk pages and add an entry to the WPMILHIST Announcements template notifying editors that the next release is getting close and suggesting that interested editors run through the articles which have been selected. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Having looked again the list, I share Kirill's concerns. For instance, this seems typical of a NPOV-tagged article and I'm sure we also remeber Oberiko's travails in Special Projects. So, perhaps the way forward (cherry-picking from others' ideas), is to

1. propose a better article selection, per Wandalstouring based on our FA and A-Class articles, topped up with B-Class
2. list the new selection, per Nick, for improvement lite.

How does this seem? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I had some chats with the guys behind this drive. This explains the purpose and the volume of the release. And here they admit, that they are aware that most of their B-class stuff hasn't been checked against the new B-class criteria. So, I suggest to stick with the 0.7 release crietria and only work on our listed Start if we consider them part of a set or essential. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's review the versions we chose and remove all starts from the release list. I would do it on my own if it wasn't too much work for a single editor. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal Roger. Is is possible to get an automatically generated list of the articles which are start-class? Nick Dowling (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a table of the WPMH Start-class articles from the selection list, plus one Stub-class article that somehow made it in. Feel free to move it wherever. It was a pain in the ass to make; I hope it's helpful. Maralia (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The list is really great. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. This will be much easier to work with. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed today that some articles selected are now sporting 1.o assessment template on the talk page. Should we be adding these to the articles selected, or no? And if yes, should we be filling in any of the fields in the template? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We probably need to urgently produce a detailed battle plan for 0.7 covering the whole thing. Where do we start? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They currently run 0.7 and I suggest we take care about that. The 1.0 templates can be recorded and a drive can be prepared for them after we finished 0.7 and have thus gained some experience and also have more time and thus less workload per day. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was about 0.7 and gettting that show on the road. (I've edited the comment accordingly). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• First we deal with all Start articles fom the 0.7 list. We may publish this list on the project page and ask anybody willing to improve material from this list to B-class. In most cases citations are missing. What doesn't get improved to B-class in time gets removed from the 0.7 list.
• Secondly, we establish worksheets of B-class and GA material, assessing which version is ready for release because it complies with all B-class criteria. I suggest 50 article worksheets.
• Thirdly, we have special worksheets with A-class and FA. These are checked whether they still meet the criteria(in case they don't, they will be nominated for a downgrade) and whether they are up to MOS standards, thus also establishing a for release version. We do have quite a lot of copyeditors listed with MOS knowledge, so we should have enough personnel for dealing with these, also in worksheets à 50 articles. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1. That's 367 start-class articles. I've been looking through the list and, as you say, citations is the most frequent problem. This is a grave problem because it's probably the most difficult problem to fix. By way of example, the article on Henry IV of France has one inline citation but about sources. Other than that it looks like a great article!? Broadly, this problem is repeated: nice looking, popular articles, with a dearth of citation. Strangely, we have the opposite problem with Adolf Hitler, clearly a B, but tagged Start.
• 2. The mechanics are fine but asking people to work on fifty articles is way too many. I have no experience of retrospectively sourcing an article but guess that it's two to three days work, plus the time taken to obtain the sources.
• 3. I think we should leave FA and A-Class well alone, on the basis of if it's not bust, don't fix it. The problems are unlikely to be MoS-compliance anyway. Even if the problems were entirely copy-based, a MoS/professional-standard copy-edit takes this particular editor a minimum of three to four hours and often twelve to fifteen hours. So we come down to hours in the day.
• I'm not sure we have anything like enough people to handle (1) and (3).
• Finally, there's the problem of what we substitute. Popularity was an important criterion. In other words, 0.7 is looking to deliver a compliation of what people are actively seeking. On further reflection, I'm not sure we are able to make these substitutions easily. What, for instance, would we replace [[[Henry IV of France]] with? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's all sorts of subtle problems with less-developed articles. Henry IV, for example, got his extensive bibliography as an upgrade from an older "Further reading" section; there's no indication that any of the listed sources were actually used in the writing of the article (and, considering how superficial the article is, fairly good indication that they were not). So even if a Start-Class article appears to be in somewhat reasonable shape, there's no good way to determine if that's actually the case without going through the research anyways, which could take weeks.

I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't be touching Start-Class articles at all; if they're simply not ready for distribution yet, then an artificially hurried effort to make them presentable isn't really the best use of our resources; we have many issues of higher priority to deal with, and shouldn't be derailed from them merely because the 0.7 bot happened to pick a bunch of inadequate articles.

(There's nothing to say the bot's algorithm won't change tomorrow and produce a completely different set of Start-Class articles, in any case; since we have no effective input into the selection process, we're always going to be stuck working on this after the fact.) Kirill ^(prof) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggested that what start doesn't get improved, gets delisted without any replacement. This improving the starts is only a limited measure, almost all of them will be delisted because nobody is able to improve them in time. No matter, we can show that we tried to keep them. We can also run a BCAD on them, but I think that would be a waste of time.
• We don't ask people to source anything. Take a look if it's fit according to the B-class standards and list this version for 0.7. If not remove it completely or search a version that is. One possibility is to remove all challengeable material. The worksheet is half the size of the BCAD and has a similar volume of work involved.
• A check for MOS is a good idea in my opinion, because we can fix it if it only appears with a small number of articles. However, checking MOS is not essential. Find a version that is up to the standards (most likely citation issues with new material) and nominate it for 0.7.
• We handled BCAD and that was bigger.
• Hitler is the most popular Start class article. All the other Starts get relatively few hits and were more or less included for completeness, no great loss if we refuse them. If you want replacements, nominate all B, GA, A and FA material that didn't get nominated. Also the rating system has a large disadvatage. It is for people who don't have internet based on what people with internet are interested in. In my opinion this should give us to think a bit more about providing high quality material about popular and not obscure topics. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot, the release versions should be free from all critizing templates, either because the issues have been adressed or completely removed. In case neither is possible, we nominate the articles for special care and work on them case by case. This can be done by some coordinators and other helpful editors. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A solution

See User:Roger Davies/v0.7

I've now got the whole listed wikified and sortable numerous ways. I've also spent some time looking at the start class articles. Many of these seem to have previously escaped our attention in drives or have been improved since assessing. Out of eight articles I looked at, six B-Class quality (and have been re-assessed).

I suggest we create a drive to deal with this. The drive would deal with three types of article differently.

1. FA, A-Class and GA articles. These are checked for templates (POV, refs etc). If it's not templated the current version goes for release. If it is templated, the editor pastes a link to the promoted version on the worklist and that becomes the release version.

2. B-Class. Any B-Class articles with templates are marked "remove (+ reason)" on the worklist.

3. Start-Class. Start-Class articles are checked against B-Class criteria and promoted if applicable; articles which fail B-Class or are templated are marked "remove (+ reason)" on the worklist.

Because of the specialist requirements for this drive, I suggest we make it invitation-only. I guess we need twenty or so editors.

Worklists

I suggest we break up this list to make the worksheets of twenty articles each. We warn and then remove editors squatting on worklists but not doing the work.

Follow-up stuff

After the drive, we knock out the headers from the worklists to create one big list again. We edit it, then copy and paste the required data into Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations, which follows the same order. We use the same worklist to create the deletion list.

How does this feel? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, except that I suggest to go through the articles you want to reject and find versions of them without templates and reasons for templates. That's more work, but this way we provide more material to 0.7. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A better aproach may be to wait and see how many starts end up as Bs, then depending on how many are marked as remove we can do one of two things: see about bringing them up to par with the needed B-class parameters, or replacing them with articles better suited to the release. More importantly, do we have some idea what kind of timeline we have to do this? I grant that we don't need the exact second that the bot will pick the perminent version of the aritcle for release, but a time frame for loose planning and execution would be a great help so we can see about how long we have to get the work done. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Not a bad idea, WT. These may need post-checking though as Start isn't exactly a veruy high bar, quality-wise.
2. I was aiming to try to get the drive finished in a week or so. v0.7 wants all the stuff done by 20 Oct, so we'll have a couple of weeks in hand for agonising and fine-tuning. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to start? Time is running away. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all done. The review (let's not call it a drive) is now set up complete with forty-odd worklists, instructions and stuff. I've just mailed twenty of our finest gnomes and invited them to volunteer. That reminds me, there's a very important one I've forgotten. The deadline for completion is next Sunday, so bags of time for bringing articles up to quality, substitutes etc. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kirill ^(prof) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Early feedback

A quick trawl through somwe of the completed worksheets reveals more problems than I had anticipated. The answer is probably to follow the drive/review with a workshop to handle the final selection process. We can, for instance, then invite editors to revisit their worklists and finetune. They're all good guys and I don't anticipate too many hitches. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Our B-class assessment makes me sometimes wonder. Seems like people give it too easily without minding any criteria. I think we have to work on this issue to make sure B-class is B-class and Starts get promoted to this class if they are good. My suggestion is to run a BCAD from time to time.

I wrote to the reviewing editors and asked them to provide more suggestions for replacements because we can't reject half the stuff. On the long run such a drive needs to be prepared months in advance to give time to at least improve some of the articles. After we have learned our lessons in this drive, we should take care of 1.0 which has already started. The improvement of this selected material is likely to enhace our reputation and thus our recruiting because people see in most cases they want to inform themselves that we did good work and are satisfied. Currently, wikipedia faces much criticsm, although our project is better off than the average. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, unless we're careful this is going to turn into a massive time sink with little net benefit. I gather that W07 is being presented as a taster of a work in progress, ie warts and all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I will soon get tired of repeating this, but your assessment criteria for a B grade is significantly more strict than that which the editorial team ask to be used for assessments. I find it hard to see that rejecting articles specifically requested, using arbitrarily hard standards, is helping. Sandpiper (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some projects on the converse inflate their rankings to make themselves look more formidable, and all it does is delude a few people, and in cases like this, let some more rubbish into a CD that will bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Most of the B-class articles are bad enough as is let alone all the start class articles that got through, a lot with flagrantly unencyclopedia tone. All an article has to do to get start class is be longer than a screen in length, but it could be random bits cut and pasted or a personal essay. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We pride ourselves on our ability to lead by example. Our standards are higher not because we set them higher, but becuase the community demands the articles answer to a higher calling. This is how we gained our good reputation on Wikipedia, and its why we strive to maintain our articles to higher standards than the standard standards. Thats why rejecting articles specifically requested, using arbitrarily hard standards, is helping: you asked for precious gems from nearly every wikiproject, and precious gems you shall recieve, but from us you shall recieve diamonds in the rough. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess thats a quote, but I should make clear I represent myself, not the editorial team. At the battle of Jutland it is estimated six more major German ships would have been sunk by the British if they had decent quality control on their shell production. But on the opposite side of the argument, what would have happened if they had imposed a decent standard and gone to sea with no shells at all? (shells which failed even the bad official test were accepted: there was a shortage of shells.) You do no good to eliminate history articles which are better than the standard requested just because someone else might be accepting articles worse than the standard requested. Sandpiper (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Then please come back if you officially represent the editorial team. We have a strict policy to ensure quality and as long as we have a say regarding the releases, we will check them and provide material that meets the B-class standards of this project and wikipedia (that has adopted our standard with slight modifications). And if the Germans had some faster ships they would have sunken down the Empire by crossing the T because the British didn't know the Gefechtskehrtwende. So what? That battle is over and I'm happy so few people died on both sides. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they may have adopted the grading idea but not your standard. Go and look at the example of one articles progression at the bottom of their grades page. Sandpiper (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Some confusion has arisen in this discussion. Before Roger Davies posted the above, I posted a reply which is now immediately below. This was deleted by Wandelstouring, who presunably felt it was not a serious comment. I have restored it, and trust the mistake of deleting it will not be repeated, but have added a clearer explanation which I have also posted on Wandalstouring's page. Sandpiper (talk)

Ok, guy comes up to you and says, 'will you paint my house white? You say to him, no can do guv, all i've got is cream, and that just isn't good enough for white. I tell you what, I'll do it in guaranteed 40-years lasting flaming orange.' You go into a shop and ask for curry. The guy brings you some of his mum's prize-winning fruit cake. Just the job. This release is meant to be a useful reference work, not a school project showcase. Sandpiper (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The editorial team has defined a standard which they consider appropriate for material to be distrubuted in the name of wikipedia. The history project has chosen a higher standard. The project is currently arguing over whether to recommend rejecting articles on the basis of this higher standard, which logically the editorial team would be happy to accept on their own standard. The editorial team has asked for one thing, but is being given something different. I am sure they are pleased for all the help they can get, but if someone asks for a certain thing, why perversely give them something different when the exact thing they ask for is available?

Selecton of articles for distribution is significantly based upon popularity of the articles. I am assuming they equate the number of people who have viewed an article with its importance. I do; obviously the more people who are interested in a certain topic, the more important it is that wiki present an article about it. While obviously it would be counter-productive to distribute articles which are nonsense, that is not what is being debated here. A major consideration seems to be that entirely accurate articles are being rejected because they have relatively poor referencing, even though this still exceeds the requirements of the editorial team. I'm sorry, but to me that just seems like disrupting the selection process and making the resulting distribution copy worse. Sandpiper (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation but I'm not sure there was any confusion. I moved my message back to where I posted it, directly under and in reply to Wandalstouring's. By changing the order of the messages, you made it appear that my message was a reply to yours. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, I didn't mean to do that, I just reinserted my own comment where it had been in direct and relevant response to wandalstouring's comment. Sandpiper (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the way we run this post on the project page and ask them them commend a different course. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Replacements

We have 1/4-1/3 of the worklists consisting of calls for replacements without propositions. How are we going to handle that? I suggest to nominate our recent GA, A and FA material, that has not yet been included, as replacements because we don't have time for a more thourough search. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several ways of dealing with this. Give me a day or so to mull them over. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see wandalstouring has for a second time removed my response to his comment. I would remind him that deleting the posts of those you disagree with on wikipedia talk pages is not permitted and may be construed as vandalism. I forebear to bring the entire thing back down here, but would again make the central point. The effect of the mil hist B grade selection criteria is to recommend exclusion of articles which would pass the editorial team B grade assessment level. Many of the articles you are seeking to exclude would be acceptable to the editorial team. Thus the difficulty would most readily be resolved by accepting those articles which pass their criteria. Sandpiper (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think our role here is to try to reconcile two sets of criteria.

• The W1.0 team's bot has selected by popularity not quality (ie number of hits and links) and importance rating. The W0.7 list, containing roughly 0.5% of the en:Wikipedia corpus, is a Top 30,000 of Wikipedia's most popular articles.
• Our review is driven by quality not by popularity, and our decisions have been made on that basis.

The conundrum here is that while our best are excellent articles they are not necessarily on subjects that large numbers of people want to read about. By replacing several hundred very popular articles with articles on other subjects, the replacements will inevitably be less sought after, our contributions will reach a much smaller readership, and overall the release version will be that much less appealing/comprehensive.

Having combed through the lists, while our reviewers have worked diligently and competently, far too many articles have been marked for removal. Because of this high rejection rate, it seems to me that for the final selection we should probably move to a different standard, something along the lines of "can we live with it?"

It might be perhaps helpful to bring out some aspects of the W0.7 release which weren't apparent earlier. First, it is seen as a test release, a trial run for W1.0 next year. Second, it will make not pretend to being anything other than a snapshot of work in progress. Third, "Citation needed and 'calls to edit' templates will almost certainly be gone… but for things like NPOV there is a strong case for leaving those in". These important factors weren't taken sufficiently into account during our review. The review itself has been exceedingly useful. It has exposed a wide number of quality issues, and perhaps highlighted our current inability to implement widescale change.

So how do we resolve this? I'll first look at the obvious route, referring articles to our task forces for improvement. Even this presents a massive logistical problem. I'll explain, using 300 articles for the example.

1. We can notify the task forces on an article by article basis. For Military aviation or World War II, this will mean adding perhaps 50 different notifications to the talk page.
2. The alternative is to create lists, by task force, of articles for improvement. But this is a big job. It probably involves creating a small database to tag each article by its task forces (most have three and some up to five or six) and output the results. The resultant list, though more accessible than fifty separate notifications, is still going to appear to task force members long and daunting.

The only real option that remains is a template for article talk pages, that requests improvement, and explains what improvements are sought. This would need to be custom made. There is, of course, no guarantee that the article will be touched, let along improved, during the next three weeks but it seems the only real option open to us.

I suggest we give the list a second pass, reducing the number of replacements to a handful. The criterion we should using is "can we live with this?" I mentioned above. For instance, an article with unreferenced sections would be passed, an article with a one-line lead would pass, but an article with unreferenced sections plus a one-line lead would fail. This is not that big a job as more than half the articles have already been "approved" and need no further work. In practical terms, this probably means consolidating the existing 25-article worksheets into 100-article checklists, and adding an extra column, headed say "Action". The articles would be classified four ways:

1. "KEEP"
2. "USE LINK"
3. "IMPROVE (reason)"
4. "REPLACE"

I welcome comment on this, especially from interested parties who might well find themselves dealing with this particular issue after the elections are over :) If we can reach agreement on something along these lines, the next step is to set up the checklists. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We have, by the way, four worksheets incomplete. I've left reminders with the editors asking them to complete today. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be more or less introducing C-class, articles not being B but publishable. I can live with that, however, it clearly shows our article improvement is going the wrong way. That's an illness of wikipedia if there is a constant growth of good quality on obscure topics. Improving the popular core tagged by 1.0 should be the next task to face with a large drive. There are usually plenty of sources listed on the articles, it only needs footnotes. We can handle that although it's the biggest task we yet faced. The problems are that tagging on the talk pages is useless and long lists deter volunteers. I suggest therefore to combine several methods and make small lists.

• First we split things up according to topics. We can do that with a level of time and below one of geography/political units for battles, wars and personnel.
• What is tagged by the general topics task forces can be structured according to time and on a sublevel further specifications(haubitzer, rifle, etc.).

If topics overlap we need to draw a line what goes into which way of categorization. I can't yet cover all cases.

Afterwards we split these up into small worklists of 5-10 articles(not every worklist has equal length). An editor can sign up for these worklists and we can try to recruit taskforce members (and contacts while we're at it) who already have an interest into the topic. Their task is to footnote these articles using at least the listed bibliography on the topic. They are free to improve the articles, but only B-class is required because that's the level we can live with. Anything below that is a pain in the ass.Wandalstouring (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

re: W0.7. Hopefully, we can improve the quality of many of the C-class articles prior to release. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

re: W1.0. I agree that we should start thinking about W1.0 very soon indeed. It is probably sensible to set it up as a task force, so that we have a central point of contact, can take advantage of the article tracking categories, and associated infrastructure. This though should probably wait until after W0.7 is cleared as it will be a distraction if it's running alongside. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue with sacrificing quality of work for popularity is simply that of reputation. On the one hand, sure we can put in all the articles that are heavily read and popular, but this release of 0.7 should showcase our best work. We shouldn't be showcasing the popular work that can be defined as crap (in the two worklists I've done, there were several articles that definitely fit that term). Cam (Chat) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I came to this with the same opinion but the logisitics of it are the issue. W1.0 is using popularity as a way of assessing a subject's importance/relevance to the world at large. We cannot simply replace articles, by the way. We nominate articles for deletion in one process and quite separately nominate others for inclusion. Both processes need rationales written (ie 800 rationales in all), and are in any event subject to W1.0's own release criteria. That said, I don't think we'll have too much trouble weeding out the real crap but I don't accept that a third of the nominations need fall into this category. If we can boil it down to a hundred or so, that's probably manageable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While you are correct, Roger, that a lot of our FA's are on more obscure topics, this presents us with an opportunity to broaden the average knowledge. The average wikipedia-surfer isn't likely to know about, say, the War of the League of Cambrai, or Pontiac's Rebellion. The beauty of this conundrum is that it has the opportunity to give these less-notable topics some much-needed (and much earned) time in the limelight. Before the ACR of Pontiac's Rebellion, for example, I didn't know a thing about it (my history textbook devotes all of half a sentence to the subject). By the time it achieved FA, I knew significantly more about it than most people (and it's now my backup topic for the IB Internal Assessment). While it may not give out the articles that are popular, this release should definitely be aimed at giving limelight to the articles that have really earned it. Regards, Cam (Chat) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we haven't been given an allocation to fill as we wish. we have been given a list of articles which fulfil their criteria. We are also not able, I'm afraid, at this late stage to change the focus of the release. There is nothing of course to prevent us nominating excluded articles, quite independently of our W0.7 initiative. We don't have to do it on a quid pro quo basis and if we think there's really good stuff left out, we should root for it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Not sure if I can post here, but to chime in with Wandalstouring, I'd be happy to help with referencing and citing popular articles needed for the release. I'm an MA student at Warwick University, and for some reason the Library here has a large number of military history books, especially WWI and WWII. So I can do some citing if that would help. Skinny87 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! There'll be plenty of stuff to do :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(od) The checklists are done and awaiting attention if anyone has time to help. They each contain 100 articles. It took me a couple of hours to do one checklist. Bedford is already on the case! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Assume there are any left I will take one over the weekend, at the moment though I splitting my time here on an FAC and offline on a book report due next week. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of membership things

1. We probably need to clean up the active members list in the not too distant future (to remove people not posting in the last three months). Is there a bot that will do this? Or do we need to do it manually? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Pdfpdf isn't a signed-up member of the project but is active here and is currently wondering whether he has a vote. What's the feeling? Should the applicable text on the election page say "Any member of the project and interested parties may support" etc? If so, should it be changed midstream? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 1) as long as it can be done via a bot. As for 2), I agree with your initial post there Roger - given that all it takes to join the project is to list your name on our members list I think that voting should be 'restricted' to members of the project as this isn't really a restriction at all. I'd have no problem with people who've just joined the project voting, and especially not Pdfpdf who has lots of good-quality military related edits to their credit. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1) I would hate doing it manually, although it is possible if several coordinators team up and each one does one section. 2) No, he should join this project to vote. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a script around somewhere to do (1); I'll see if I can dig it out.

As far as voting is concerned, I'd say that they ought to join the project before voting, given that putting their name down doesn't have any negative consequences. Kirill ^(prof) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(More to the point, if editors really don't want to put their name down as members, then we should find out why; that's a bigger issue, in my view, than the technicalities of voting.) Kirill ^(prof) 15:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I know the reason for Pdfpdf but I've asked him the question. Did you see this comment by the way? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

He has given his reasons here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point (though obviously not one considered by the majority of people who sign up). I'm torn between simply letting people like him vote (although perhaps we ought to do that anyways) and adding wording to the membership page stating that signing up does not entail any concrete obligations. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fair point. I was thinking about a parallel where perhaps sandyGeorgia turned up and voted. I don't suppose anyone would turn a hair even though she's not a member of the project. Either solution you propose would be fine with me. That said, following the beans principle, the bit about no concrete obligations would need to be very carefully phrased :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have the bot follow the "No delivery" newsletter preference for the next round of election announcements? That would remove this particular annoyance. Kirill ^(prof) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support that. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fair point by Pdfpdf. It just means that he isn't in control of his wikitime and erects barriers to avoid overcommitment. That's perhaps the real issue we have to offer some advice on. I just had one on the stress hotline with this problem (by the way more coordinators should keep an eye on it). We should also think about it in making drives. We must avoid that people overcommit themselves and suffer in RL because of wiki and afterwards quit wiki because they can't quit RL for wiki. Our shiny medals currently encourage overcommitment with a positive feedback from the community and we offer no advice on how to structure your wikitime. For example how much time should I devote to a drive per day and what are the limits before excessive wikipedia does damage to my RL. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I followed that Hotline discussion and was puzzled by it. The extent of the editor's involvement was tagging about twenty-five articles during the course of one morning. Any adverse consequences of this are wholly unforeseeable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's possibly more about spending time on wikipedia. Will have to check his contributions thouroughly. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(od) Would someone more familiar with Milhist contacts than me, please take a look at this as editor appears to have just appointed themself to a defunct role. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look.Wandalstouring (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Can we make it a clear rule that this page isn't there for spam, especially by non-coordinators. In my opinion Sandpiper is crossing the line above. I don't know what we can do if someone disrupts a project's work, but hopefully there are some measures we don't have to employ. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Here is his last entry. I deleted it because it was totally off topic. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just another bored person which is trying to "revolutionize" our system. Hope it'll not be a second Mrg. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal to see people dropping by with issues every so often; the page is fairly low-key most of the time. Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. We could just start stonewalling whenever one feels is necessary. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to do that before becoming a coordinator, and no one back then seemed to mind all that much. Admittedly, this is meant to facilitate coordinator commincation, but an outside opinion every now and then can be a good thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a public forum, and editors are, in my view, very welcome to post comments directed at the coordinators here. Sandpiper; you may wish to take your concerns to the project's talk page - we're coordinators, not rulers and can't change the project's assessment criteria without the change first being endorsed by members of the project. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind serious comments. I do mind gibberish and I do mind disrespect for the discussed topics. If you want a totally new discussion and it doesn't fit in, make a new chapter, don't hijack existing ones. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, I made a directly relevant comment in the spirit of your own response to my previous serious comment. Despite my further explanation of my comment, both here and at greater length on your own page, you still do not undertand why it is relevant? Sandpiper (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your last comment is OK. The rest has been moved. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ACR Thomas Hines

this seems ripe for closing (inactivity). Could an uninvolved coordinator take a look please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification of absence

FYI, I'm going to be on holiday from 4–26 October and won't be anywhere near a computer for most of that time (I hope!). Sorry for the late notice, but I didn't want to presume that I was going to be re-elected as a coordinator - it looks like I have been fortunate enough to be re-elected though. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a good time! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Have fun. Relax. Enjoy yourself. And when that starts to feel like work, we will be happy to have you back. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good thing to be afk for a while. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. As another, very early, notification I'm planning on changing my user name when I get back - I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable using this one. I'll post further notifications of the change in due course. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)