Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

ACR closures

We seem to have several ripe for closing (inactivity). Could an uninvolved coordinator take a look please? (The current guidelines are in the handbook.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Maxwell needs an uninvolved coordinator to review the supports and close. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll handle it. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmph, Tom got to it just before I did. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I happened to have fit the watchlist button just after the post. Sorry about that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, another one closed (Marion needed so much work, and your oppose was still remaining with little work done on the comments brought forth by HlJ). Cam (Chat) 06:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pity really. That makes 3 x failed GAs and 4 x failed ACRs. Perhaps we ought to take the thing on ourselves and whistle it through? Although the stuff is a bit fiddly, it really doesn't have far to go on ACR and if it leaves there in really good shape, FAC should be a doodle. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Zanzibar War needs to be closed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin should probably be failed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a few minutes. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is "my own", but if someone could take a look at Third Battle of Kharkov. Also, Frederick III, German Emperor. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Incidentally, could closing coordinators update the article milestones when closing please? Or add the {{ArticleHistory}} template if it's not already there? Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind close this review, it is inactive since a week or two and has sufficient supports. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this yesterday. It's only got two supports, I'm afraid, and I didn't want to fail it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your reverted comment, Eurocopter, you've got me really worried now :)) I can only see two supports: yours and Bryce's. Am I missing something or am I becoming terminally loony? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST Members category

I am wondering why there is currently no MILHIST Project members category for this project? I'm not too sure about the technical side of it, but I think it would be useful and help out the project in a minor way instead of having people add their names manually and such. --Banime (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Bedford has also raised this on the project's main talk page: Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Userboxes_and_catagorization -MBK₀₀₄ 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply there. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Topics

I'll break this out since it might get hidden in the above discussion. With the advent of Good Topics, which is to GA what Featured Topic is to FA, we need to decide how we are going to treat these with regards to the project's showcase and the newsletter. I know of at least one project member who is aiming for a Good Topic within the year. It is my opinion that this particular accomplishment would be notable enough to include in the showcase and be announced in the newsletter. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_13#Dealing_with_GTC. We already have a GT, but personally I think the opposite to you and see no need to note it in the showcase/newsletter etc unless we show GA (which would be untenable due to its size and due to the varying quality of some reviewers.) Woody (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for bringing something up that was discussed so recently. Although I do see in that discussion that there was a bit left unresolved since the advent in the GA nomination and review process. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the passed Good Articles are not close to A-class standards, and probably should not have been passed in the first place. Although, then again, we do have a lot of old FAs are in the same condition (but, while new FAs are up to standards, new GAs may not be). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with the GAN review pages is they are only created when the reviewer has reviewed the article: no-one else can review the article while the reviewer is reviewing it, which makes transcluding it on MHR a bit pointless. All it would amount to is oversight; in the majority of cases it is simply a couple of lines saying: reviewed against criteria, looks alright, so I have passed it. Well done John Smith. I would much rather we concentrate our limited reviewer capacity on As/FAs/PRs. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would it be possible to create an "A-class topic" system within our project? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it would be possible, but the benefit seems to outweigh the work towards it since the aim of our A-class system (as I see it) is a bridge to FA, which would mean that an A-class topic would be semi-redundant to Featured Topic. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lovely idea but I tend to agree with MBK. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A-class WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

This is just a preliminary, I guess, unless you guys like it (the A-class symbol is sort of off centered). This would be a WikiProject award for A-class reviewers (since there is an award for Good Article reviews and FAC reviews). We'd award it to the top three or so reviewers per month, or something like that. I'll leave that up to you guys to decide. :P What do you guys think? JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not really seeing the need at the moment. We have the general reviewer awards handed out quarterly (?) by Roger. It would also be hard to quantify the top three reviewers. Is it the reviewer who comments Support, looks good on every single ACR in any given month, or is it the reviewer who dissects a couple of articles and has spent a good amount of time looking into the topic, its background and compared it the the minutiae of the MOS? Woody (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We honestly don't really have any of the latter type of reviewers. But, we could figure out some way of doing it. We do have that general award, but perhaps something that is awarded more selectively will also motivate more (since now reviewers will be motivated to try to work for it). We could set up some type of "scoring" system. I'd be happy to volunteer myself to do it every month, if no other coordinator is interested in spending the time. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many of my ACRs are fairly indepth as I've been trying to lead by example. However, this isn't helped by premature supports, which tend to make my reviews look obsessive and picky. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that it's a good idea to dilute the value of the Oak Leaves version of the award by turning it into something that's automatically (or almost automatically) awarded. We have no shortage of more specific awards for reviewers, in any case. Kirill ^(prof) 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement with Kirill on this. In reply to the general reviewer award, it is awarded for those who have done the most reviews in a given time-period, so it is selective. It is not just a "these seem to have done well recently, if I recall correctly." I don't really think this would motivate reviewers that much, I am not sure what would, though it would be useful to know! ;) It is a nice idea, I just don't think it would work in practice. Woody (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in concordance with both Kirill and Woody on this one. Motivation is rarely done through awards given out for so little (Nicholas II promised medals aplenty, and he still lost World War I;). Cam (Chat) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

←Don't we already have the Content Review Medal for this? I also don't see the need to dilute the significance of the Oak Leaves. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is the oak leaves, then that could easily be fixed. The Content Review Medal is a Wikipedia-wide medal for the review of featured article candidates, featured list candidates and peer reviews. I thought it would be nice to have a project specific medal that was awarded for a monthly duty—so it would motivate people to work for it. I find it troubling that some people are opposing the concept on the basis that they don't think the medal will motivate anybody, although they admit that they have no idea what would. I think something is better than nothing, right? In any case, I could easily remove the oak leaves. It was just a spin off of that award, and in my opinion the medal is not diluting anything—it isn't the WikiChevrons with Oakleaves. But, again, the image can be changed easily. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some further comments; if medals play no significance then what is the point of Wiki barnstars, at all? They were created to motivate users to continue doing what they were doing. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got very mixed feelings about this as I'd hate to see awards going out based on volumn. In a parallel example, I have seen one particular reviewer regularly get GA reviews spectacularly wrong because he doesn't invest the time/have the experience. The problem is that doing an ACR properly does take a lot of time and a lot of experience. Maybe an award aiming at bringing people on is the answer. "Review of the Month"? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's something like what I had in mind. My "three reviews of the month" was simply an example to get discussion going. We could have a coordinator nominate someone, and if we get multiple nominations then we can hold a coordinator-wide vote. I'll work on removing the oak leaves, as well. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See, my mindset on awards is different than the "use as a means to an end", I view it rather as an end to a means. With the exception of assessment drives, I rarely do something simply because awards are involved. My mindset is "well, somebody's gotta do it, I have the time/skills necessary to do it, I might as well do it". If I get an award for it, it's simply an added bonus. awards should not be a means to an end, it should be the other way around. Cam (Chat) 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By that logic there would be no point to the contest department, since you are joining that contest to get the award (otherwise, you wouldn't have to join the contest department—you'd just improve those articles). The fact of the matter is that barnstars are used to motivate users to do something and continue on Wikipedia, or else they wouldn't exist. In any case, I don't think we should be arguing about how awards should be used, but we should see the effects of awards and use that to our advantage—in this case, to motivate people to continue to review A-class articles. The way that this would be given out, in any case, is no different to how the A-class article medal is distributed, or the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. It's the same concept. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm....excellent point. That said, there'd have to be more than A-Class reviews than simply quantity, because I can give two or three brilliant reviews, or I can give nine or ten reviews that are pure crap. Which one was more helpful to developing the project as a whole? Likely the former. At the same time, it then becomes the issue of "who judges quality?" The only difficulty with instituting a monthly review medal is that it creates that very conundrum: Is quantity or quality more important? And if it's the latter, who decides what "quality" is? Cam (Chat) 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Like is proposed below, the deciders would be the coordinators. I.e. a coordinator or two would nominate someone and we'd hold it to a vote. If two coordinators propose two different people, then the vote will decide. We'd be basing it on quality and quantity, while leaning towards quality (three quality reviews will count more than a single review of the same quality). JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As a first step, I'd prefer us to improve the quality of the reviews that we write. This will show people what to do, and will soon become the standard; it will also have an immediate impact on quality. Awards should follow only once we have our house in order. What do you mean, by the way, about removing the oak leaves? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see now :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm much prefer the A-Class reviewer's award to closely reflect the A-Class medal. That way they reinforce each other but perhaps that's just me. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's understood (about the first step), although perhaps such an award would promote competition between reviewers. In the monthly newsletter we could give a refined justification for distributing to award to person X, and so that way underscore what we're looking for in A-class reviews. Or, perhaps we could not award it this month and in the newsletter introduce the medal and make clear what we're looking for. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to rush into introducing a new award. We can ring the changes with the ones we have. This though brings me to another point: the newsletter. In the last term, we talked about improving the newsletter, making it chattier, introducing short articles, graphics etc. This could be implemented now. Once we've improved the newsletter, we work on increasing the circulation so that many more members get it. Then we have a better vehicle for promoting ideas. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, although then perhaps we should begin to discuss how to improve the newsletter. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WT:MHCOORD#Newsletter facelift --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image drive

No one has addressed this yet, and admittedly it may not need addressed, but I wanted to point out that our articles may benifit from a drive to ensure that all information within the articles is accurate and up to date, and conforms with all policies on wikipedia. In addition, it would be useful in checking to ensure that any fair use articles we use have the correct liscence and fair use rationals and such. Any comments? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The big question, I suppose, is why should we want to do this? Images are complicated time-consuming things and fair use rationales etc are not that easy to write. We also have approaching 80,000 articles to comb through. In short, like sleeping dogs, images are probably best left alone though you have my full moral support and my enormous admiration if you'd like to make a start. :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The folks at the wikipedia image group can not seem to decide exactly what they want our images to say, and they keep updating the fair use criteria to point where its almost not worthy the effort to upload anything here, but I thought I would bring this up for two reasons: first the fair use images could use extra eyes to check and ensure that everything on them is accurate, and it would proabably be a good idea to tag such image pages as within in our scope (like making a category for such images so we know when any of these images end up on death row). The other reason would be to facilitate a transfer of all applicable images to the commons repository, which would enhance our ability to improve articles within our scope on other wikis. As a bonus, such a drive would provide some variety for the drive participants, and may help us retain of T&A group people. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. At the last workshop, the T&A people weren't too wild about another drive just yet. The point about drives is that they are a huge drain on resources. They take (loads of) time to run and administer. Many of our regulars participate, distracting them away from work elsewhere (A-Class reviews, for instance). Non-regular participation can be a problem, just doing it wrong through inexperience. Others do it for the awards, without a thought for quality (Redmarkviolinist in T&A08 for instance). My take is that it's too ambitious and of peripheral value --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is a perfect example of why I brough this up: its listed as PD, but has acopyright sign in the bottom left hand corner. By extension therefore it can not be in the PD. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup. There's a complicated procedure for getting permission in these cases but it's probably easier to nominate it for deletion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Make a list of pictures we need for vehicles. I'm planning on going to both the Patton Museum of Armor and the Wright-Pat museum, and can get us pictures that are free-use.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All of them. ;) JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter facelift

This seems rather a wasted opportunity and perhaps we should devote some time to improving its content, say along the lines of the Hurricane Herald. (Military history Monthly, anyone?) Maybe we should select articles from the contest dept as A-Class of the month, B-Class of the month or, probably better from a space POV, use Milhist DYKs. Ideas:

• Rebrand as Military history Monthly? Milhist monthly? Or something more conceptual: Drumbeat, for example?
• Improve graphics: logo?
• Cartoon of the month? (From Commons, or custom-drawn stuff, if we can find anyone interested.)
• Recipe of the month (only joking)
• Add Milhist DYKs?
• Profiles: "Newcomer of the month", "Reviewer of the month", "Editor of the month". (Rotate these, I'm not suggesting one of each every month.)

Probably best to set up a workshop. Here for example. Do we want to put out a call for suitably skilled volunteers or try to do it ourselves? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it! I'd support such an effort, and I would say we try to do it ourselves before we bring in outside help. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to do some type of logo. What are the space restrictions? Have you guys thought about a short military history magazine, showcasing our new FAs? You wouldn't need the entirety of the articles, but something similar to just putting "more" after the end of the abstract. It would add illustrations to the newsletter, as well. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, probably 600 pixels wide, I guess, though I know little about Wikipedia displays globally. Probably best to hold fire on the logo until the name is finally decided. A little graphic, rather like a Victorian woodcut, of cannon and anchors might be nice. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Tom on this one. Milhist Monthly sounds good to me. I like the idea of "newcomer of the month", "reviewer of the month", WPGA has something similar with "GA-Reviewer of the month", so it wouldn't be unprecedented. Cam (Chat) 05:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I like Milhist Monthly too. But shall we hold a name competition? A bit of fun ... with the Bright Ideas barnstar for the best name? Get the troops motivated etc...

<gung ho mode>Hey, here at Milhist we don't follow precedent. We break the mold, sail uncharted waters, and think outside of the box. Fortes fortuna adiuvat!</gung ho mode> :))

I'll set up the workshop tomorrow. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, naming and stuff sounds fine, although I'm thinking that we - The nine lords of MilHist - should do most of the stuff for the first newsletter; in that regard I agree with Tom. Cam (Chat) 06:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The nazgul I like :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started a very basic workshop page. It's just notes and sections at the moment. Feel free to add ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved comments to workshop page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.

All further comment there please. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Core short articles

What can we do about improving basic "nuts and bolts" articles. I'm talking about stuff like rifle, shield, campaign, battle, trench, fortification, attack (warfare), and so on. The articles tend to be a (poor) dictionary definition followed by a jumble of snippets, with hardly any sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Any idea how many of these articles we hae within the project? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds. I nominated three for deletion earlier today (Strategic offensive, Defense (military) and Counterattack) to see what the world at large thought of them. A common view seems to be that if the article's topic is important in principle, irrespective of whether the content is appalling, the article ought to be kept come what may. I'm just trying to find a way of cleaning up as many as possible as painlessly as possible. One route is a proposal Kirill made some months back that related stubs say, on military terminology, be merged into a "Glossary of military terms" article. It makes maintenance easier (few pages to watchlist) and it's easier to reference them. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea of one jumbo page of military terms is a good one, as it eliminates a lot of really crappy and short stub-like articles about "campaign", "battle", "trench" etc that really don't merit their own article. Cam (Chat) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on this one. While few of the articles could be expanded beyond a dicdef and so might best belong on Wiktionary, encyclopedic reference books like the Oxford Companion to Military History have articles of varying lengths on exactly these kind of topics and there's nothing wrong with short articles per-se. Grouping them together into a Glossary of military terms article would be the best solution for the reasons Roger lists above, with an additional benefit being that articles could then be split off if any of the definitions gets long/detailed enough. As most of the small articles are actually OK quality, it would be great if there was a bot we could use to combine them into a single article... Nick Dowling (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Military and Law

A thought occurs: Most nations pass legislation relating to their military forces. Would it therefore be a worthwhile venture to create some sort of jiont task force with the law wikiproject so that we can include such articles within our scope? I am of the opinion it owuld be a good idea, in particular becuase if such articles were within our scope we could use any present external links within the articles as sources for other articles on military equipment and such. It could be a RS gold mine if we do this right. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, considering the fact that many law enforcement institutions are also performing military police duties (especially during wartime) - see Carabinieri, Jandarmeria, etc. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections here then I would like to go ahead and aproach WP:LAW with the suggestion that we create a military law task force jiontly run by us and them. I will make the proposal tommarow after school. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An approach to WP:LAW is probably premature. Perhaps you could clarify a few things first?

First, what is the scope of the proposed joint task? If I understand it correctly, it's to tag articles about primary legislation so that the external links in those articles can be used as reliable sources in Milhist articles about equipment. Is this right? If so, why do we need a task force to handle this?

Second, presumably the task force will also create articles about legislation funding military projects. (I remember this came up in Montana class battleship and I wrote a stub for it for you on the Second Vinson Act. I have actually written a few law stubs – I studied law – but they're not particularly easy to do.) But is there really any grass roots support for this? In the respective members lists, nobody mentions "military" in their interests in WP:LAW and only one editor mentions "law" in ours.

Third, how useful would such external links be? Legislation is a primary source and always needs interpreting: additionally, non-English legislation will need a reliably sourced translation. Surely, normal military sources already cover this better and avoid original research issues?

Fourth, the paramilitary (gendarmerie) organisations that Eurocopter mentions already fall within the scope of national task forces as they are primarily military units – typically part of the Defence rather than the Interior/Homeland ministeries/departments of state – with secondary policing responsibilities.

Fifth, is this good use of project time/resources or will it distract from other existing initiatives? We currently have W0.7, the newsletter redesign, and task force regeneration, stalled for lack of input. None of these will individually take more than 20-30 hours maximum to complete but are stagnating.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As an extra point, are there many articles at present on legislation relating to the military? I can only think of two such articles on Australian military legislation, and doubt that there will ever be many more created as there isn't much interest in this topic, or much to write on most military-related legislation. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Chevrons + oak leaves

Thank you Coordinators for the award - I'm extremely grateful, and genuinely touched. Be assured I'll wear them with pride! EyeSerene^talk 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The only person here who should be thanked is you. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

MilHist TalkPage Template

The issue came up during the FAC for TAM (tank); it's much more aesthetically pleasing to have the portal embedded in the talk page MilHist template. Tom did an outstanding job suggesting the parameters to add in which template an article has been selected in. However, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to link to Portal:War by default (since this seems to be the most general portal under this project's jurisdiction and it links to all the other related portals). This would be done in a similar way to WP:Spain's talk page template, or various other templates. In other words, it makes the link to the portal more obvious (how many casual readers will go to the talk page and click to expand a template they probably don't care about?). Otherwise, I wonder if it would also be a good idea (or, if not "also", then if not the talk page then this) to add a parameter in the weapon's infobox to allow it to link to portals, so that way the random reader won't have to go to the talk page (probably by chance) to reach the portal? It would be in the bottom of the infobox, or something similar. What do you guys think? JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a thought. it does make slightly more sense than simply linking to the portal at the bottom of the page, since that template doesn't have a bunching fix on it (and thus tends to get in the way of the text sometimes, or to bunch up). On the other hand, it would make (in some cases at least) for the infobox being slightly jumbled. In the example of "Military Conflict" infoboxes, you couldn't have an auto-link to more specific portals, and rather just the general one of "war". At the same time, vehicle infoboxes and the like could easily have a link to the Tank Portal (as an example). Cam ^(Chat) 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as placing a portal link into the talk page banner in the position most projects use goes, there's a layout issue; that third column is used on FA- and A-Class articles to display the FA and A-Class symbols, respectively. I suppose it would be possible to place the link under those, but I'm not sure how neat it would look. I can certainly experiment a bit, though.

On a more substantive level, is anyone currently maintaining Portal:War? If we're going to link it so prominently, it's probably worth making sure that it's actually an active portal. Kirill ^(prof) 00:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This particular portal (and a few others) on my watchlist, and I do try and check to ensure that all of the information remains intact and that vandals haven't messed with the page. I would like to try a little harder to maintain the portals we have, but the complicated coding is hard for me to decifer w/o outside help. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Take for example, the infobox at AMX-30E. Would it be possible to add a new "section" (the part in blue) that said "portals" and then you could list any given number of relevant portals (in this case probably War and Tank)? For the battle infoboxes, something similar, but make the specific section extend over two columns (in other words, go from two columns to one) and list it under all the information. I think this would solicit the portals more, and would make portals more relevant. Otherwise, I'm afraid that they actually get very little traffic because nobody knows about them. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it really makes sense to have the portal links be formatted like data fields are; most people don't know what portals are in Wikipedia parlance, so I suspect the average reader will be more confused than anything else.

Maybe we could have a campaignbox-like template that would include portal links (and perhaps cross-project ones, such as commons)? That would give portals more prominent placement without having them directly in the infobox content.

(The other point that isn't being mentioned is that there may well be broader-based objections, such as from the MoS regulars, to having auxiliary links in such a prominent position, regardless of how we frame it; but that's neither here nor there.) Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding adding a portal link to the infobox: the purpose of the link is navigation - which doesn't really fit with the 'at-a-glance summary' purpose of infoboxes. WP:LAYOUT says to put portal links in the See also section; if you dislike the appearance of the portal box there, and feel that the WPMH talk page template is too removed a location (I agree with the latter), then why not incorporate it into the navigational footer? That's what they are designed for :) Maralia (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Attention!

USS New Jersey (BB-62) will be the TFA on October 15. As we all know, the TFA attracts a lot of attention from the vandals, so if anyone here could add the article to tour watchlist or otherwise check to make sure that the article remains vandal free for the 24 hours its on the mainpage we would all be grateful. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. To be honest, the vandalism on Verdeja made me rethink suggesting another article for the main page (to be honest, I didn't even suggest Verdeja). JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be shy about having an article on the mainpage; its a great honor, and can in fact aid an article by allowing interested parties to aid with the articles evolution. Its just the few bad apples that spoil the fun for all, but in this case I got nine big guns and a sizable missile battery to deal with any vandalism :) TomStar81 (Talk) 15:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it to mine too, and wow Tom. Wow. That's all I can say. But aren't those guns deactivated now? ;) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist for over a year. Congrats on the TFA! I've also decided to fix your spelling once again :) -MBK₀₀₄ 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants Rollback to deal with the impending rash of vandals, just give me a poke. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in school, but I'll definitely be on hand earlier in the day to deal with Vandalism and such. I've watchlisted it, and I think that MBK004's rollback might come in handy. Cheers everyone! Cam ^(Chat) 22:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To help support this effort and also because I believe that the current coordinators can be trusted with it, I have (I'm doing it right after this edit) granted the rollback position to those coordinators who do not currently have that permission. If you don't want it, just let me know and I'll remove it. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You were right, that did come in handy. I'm getting really freaking sick of these bloody vandals writing the same #&@&% thing every time. Cam ^(Chat) 05:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Operation: Silent Sentry

Alright then, we commence operations in just under an hour with close air support from ClueBot and VoAbot. Our primary objectives are

• To ensure that New Jersey remains vandal free for the 24 hour period she is up on the main page
• To locate and eliminate any vandalism that occured in any article linked to New Jersey between 00:00 UTC 15 Ocotber and 00:00 UTC 16 October.

Good luck everyone (we are all going to need it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When Verdeja went on the main page, none of the articles that were linked to it by the navigation table under the infobox were vandalized. This might offer insight on what we can expect in regards to vandalism to related articles, linked through the text. I think a lot of vandalism is done because they think that by changing the article it will change the blurb on the main page, without realizing that the blurb comes from an entirely different pages. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Some do it just for their 15 seconds of fame (not that anyone is paying attention or anything). The bots will be of assistance, but people are still needed to check and ensure everything is as it was intended to be. The article and the FAQ page have both been move protected, so that eliminates one avenue of vandalism, and the bots should get the worst of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side, it won't be nearly as bad as when Confederate government of Kentucky was TFA. Yeesh, that was a pain.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And das vandals are in action. So far, we've had 0 page blanks, 1 smear against Barack Obama, 1 act of simple stupidity, 1 accusation of an inanimate object (the New Jersey) having a sex life...some people have far too much free time. Cam ^(Chat) 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a very good laugh at the last one--I was literally just reading the intro, and I saw it suddenly...it made for an interesting addition to the sentence I was reading. (Or was it a separate sentence...? Whatever. =])—Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And now it's degenerated from semi-humorous assumptions about the boat's sex-life into an endless attritional battle of reverting "Hagger?" for the 200th time. Cam ^(Chat) 05:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they keep it up, there might actually be a protection applied. As I've stated, it takes quite a bit to semi the TFA, but it isn't unheard of. I'll do the honors if it is necessary. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to report the IPs to AIV, just drop me a note after they've done it 5 times and I'll use the block hammer I've got. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cam, I've also replied to your question on Tom's talk page. And, another admin has protected the article briefly after I left a note at ANI asking for additional eyes on the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the response (there was just one new user who changed them all, so I was slightly curious). None of them appeared to have done it more than 5 times, so we shouldn't need the hammer. Cam ^(Chat) 05:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Phase 1 is now complete. Well done everyone! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

4Chan

I received this message. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that it's finally been protected. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that might explain why so many of the vandals wrote the same friggin message. Cam ^(Chat) 05:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It will get lifted shortly. TFAs are semied only for extremely short time-periods (less than 3 hours). This doesn't happen that often. The general rule is that when an FA goes on the main-page, it is unprotected except from move protection. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the admin who protected just realized and unprotected. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That might explain why the protect wasn't working ;). Cam ^(Chat) 05:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Preemptively strike then: from now on leave the message {{onlywarning|USS New Jersey (BB-62)}} ~~~~ on the talk pages of the vandals, if they vandalize past that we can block them. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

...also, are there any established policies for dealing with multiple instances of vandalism from what is essentially the same entity? It seems to me that of the whole 4chan board is vandalising the article then we ought to be able to react be grouping them togather and treating this as one editor.

Bad news: both of the AVBs are offline, one for a rewrite and the other for unspecified reasons. That explains why the HAGGAR? edits are not being revert faster, and may explain why the 4chan people are hitting the article so badly. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What next?

While protecting each others articles on the main page is great for esprit de corps, our members might have a hard time seeing it as coordinator core activity. Perhaps similar future initiatives might be raised on the appropriate task forces pages?

In the meantime, several pressing matters could use attention:

1. The W07 assessment is still hardly touched and we are rapidly approaching the deadline for completion. This is not the most exciting job in the world but it would be great to get it cracked. If each coordinator took 100 articles (a couple of hours work) it would be done in no time.

2. The convoy naming dispute is far from resolved. We have an informal role in dispute resolution which might be usefully exercised here. The ideal would be consensus, followed by implementation, to nip it in the bud. The If left, these things have a habit of coming back time and again, with the parties more intransigeant on each return.

3. The WWII Eastern Front renaming debate is resolved but because of the renaming upheavals many of the articles are a mess. A quick flip through of the articles in this category, adding tags and/or copy-editing as appropriate would be appreciated.

4. The newsletter workshop could use some input. Otherwise, shall we throw it open to the members? Some name ideas would be cool.

Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through point 3 with a maintenance tagging run with WP:FRIENDLY later today. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That tagging run is now complete. The major problems were with regards to in-line citations, the length of the lead, and needing more references. I've also gone through the talk pages for TFs and I got about half of them for B-class checklists. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll help with W07 this weekend (I've got all kinds of free time coming up and a three-day weekend to boot!). Cam ^(Chat) 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding, Cam! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will pencil in some from time this weekend to help with W07 (a word of warning though: my home interenet connection has been experiencing some connectivity problems the last few days, so it may be touch and go at times). TomStar81 (Talk) 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! The sooner it's finished the better. (Then we can do fun things :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Task force membership clean up

Just as an exercise, I've done a clean up of the members list of one of "my" TFs (the American Civil War). The list started with 56 people, which shrank to 39 after deleting everyone who hadn't edited for six months or more. Of the 39, seven were members of the task force but not of the project. (I've invited them to join.) Interesting, huh? It will probably be useful to do this for all our TFs so we can make informed decisions about merging TFs. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I went thru the rest of mine. Only four left in Polish and only one left in Taiwan.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done the same for Canadian & Aviation. Cam ^(Chat) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of these are now done. Can we fill in the remaining gaps please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to [User:Bedford|Bedford]] and Cam for their help :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting stuff has come out of this. From the clean data, I made up a list of TF members and ran it against the Project members list. First, most (about 60%) Milhist members aren't in any task forces. If we need to recruit, the project is the place to start. Second, some 235 TF members aren't on the Project members list. I suppose the thing to do is to get a bot to clean up the lists for inactive Milhist and TF members monthly, then compile an up-to-date members list. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

TF membership stats

General topics

Task force	Claimed	Actual
Fortifications	27	23
Intelligence	9	9
Maritime warfare	74	65
Military aviation	78	62
Military biography	49	44
Military historiography	7	6
Military land vehicles	16	16
Military memorials and cemeteries	8	8
Military science	14	13
Military technology and engineering	16	15
National militaries	8	8
War films	6	6
Weaponry	94	69

Periods and conflicts

Task force	Claimed	Actual
Classical warfare	51	31
Medieval warfare	48	30
Early Muslim military history	10	8
Crusades	15	15
Early Modern warfare	14	11
American Revolutionary War	20	16
Napoleonic era	23	17
American Civil War	56	39
World War I	30	25
World War II	109	79

Nations and regions

Task force	Claimed	Actual
African military history	21	19
Australian military history	36	27
Balkan military history	20	19
Baltic states military history	8	7
British military history	61	41
Canadian military history	30	20
Chinese military history	29	15
Dutch military history	10	8
French military history	23	18
German military history	26	18
Indian military history	26	18
Italian military history	11	11
Japanese military history	24	19
Korean military history	18	14
Middle Eastern military history	16	15
New Zealand military history	8	7
Nordic military history	16	14
Ottoman military history	15	11
Polish military history	9	5
Romanian military history	10	9
Russian and Soviet military history	31	22
South American military history	10	7
Southeast Asian military history	6	6
Spanish military history	9	9
Taiwanese military history	4	1
United States military history	93	68

Topic ban discussion

There is a discussion that I have opened on ANI that is peripherially related to this project through the Maritime warfare task force. The discussion is located here: WP:ANI##Topic_or_community_ban_needed. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Without even really realizing it I seem to have let the deadlines for two important projects sneek up on me. As a result, I intend to take a wikibreak after the weekend passes to through my all into school, but to be fair wanted everyone to know this now so no one gets suprised later. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking stock

1. I have reached the conclusion that the best course of action is to abandon the W0.7 drive as there is now little prospect of even the basic checklists being completed. (Any theories on why this should be would be appreciated.) please indicate your endorsement or otherwise of abandoning this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

When is/was the deadline exactly?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 09:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's about now. After the checklists are done, the idea was to start getting replacements in place, recommending deletions, adding links, and trying to get articles beefed up. These all take time and projects were asked to get stuff in place by the end of the month. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2. We currently have exceptionally high numbers of coordinators either hors de combat or committed elsewhere. This is affecting our ability to do anything other than tick over and will certainly impact on our ability to increase TF efficiency, implement quality initiatives, and so forth. One course of action may be to coopt coordinators to plug the gaps. What do we think? I see, for instance, that the_ed17 is standing as a coordinator in WP:NOVELS and is mooting the idea of a joint Milhist/Novels task force. He, for example, seems an ideal candidate for cooption. Thoughts welcome on both the general idea and the specific proposal. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The_ed17 isn't on my excrement list, so I ahve no problem asking him for help. A joint task force isn't a bad idea at all either.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 09:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Woody's remarks below on this. And, while we're on the subject of some thoughts being left unspoken, I have great difficulty seeing this observation as helpful, especially when we're trying to recruit members. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That observation was just being realistic. I can see many people possibly interested in working on war films, but workers on non-English speaking country TFs would be much harder; it would required the TF coordinators to personally go through the page histories of every prominent article under their umbrella, and then personally inviting those that have edited those articles but aren't on the TF. Asking can get members; I've invited a few people in by doing personal appeals; it works.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, personal invite does work best though we don't know how these things will work out until we've tried them. Cemeteries, for instance, has great potential as many people in the UK, for example, spurred by TV programmes, seek out the graves of grandfathers, great-uncles etc, buried in Northern France during WWI. It's too early to say how people will respond: contrary to your prediction, the SE Asia TF has seen a 15-20% surge in membership, ie 6 > 7 :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we have always had holes in the coord team, people will always be away, busy or just fed up of this place. I don't think increasingly co-opting people 20 days after the last election sends the right message. I have no objections to Ed_17, I have seen him working around though I don't actually see the viability of a novels taskforce. Again, I have no objections to Ed, I agree that he should be co-opted if everyone else thinks that we need another coord at this moment in time. The position is not temporary, if he is co-opted we can't yank it away when the people who are supposed to be doing it return. Oh, and I don't think having an excrement list is the best thing for a Co-ord, you should be approachable to all. Woody (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that coopting coordinators is far from ideal but what to do? Our failure to deliver on what is essentially a quality initiative doesn't exactly send the right message either. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If I, a mere 'umble member of the Project might intervene *Tugs forelock*, what a new recruitment drive for the project to get new members, and also asking for assistants for you lot to share some of the workload to let you focus on the more important aspects? Skinny87 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A recruiting drive is an excellent thought, perhaps because it coincides with the way my mind is going :))) I've been mulling this over, particularly with a view to increasing task force involvement. The idea here is that specific interests are much more likely to lure new people in than blunderbuss Milhist one. This would build the project from the ground up, with many semi-autonomous affinity groups. This way, our fifty-odd task forces don't because a burden but a strength. The downside is that these initiatives take committed manpower and that is what we are currently short of.

On the assistant issue, I'd be very reluctant indeed to see another level of bureaucracy introduced though some very informal grouping, perhaps put together like a task force, might be the answer. It's no coincidence that some of our best reviewers have come from the hard core of reliable Milhist drive editors. Looking further down the line, this might also provide very good coordinator-type experience to increase the pool of suitable candidates at the next election. I'd have much rather this term's nazgul were chosen from a pool of thirty candidates and, in a project this size, that's do-able. There is plenty of energy and enthusiasm available: the only question is how to tap into it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming off an all-nighter and will aid the W0.7 drive as previously promised, but i would suggest that we up the number of Coordinators next time we hold a general election. We are free to do so in response to growing pains, and bumping the number of Coordinators from 9 to about 12 may help us deal with the gaps and such. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Tom on the number of coordinators. I almost suggested it right before this past election, but thought against it. We should have upped the number even though we actually gained one with Kirill as emeritus. I have been blindsided by the amount of work I've had with school as of late to get us back on track due to missing a week, and that has affected my ability to help out, which I do apologize for (I know you were counting on my gnoming skills). Since we've identified the need for some extra help, I am onboard with Roger on co-opting with some reluctance since if we were all able to perform our duties we wouldn't have this problem (I realize I am part of the problem). -MBK₀₀₄ 16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We didn't gain one with Kirill though. We should not expect him to deal with routine stuff, especially as he has heavy commitments elsewhere. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize that Kirill is a bad example, but by looking at the numbers a semi-active coordinator is better than one who isn't here at all because of an extended wikibreak. I am not saying that we should expect him to deal with the routine stuff, what I am saying is that since we've identified the need for at least one more coordinator, why shouldn't we pull the trigger on co-option? This will especially become useful when Tom and myself have to take a wikibreak in about two months for our final exams for the semester. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here. We all understand and sympathise with external real life pressures. What is difficult to understand is why people should stand as coordinators, a famously demanding role, and then, once they've got the job, devote small amounts of their on-wiki time to coordinator activities. Let's give a reverse example of this. Woody – for whom I have the highest regard – is busy in real life, so his contributions are limited. But a quick look at those reveals that a very high relative proportion of these are Milhist coordinator related. It's about priorities, I suppose, and from the evidence it's clear that Milhist remains high in his priorities. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What about getting some temps in from the project to get rid of some of workload until 0.7 is over or somesuch? Like how an army during WWI would temporarily promote some working-class oik from the trenches to Lieutenant until the war was over, then cast them back? Perhaps not quite as harshly as that, but on those terms :) Skinny87 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sort of temporary, acting, unpaid, and with no pretensions to being gentlemen? Is so, sounds good to me :) Especially the unpaid bit. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You could act politely in front of them, but then make condescending remarks about them behind their backs about the quality of their upbringing and education. Skinny87 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that closing A-class reviews is the only things coordinators do which other editors can't, I'd suggest that we appeal to our members for extra assistance before co-opting additional coordinators so soon after the election, though I have no general objections to doing this. I'm sure that there are a few editors who would be happy to help out more but don't want the hassle of formally being a coordinator. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

W0.7

Nobody seems to have objected to suspending the W0.7 drive so I'll do this now and I'll get the the follow up stuff for the "done" articles sorted. An honourable mention must go to Cam who has done a significant amount of work on this over the last few days. Thanks, Cam. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No probs, I had the time. Cam ^(Chat) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator numbers

It's unclear where consensus lies on immediately increasing the number of coordinators. My thoughts are to put this off for a while and review the situation in a month. A related outstanding item is what to do about "Contacts", where the discussion was similarly inconclusive. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with leaving the issue of the number of coordinators for now (with the proviso that we shouldn't be shy in asking for help when needed - this is a volunteer job after all) and still think that we should formally bury the concept of 'contacts' as this is outdated. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter name

In the meantime, I'd appreciate some input on the newsletter name discussion as that seems to have stalled. Perhaps it could either be closed, in time for the next issue, or have a rocket put under it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably time to close it - I just voted for something else, but The Bugle would make a fine name. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ammendment to the MILHIST MoS

Fellow coordinators, I am again plagued a problem that seems to be common to military bases pertaining to the united states. Fort Bliss, Texas, reappeared today as a page dedicated to the census designated place, but this puts the article at odds with a few different policies on wikipedia, notable the policy that a page be located under just one name. I can find no information in the Milhist Mos on this issue, so I am here to propose ammending the mos to explicitly state something to the effect that "all information on or pertaining to a base, census or otherwise, is to be located within the base article itself and not split out". I feel this is nessicary so as to preempt any furth attempts to create dual articles on military bases to discuss non military aspects of the bases. I am open to rewording or other opinions on the matter, of course, but I do feel that this should be done to eliminate a percieved loophole in the MoS. TomStar810 (Talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit specific for a MILMOS amendment and perhaps doesn't crop up frequently enough to justify the inclusion. It also probably overlaps with other projects' bailiwicks, and they may not take kindly to us asserting jurisdiction. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If the locality and base are one and the same, then the article on the locality should be changed to a redirect to the base to avoid confusion and per any number of guidelines and policies. I do agree that this is a bit outside the scope of the project though - any editors creating an article on the locality are unlikely to be members of this project or even aware of it. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

ACR & Peer review

I've updated the closing instructions on these to include adding or updating the {{ArticleHistory}} template. This is much easier to maintain bit by bit rather than having to work out the thing retrospectively. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing this lately whenever I'm online at the same time as someone is closing them. I highly suggest asking for help if unsure about something before updating the template since you need the oldid to complete the update and if you don't it makes Sandy very mad at having to clean-up after you. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally know how to work it and updated it as a matter of course, so if anyone needs any help using it, just ask! Regards. Woody (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me, we need to include a bit about amending links (to /archive 1 etc) in the template when new peer reviews/A-class reviews are requested. I'll tweak the instructions. Perhaps someone could give them a quick read through later? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Project specific Triple Crown Award

As most of you probably know by now, Durova (talk · contribs) runs an independent award program in which she awards triple crowns to users who have one DYK, one FA, and one GA under their belts. Some months back, if I recall, Durova posted a message on the project talk page asking if we would be interested in having a project specific version of the triple crown, and I think the idea either fizzled or was shot down, however I feel compelled to bring this up again because I think it may solve a problem we have with regard to GA articles. Durova already has two project specific awards here, and she seems reasonable enough, so I was wondering if there would be any interest in having her create such an award but rather than including GA have our award focus on A-class. In this manner we may be able to encourage poeple to stay away from GA class since the articles have trouble making the jump from GA to A or FA without a lot of help. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While I think this would be a great accomplishment for the project, I'm not so sure that Durova would allow that exception, and some of our editors still use GA along with A and FA (Bellhalla is the obvious user). With the advent of Good Topics, there might be more interest in the project towards GA because it's easier to get there than FA, yet with GT they'd accomplish what FT is to FA writers. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It would not necessarily have to be an exception, more like a augmentation since our project has enough people to accurately run an A-class assessment scheme. I do concede a point that I am not sure if Durova would permit this, but before asking I was curious to here what everyone else had to say about such an idea. Also, I would be open to input on whether to have such an award even if it meant adhereing to the DYK/GA/FA parameters. Awards are awards, after all, and it may help inspire more participation in the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked Durova about this a few months ago but she wasn't keen. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats too bad. Oh well, perhaps its for the best. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

...but it banks the question do we still want to invest in a custom chevron award or not? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Like I am saying below, in my opinion the more custom awards we have and the more variety to them the more it will motivate people to get them. If you're getting the same award over and over again then your motivation to get it will decrease over time. In the end, of course, a new award's "spice" is only temporary, but something is better than nothing. Besides, our WikiProject could be the shining example of Wiki Love. :P JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer is to ask Durova again? Having an externally adjudicated award has great appeal. Her concerns about quality are easily resolved by making it absolutely Milhist specific. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on her talk page asking if she'd mind commenting here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And a gentle reminder just now. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No reply, so it seems like we won't get one. I suggest we mothball this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer reviews

A suggestion to include full VG peer reviews in our review dept listing has been made here. I have no objection in principle to say slotting in a specific Partner peer review section though this will add considerably to the page over all. Maralia made the point here a few weeks back that the review was already difficult to navigate. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments would be appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problems with including them; if navigation is a concern, we can probably create a separate section for them. (Though that might be worth doing anyways, simply to prevent confusion when archiving the reviews.) Kirill ^(prof) 14:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, my thoughts too. Technically, what do we need in this separate section? Just a header section and a list of transclusions? Or do we need a note explaining how and where to close it too? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since they're not technically our reviews, I don't think we need to say anything about closing beyond "remove them once the originating project archives them". (Unless we're going to maintain our own archive?) Kirill ^(prof) 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with seperating the partner PRs into their own section of the review page. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Easiest I suppose would be just transcluding their peer review requests. I'll ask themn what they suggest. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Any news on this? Perhaps we could list them, just like ours get listed over at WP:PR? Woody (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no news, though I left a message. Just list them if you like but it's a lot more work in the long run. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I just noticed the response at WT:VG. I've replied there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Update- The include tags have been added to WP:VG/PR. The whole request section (4 reviews) is included since it's relatively short for the time being. We'll monitor the page to make sure the tags are properly placed and will remove some once it gets too long. We were thinking of keeping it limited to 2-4 reviews depending on the size. Thanks again for the help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

I've just set this up. Feel free to tweak the text here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)