Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Centenary of the start of WWI

I found this event of top-importance for our project and decided to escalate proposals made on the main project talk page to our talk page. Even if there are a bit more than five years until this event, as you may have known it is quite difficult to consistently improve things in short notice. So I propose we consider developing constructive improvement actions as soon as possible. For example, a special separate WWI contest department. Thoughts? --Eurocopter (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything that really needs to be done at this point, other than following along with where the discussion on the main talk page goes. This is far enough in the future that we don't need any urgent action now; letting the WWI editors come up with ideas that can sustain interest for multiple years is a better first step, in my opinion, than having us go in from an infrastructure standpoint. There will be more than enough time for that a bit later, I think. Kirill ^(prof) 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, we will still have to at least keep this issue alive even if it dies out on the standard MilHist talk page - this is something we can't afford to allow to die out. Several of the articles are relatively close to FA-standard and wouldn't take that long to bring up, but if the interest and drive can't be maintained in the long term, it threatens the whole thing. Cam ^(Chat) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to close a PR please

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Szina. It was a tranlsation request that has been actioned. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Closed, though as it's my first someone might want to look it over ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. :-) Kirill 14:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch (tank) ACR

Hi there! Would it be possible to close the ACR for Tetrarch (tank)? It has four supports and one Comment by an editor who I think would support as I've dealt with his comments, and I'd like to take it to FAC in a day or so. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Regards -Eurocopter (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta very much Skinny87 (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

New "attention needed" categories and project status

A couple of items that I've been fiddling with:

I've created Category:Military history articles needing attention to task force coverage, which lists articles that have no available task forces, and Category:Military history articles needing attention to technical criteria, which lists articles that pass B1 and B2 but fail one of B3, B4, or B5. The latter is intended both as an experiment to determine how many such articles we have, and as an easy source for some pure wiki-gnoming work.

Aside from the question of whether these two are useful, would there be any interest in creating categories for any other subsets of B-Class criteria? Or any other conditions which correspond to particular types of work needed?

I've also taken a stab at creating a project status overview at WP:MILHIST#STATUS, listing the current assessment statistics as well as "attention needed" category counts. Is this useful, and, if so, are there other statistics which should be included?

Comments on these would be very appreciated. Kirill 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Very well laid-out. I like having the Assessment statistics right there on the actual main-page. Cam ^(Chat) 05:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:O I like it, especially the "technical criteria" category. Thanks a lot Krill!

On to your questions. Yes, of course they are useful. :) Other B-class criteria cats might not be so helpful though - who really wants to go through a category looking for random articles to add information too?

...though on the other hand, a cat that shows just the article that need grammar help might be nice if there were interest in a copy-editing TF...? Just throwing the idea out there... Hmm. It could probably be a combined TF with the Guild of Copy Editors if we wanted it. But would there be any interest? Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 05:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter Logo Design

It's been nearly two months since we opened the workshop in designing "The Bugle" and revamping the newsletter, and we seem to have some - though not a lot of - non-coordinator response. That said, the issue of graphics/logos is still up in the air. Roger suggested to me that we hold another contest to decide upon the logo. This seems like the most effective method of choosing a new logo. Thoughts anyone? Cam ^(Chat) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've set up a logo competition here and trailed it in the latest Bugle. We shall see what we shall see :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Random thoughts

A couple of random thoughts:

• Since there doesn't seem to be much use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/New articles now, can we mothball that page? Or is there some reason to keep it active?

• Did we ever decide how we were going to integrate the A-Class re-review instructions with the normal review ones?

• Given the tightening of our B-Class standards, would there be any benefit to large-scale submissions of B-Class articles for GA status? The way the nomination process seems to be structured (and perhaps someone with more practical experience with it can comment on how far off the mark I am here), there's no real requirement that the nominator stick around to respond to reviewers (as they would in an ACR or FAC); and, even assuming only a 10–20% pass rate from third-party nominations, we could substantially increase our pool of GAs.

Comments on any of these? :-) Kirill 02:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The New Articles is too broad. The one we use at the ACW TF works well.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

• I look at the new articles list every day and find it useful - is there a better alternative?
• I don't think that we did...
• I don't think that there would be any benefit from large-scale submissions of B-class articles for GA status. Editors who find the GA process useful should be encouraged to do this, but it's a bit redundant given that Milhist peer reviews do more or less the same job better. Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This probably wasn't clear, but I was suggesting pushing GA nominations purely as a way of moving more articles through the assessment process (for the overall benefit of the project as a whole), rather than as an additional way for the authors to get reviews. Many of these articles would, I suspect, pass GA as they stand, but either lack maintainers, or are edited primarily by people without any interest in the GA process. Kirill 03:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this: who is going to review all of those? I mean, there are already 33 there right now...and only 7 are currently being reviewed. =/ Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 06:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That's mostly there because of Ed! and Belhalla ;) - and even then, a lot of the backlog comes from the general lack of activity around the winter solstice break. Cam ^(Chat) 07:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one comment on the GA nominations: so-called 'drive-by' nominations from editors not significantly involved in the article they are nominating are a constant source of concern (given the growing backlog), and many reviewers will remove them from the nominations list on sight. Part of the review process is an assumption that a nominator has a personal interest in the article they've nominated, so will respond to its GA review. EyeSerene^talk 09:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So much for that idea, then. ;-) Kirill 13:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I know that the GAs that EyeSerene has done for me (two of which are now FAs) would have been awful had I not stuck around to converse with the reviewer about improvement and such. Cam ^(Chat) 19:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

are we being spammed, or is it just me?

Alright, so I've been doing some maintenance work around MilHist today (nothing to do...so I might as well), and several of the main pages of the project have had these weird boxes inserted into them (blank dotted-line boxes). When i hit "edit this page" to see what's going on, it pops up with a string of code inserted halfway through about a tag for speedy deletion on an advertisement. I checked on all three other computers that I have, and it popped up on all of them. Has this happened to anyone else? In particular, I'd check the older newsletters and the projects awards. they're the peskiest. Merry Christmas everyone, Cam ^(Chat) 21:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Look at 'showcase' on the main project page (between USS Bridgeport and USS Constitution)! ?!?!? Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

...and in the middle of this page... WTF is going on here? Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone messed with a template, probably {{USS}}. I'll try and fix it. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's what I was told on IRC. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone fixed it. What was it since I think the template I mentioned was already fully protected? -MBK₀₀₄ 22:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jdelanoy, on IRC, fixed it for us. It wasn't any of the templates; I'm still not sure what it was, or how to look out for it. :( JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, apparently they were templates used by the page, but which didn't exist. He created one of them and thus the spam. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

{{WP Ships USS instances}}? Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That it was... lol? Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MBK, can you protect that to stop it frorm being created again? Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jdelanoy took care of it when he deleted it in the first place. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, out) Alright, never mind. J.delanoy got it, along with two other templates: [1]. [2] and [3]. Should we give him some sort of thanks or anything? Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That's a relief. Lets me know that my computer wasn't just being messed with or something. Cam ^(Chat) 22:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Three options, the chevrons from a coordinator or one of these two barnstars: {{The da Vinci Barnstar}} or {{The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar}}. I'm in favor of chevrons. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. The chevrons would be the best...it only affected us, so the project-specific award would proably be the 'most applicable' to this. :) Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Chevrons. Cam ^(Chat) 22:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It did impact more than just us, the template was WP:SHIPS originally, and I know for certain that {{USS}} is used by many other projects on pages including biographical articles, and even spaceflight timelines (there have been some sub-orbital and orbital launches from ships). -MBK₀₀₄ 22:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm supposed to post here or not … ;) … but there are two other similar templates included in Template:Ship. All were intended for tracking the use of "USS" and other prefixes within that template. {{WP Ships HMCS instances}} and {{WP Ships HMNZS instances}} should be protected from creation as well. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a campaign on protecting pages against creation is necessary. We know what to look for if it happens again. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bellhalla, you are more than welcome to post here. I've gone ahead and protected them since they can cause havoc like what we just went through. It is my thinking to be better safe than sorry. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(4 e/c's, @MBK far above)Well...still. I like the Chevrons, I think, if only for the (admittedly stupid) reason that we are the ones awarding it. SHIPS can award him the Da Vinci if they want to award something...plus, will J.delanony ever have a chance to get the Chevrons ever again? I doubt it.! :) I say that we give him something unique (well, that will be unique for him).

Wellllll....we may as well protect those two also, especially becuase they won't be used again. Never mind this. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll just keep finding them as they crop up. Bellhalla seems to be our front-line monitor, since he seems to use those templates more than anyone else in the project. Seeing as the four coordinators here are in agreement, I've gone ahead and awarded the Chevrons to J.delanony. Cam ^(Chat) 22:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call Cam. Ships can award him their own barnstar. Take a look here: User:MBK004/Awards, I've got one. Ed, you've got one coming when the Alaskas are a GT/FT. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ships has their own barnstar? Missed that when I was looking through the project a little bit ago. :/

Eventually, my friend, eventually. :) Oh jeez, I still have to merge the last three! Augh, forgot! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS adopted the {{WikiProject Ships Barnstar}} just over a year ago [4]. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the guts of {{ship}}, I was going to say that {{WP Ships HMAS instances}} and {{WP Ships HMS instances}} are other valid options that should be protected, but I see that J.delanoy salted them already. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It took me a bit to find this page...
I would like to thank you for giving me the WikiChevrons. I did not (and still do not) think that my actions were particularly unusual or special, nor did I expect anything more than the "thank you" that Jon gave me on IRC. Given the success that WP:MILHIST has enjoyed, and the reputation that it has, I am greatly honored to receive that award, especially given the small thing that I did. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Vacation notification

{{vacation3}} -MBK₀₀₄ 00:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Have fun on your vacation! Get back in one piece, ok? ;) Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 00:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And, I'm back. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. hope you enjoyed yourself. Cam ^(Chat) 06:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism and the World War II article

As something to watch, there seems to be an upsurge in nationalistic POV-pushing at the World War II article. In particular, I'm worried that the article may be becoming the latest front of the Eastern European edit wars - the amount of material on Eastern Europe seems to be constantly expanding, and there are regular edit wars over details. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. I've already watchlisted the article to watch for edit-warring. Thanks for letting us know. Cam ^(Chat) 07:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted as well. Thanks Nick! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think that aside from having the most FAs and so forth, this project is also likely to have the most articles that are unreliable because of nationalist editing. And not just where there are fights. In a lot of cases it is some person who owns a whole topic because of nobody else being interested and they can do whatever they want. I suspect one India-Pak MILHIST FA that has now been defeatured was quite POV despite not knowing the content because the author made a whole stack of inflammatory edits to some IND/PAK cricket articles that I edit. The articles related to Bangladesh Liberation War are also strewn with POV and hyperbole, because only one of the nations involved seem to have a presence on WP and the vast majority, if not all books in that country use "Freedom fighter", "martyr" and strongly emotive nationalist POV everywhere etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone also watchlist Sino-Indian War. Much nonsense there also. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted, though I know nothing about the topic. I agree wholeheartedly that we've probably got the biggest problems with nationalism, and I suspect that this is only going to get worse over time. Articles on the Indian sub-continent tend to be particularly low quality, and articles on East Asia are also frequently pretty suspect. I imagine that this is due to the English-speaking and Wikipedia-editing populations of these countries generally being pretty young. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck, even outside of the Indian sub-continent. We've got issues with highly nationalist editors across the whole spectrum, everywhere from Canada to Australia to Uzbekistan to Antarctica. The editing population of Wikipedia is generally quite young (university students, although there are exceptions to that;) Cam ^(Chat) 07:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

for that, especially the Antarctica part. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but it seems less pronounced to my Australian eyes, I guess. Moreover, I think that there's enough editors looking at articles relating to English-speaking countries to keep bias in check, and it tends to stay gone once its removed. That said, I've been putting a lot of effort into Military history of Australia during World War II over the last year and am worried that I'm biased - I've tried to acknowledge that Australia normally fought as a small part of an Allied force and that Australia's role in the war declined fairly sharply from 1944 onwards, but most of my sources are Australian and this gets burried in their introductory material, even though they do acknowledge it. Non-Australia sources are good at pointing this out, but are rare and often go over the top (like the amazingly awful chapter on Australia in Max Hasting's otherwise excellent book Nemesis). Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think age has much to do with it. I'd say Australia is one of the least nationalistic/militarily jingoistic/ethnically-relaxed countries out there, on a par with most western countries. It's mainly the less developed countries where the par is for everyone to hype themselves up especially the textbooks. As far as SE Asia and E Asia, the textbooks are a tale of mutual contempt, and selective memory...invasions by neighbours being illegal activities by bandits/pirates, and even trashtalking other countries, but the reverse being the march of civilisation. I even saw one printing house that is used on several Bangladesh articles, one of its conditions of service is that criticism of Bangladesh's independence and any actions of the independence fighters are not allowed. Aside from that, some usual guys, including one guy is a pundit on a Tamil Tiger mouthpiece, cites the said website everywhere. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

I would like to wish to all my fellow coordinators a very, very happy new year, in which they would accomplish all their plans and wishes. I would also like to announce you that I would not be available at least until the 3rd of January. Happy new year and best wishes! --Eurocopter (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My best wishes to everyone for a happy new year as well, even though I am not technically a coordinator anymore :) — an unlogged in TomStar81 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.221.139 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

May 2009 be better than 2008 for all my fellow coordinators.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 18:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Who's watching the ball drop? :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I most definitely am (although the reception in the ski-chalet off of Kimberley isn't the best in the world)

American Civil War task force

I'd welcome eyes (and comments here please) on this and this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not good at all. Coordinators shouldn't be insulting other contributors, even if they think the insults are deserved; we represent the entire project, and should strive to be beyond reproach in our personal conduct. Kirill 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kirill here, coordinators are meant to be there to help other editors with their issues, not lambast and belittle them publicly. I have watchlisted the page for what it's worth. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Woody (and Kirill). Cam ^(Chat) 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to this except for my complete agreement with Kirill. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately, this is what I was afraid about during and after the election, considering that he has such precedents. Hope he will manage to keep himself cool during the rest of the term and restrain from such innapropiate behaviour. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I resisted the temptation to add something about courtesy to the "What is expected of a Milhist coordinator" section in #Instructions above, because it should go without saying. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Military Historians of the Year?

It might be fun if we invite nominations? The idea is it would be people who have contributed most to the project in 2008. I can think of loads of stalwarts that deserve a gong. With gold, silver and bronze wikis going to the top three. Run it on the main talk page? Any chance of quick reactions please, while this is more or less topical? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea, though you run the risk of it becoming a popularity contest, rather than celebrating those that have given so much time and effort to the project. What did you have in mind, nominations and a quick vote on WT:MILHIST? Woody (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Woody, though should ties be acceptable when votes/contributions are close? (I would really hate to see this good idea morph into a drama fest of "well, I shoulda gotten it!") —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)}

I think, generally, the kind of editors who would get the award would be beyond squabbling. JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You never know...with achievement comes pride. Anyways, this sounds like a good idea to me. The question is, how would we measure contribution? Cam ^(Chat) 03:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we went by A-class articles promoted, Bellhalla would win. I'm not sure about FA's though. Just a thought. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A vote makes more sense; tbf, main contributors are not the only contributor. The promotion of those articles have as much to do with the main authors, as those who copyedited the article. A vote would allow individual users to weigh what they see as most important, and judge based on their own parameters (copyediting, maintenance, mainspace edits, et cetera). JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not start by awarding everyone a golden wiki? Last year our project's highest honor did not originate within the project per say, it came from Simon Fowler, who identified our project as "the best general resource [for military history]". Perhaps for 2008 we can award all participants a golden wiki for thier part in this achievement, placing the award and the reason for its display in the bugle and inviting all members who would like to start of 2009 with a nod towards last years biggest achievement to place the golden wiki and its citation award in the userspace. In this manner, we can all be partakers of the glory and at the same time we can allow the coordinators to firm up the idea for next year. — an unlogged in TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

That....is a brilliant idea. Cam ^(Chat) 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude...way to think outside of the box. That is nothing short of brilliant, as Cam said. Hope life is treating you well, Tom! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't like that idea. While it's certainly something to highlight and be proud of, it's old news now and was one author's opinion - articles within our scope have also been criticised in books published this year (including, embarrassingly for me, an article which I'd promised to re-write on its talk page a year before the book went to press - whoops!). I prefer voting for a top three contributors (with editors being encouraged to think of editors who beaver away tirelessly behind the scenes - I can think of a few) and maybe do a 'year in review' in the next edition of the Bugle. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nick. It was a damn good idea to float though, Tom :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Sorry to butt in here - what milhist articles have been criticized in print? Skinny87 (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The incident I'm thinking of is the criticism the eminent Australian military historian Dr Peter Stanley gave to the awful state of the Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II article in his book Invading Australia: Japan and the Battle for Australia, 1942 - he noted that the article had improved from being close to a hoax which stated that Japan came close to invading Australia to an unreliable and incomplete outline spotted with 'citation needed' tags during the time he was preparing the book, but that the article still illustrated the clash between views on the so-called 'Battle of Australia'. After reading the book I came good on my promise to re-write the article. I think that I also saw criticism of Wikipedia's coverage of the war in Georgia during the year, and this is obviously within our project's scope (albeit almost totally beyond our ability to control given the inevitability of nationalistic edit warring). This isn't to say that the project hasn't had a good year: we clearly have, but rather that there's still lots of work to do and not all the press we get is flattering (though I do agree that Wikipedia is probably now the best military history reference on the internet, though sites like Hyperwar give us a run for our money). Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) As we seem to pretty much have consensus, if no one objects, I'll post the nomination page tomorrow, based on three wikis. I also suggest that we give the WikiProject barnstar to all other nominees (to sweeten the pill and add a bit of new year part atmosphere). I thought run it until next Saturday, with awards next Sunday. Absent objections, I'll add this to the newsletter tomorrow and then release it to Cbrown for circulation. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very good to me Roger. By the way, belated congratulations on your election to the ArbCom! - it's very well deserved and I wish you all the best with it. Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment drives

Heading into the New Year, I'm wondering if we're in need of another assessment drive? If so, what type (BCAD, T&A)? I am somewhat indifferent as to our final decision, and am simply wishing to float the idea around to see what the rest of the team thinks. Cam ^(Chat) 21:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that one is needed, but don't have strong feelings either way. Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised this. I'm still apprehensive about how good a response we'll get and would rather defer this for a few more months. Perhaps we can discuss the idea on the main talk page next month and see what reaction we get? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cam ^(Chat) 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why wait? Let's go ahead and start discussion on it now on the main talk page.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not wait? There's little impetus here for a drive. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to get some early opinions. Maybe someone would have a better idea than what we've done before, and we'll do it before college students start worryign about their courses.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that what people say they'll do in a drive and what they actually do are two very different things. People love the idea of drives - the sense of esprit de corps, the measureable achievement, the barnstars and everything - but find the actual hard grind of it too much. Our first drive was highly succesful, but much of that was down to the activities of a handful of editors (you, Fayssal and TomStar etc) who did about two-thirds of the assessing. These editors have largely moved on and each drive we've run has performed significantly more poorly than its predecessor. Not only do we get fewer editors each time but the average number of articles has dropped each time too. For the last one, it was probably not worth the huge amount of work involved in setting it up (look back through the archives here for backfill and figures). I can see a point in soundings say end February for a possible late summer/autumn drive but the implementation would take us into the next coordinator term. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. On another note, it's not clear what the objective for an assessment drive would be, at this point; the ratings are fairly up to date, and a lot of categories are now automatically generated and updated. I'd suggest focusing "drive"-type efforts on things like merging not-independent-article-worthy stubs (e.g. definitions of military terms) or other content-related goals rather than pure assessment in and of itself. Kirill 06:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, perhaps taking the opportunity to add one or two references as well. The downside is that it would take experienced editors to do it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true to an extent, but I think the pool of editors who would be comfortable with something like merging stubs is fairly large; it's not as though we'd be limited to FA-level writers or something of the sort. Kirill 06:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true as well. I was thinking that how we group them is the judgment call: if that can be pre-decided then we could get almost anyone to do the foot work. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more while trying to read myself to sleep, we could try this experiment. Have a 5-week drive, using the left over lists from T&A 2007, and use the same prize structure. Since we are not going for a marathon, we might get a quick boost and better results. The problem with the 08 Drive was that it was too soon after 07's, and also went months long. I'm thinking 5 weeks will give us most of the same result, without tying up resources. I'd even be willing to oversee it if it would help. I'm thinking from Feb. 1 to March 7; short notice, but do it later and then college student are either on spring break, doing finals, or left for the summer. If nothing else, it's a quick experiment.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Review department

Hi guys. I hope youse don't mind me butting in here, but I just wanted to note that there seems to be three or four articles currently under A-Class review that seem to have garnered enough support to be promoted. Maybe someone could check it out? Also, it appears that a new archive page needs to be created for the peer reviews. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to leave this as well, can someone who hasn't commented (which is most co-ords) please close the reviews, there are a few that can be closed. Thanks, regards, Woody (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically these ACRs look to have consensus: (Woody (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Heinrich Bär
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Neil Hamilton Fairley
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North Yemen Civil War
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Newland

I just closed Heinrich Bär, but couldn't figure out how to update the article's history at Talk:Heinrich Bär. As this is the first time I've closed a review and I'm about to go to bed, I'll leave the others (and hope that I haven't missed anything!)... Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That one looks good, I've fixed article history (the A-Class one was hidden with < !--). Regards, Woody (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Closed North Yemen Civil War. Cam ^(Chat) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would love to close reviews, but I need to be taught how to update an article's history. :( JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the following review; I just need someone to help me update the article history: Port Chicago disaster. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean {{Article history}}? The article doesn't seem to have one of those as yet. EyeSerene^talk 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what he is talking about. I'll handle this one. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought so, but I wasn't sure if the Milhist template caters for AH and that was what was meant. Thanks anyway MBK, I hate doing those! Btw, for anyone who's interested there's a script for building AH's (User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js) that takes a lot of the tedium out of searching through the page history. EyeSerene^talk 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the script; how does it work? JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It should add a link to the toolbox (on the left of the screen) saying "Article history". In the edit view on an article talk page, if you click the link it'll search the talk page and display at the top of the screen any revisions it thinks may be relevant to the AH template (such as a GA review, Peer review etc). It gives the date, the action, and the oldid in brackets; click on 'oldid' to get the version number. You'll still need to insert the {{ArticleHistory}} template and update it manually, but the results from the script can really help to cut out the tedious searching through the talk-page history for significant events and then linking them to the relevant version of the article.

It searches 200 entries per click, and bases its results on the edit summary contents - it's not guaranteed to catch everything, but it helps ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some articles that have passed the review; I would close one that I didn't take part in, but I have work in about seven minutes: :p Battle of Kaiapit & Elmer Gedeon. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My article Operation Winter Storm was taken off the list (presumably because I nominated it for FAC), but the ACR wasn't closed. It's located here. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't taken off the list by anyone Jon, but I took that as a hint! ;-) I have closed it as promoted, there was a clear consensus for it. But yes, normally it would be procedural close if it was at FAC at the same time. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles with no task force

This list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_articles_with_no_associated_task_force) is being hacked away at by someone systematically; it's falling quite a lot. I would argue they deserve a barnstar if you can figure out who they are -maybe after an announcement on the main talk page? Just a thought, and Happy New Year! Buckshot06(prof) 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I must confess; I'm the guilty party. It's one of the benefits of being unemployed for the past three months. I've had significant help from User talk:Brad101. - Canglesea (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar has been rewarded.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Signpost article

The article in the most recent edition of the Wikipedia Signpost on a decline in the number of edits and new articles is well worth a read. The article doesn't offer any explantions for this, but it does seem to highlight the importance of keeping editors motivated. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, most of the articles that need to be written by now have. Also, good writers tend to get hassled one way or another, so they go away or at least not contribute as such. I can easily see this trend continuing, especially considering how bad RfAs are anymore.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'm glad I went for my RfA when I did. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the number of edits/number of active editors on non-articles has declined, at least not as much. The other thing about getting newbies is that they tend to start by whacking in bits and pieces about things that they can remember off the top of their head, and those ones are relatively complete or at least Start+ and require a aperson to sit down with a book, and that isn't how a newbie would seem to get involved. Also with 3 times as many people around, there will be nine times as many 1-1 fights and 27 times as many three-way fights, so that will stall things, all other things being equal, ie streamlining mechanisms would be needed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm a "Class of 2008" admin as is I think EyeSerene. We few, we happy few etc :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too, January 2008 (Tom is as well, July 2008). -MBK₀₀₄ 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Cabal anyone? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we already were one, albeit elected, but still one. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed out on this crazy party (there was a cabal and no one invited me?!). Maybe '09. Cam ^(Chat) 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My thought was to gain membership one would need to succeed in two things, RfA and elected to Coordinator. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've got 1/2 down, I'll just crash. Cam ^(Chat) 06:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not go for ArbCom as well? We always need more MilHist folks there. ;-) Kirill 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We do indeed :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is really true; the obvious topics may be covered, but there remain thousands, if not millions, of unwritten articles on less popular topics (e.g. beetle species, Chinese towns, etc.). My gut feeling is that the decline has a lot to do with the systematic tightening of inclusion standards on fictional topics; a large part of our early popularity was due to the fact that we extensively covered such "non-traditional" topics (although we were derided for it by academics), and a lot of that activity has moved elsewhere.

It's worth noting, incidentally, that our project doesn't seem to be suffering too badly from this apparent decline; we had a record number of FAs this month, for example. Kirill 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the undampened FA/A/GA growth is good, as every other project I write for seem to be tanking, although I think one of the reasons that people won't get bored of editing military history articles is because of the temptation to POV-push or to counteract it, which means it can be a double-edged sword. It promotes article growth and can also lead to POV. I started editing Vietnamese military history articles because a rather sectarian SPA turned up and used a self-proclaimed revisionist historian who was proud that nobody agreed with him and started slanting a pile of military/political articles. I can think of the current Sri Lankan civil war, where editors from the respective ethnic groups, who do 90%+ of their edits on this topic, will spend all their time creating lots of articles on bombings/shootings, but only when the attacks were perpetrated by the other group, to pile up the categories of atrocities by the other group as high as possible. Sort of legalised POV-pushing, as there's no rule saying that people have to write articles depending on their importance and they only have to maintain NPOV on a standalone article (or pretend to). YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also part of the natural life cycle of most websites: traffic booms when they're new, and then dies away as they become established. Somewhat ironically, Wikipedia's improving reputation might be driving away editors as they're reluctant to change established articles now that Wikipedia is becoming part of the 'establishment'. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The current global economic crisis notwithstanding, Asia has been growing rapidly in the last decade, 8%+ per annum on the Indian subcontinent, China and Vietnam and probably some other places, so hopefully we get more coverage on that. The subcontinent not so much as the middle-classes already use English almost as first-choice/professional language, but with China and Vietnam, things can only go up with the presence of WP there. Especially as very little pre-European contact history, among other things have been studied by Western language scholars at all. There are about 4500 Vietnam articles and probably 1000 of them are about the Vietnam War, while many articles on the dominant Vietnamese general of a whole century don't even exist or are only stubs (Even some emperors). So hopefully some more fluent bilinguals come along and start using non-English texts to fill them in, but it will take a decade at least. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the more general slowdown, I think perhaps a few scandals and some kerfuffles resembling third-world style corruption might be deterring the outsiders. As for insiders, the first graph showed a decline in regular mainspace editors, but I doubt it would be the same for people who were regular non-mainspace editors but didn't touch a single article. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's definitely created a backlash as well within the education systems - the area from which Wikipedia tends to attract its new reviewers (this is what happened to me;). The Alberta Education boards banned Wikipedia use in all schools (BC is considering it), and I would not be surprised to encounter similar policies throughout the worldwide education systems. Whether that's justified or not is a matter of debate (although I would argue that wiki is the best free internet resource out there, and I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to find one!), but it definitely has slowed down recruitment. Cam ^(Chat) 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New taskforce?

O mighty Coordinators, I beseech thee to hear this request by a humble MILHIST editor...No! Not the pit, I have done nothing wrong, I swear!

...But I digress. For the past few months I've been working on my Airborne Warfare Project, identifying airborne warfare-related articles and improving them. With my third FA, Tetrarch (tank) just having been passed and it being an airborne-related article, it got me thinking. My project has barely scraped the surface of the number of articles that could come under the umbrella of the subject - would it be possible to create an airborne warfare taskforce? It might even help stimulate editor growth and interest, and with a band of similarly-minded editors we might even be able to sort out Operation Market Garden and Operation Husky and actually make them into decent articles - not to mention numerous other articles that need work. Would it be feasible? Skinny87 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

O mighty coordinators, I beseech thee not to garrot me for intruding upon thy mighty talkpage... no, not the extraordinary rendition to Egypt, please not that.. Skinny, looking at your page, you've got two options. Rename it US/UK Airborne Warfare Project - the less interesting alternative - or bring in helpful, kind understanding well adjusted people like the 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment and the 11th Parachute Division among others. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 12:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll add them in now - if the list seems UK/US-centric that's only because I've been adding in random articles whenever I find them; there's no category for airborne warfare/operations that covers even a fraction of the articles a taskforce could cover. Does a taskforce seem feasible? Skinny87 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to limit the freedom of comment of the coordinators, but, honestly, no. Not with three people. Task forces like that, or even stronger - like the NZ taskforce - haven't really gotten off the ground; look back through the archives about the putative Pakistan task force, for example. A possible compromise might be appropriating a corner in an existing much inactive task force; you could set up a corner inside the Military Science task force, possibly. However, don't take anything I say as usable until the coordinators have OK'd it. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 12:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, well I'd been hoping that a taskforce might attract more people - like how the land vehicles one got set up. Oh well, I'll just wait and see what happens. Thanks anyway. Skinny87 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about the number of editors—we can always recruit more—but do we have enough (potential) articles to sustain a long-term task force? Looking at the list you have so far, there's under a hundred topics; that's a bit on the low side. If this number is fairly accurate, and you're willing to live with just a central area to organize work rather than the full infrastructure of a task force, you might want to consider using an ad-hoc arrangement within an existing task force, such as military science or military aviation (cf. the centenary drive for WWI).

Having said that, I'd have no objections to proposing the task force on WT:MILHIST and creating it if there's some interested editors, if that's what you'd prefer. Kirill 16:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't this be part of the Aviation TF, or am I missing something here?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to answer queries on the number of articles - what I've listed on my subpage is only a fraction of what could be covered by an airborne warfare taskforce - it's missing airborne formations from all over the world, who knows how many notable airborne officers/enlisted men, equipment and battles, not just for WWII but the Korean War, the Far East, a number of other areas. It's just that I can't find any decent categories that list airborne-related articles, and it's a long old slog finding them and inputting them manually with a rating :) I'm sure that if there were some way of tagging airborne-related articles, I'd find hundreds more articles that would come under the taskforce's jurisdiction. Skinny87 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added two more categories with about 60 articles in them! I'm trying to find more, but the category system for wiki is insane, they're either empty or non-existent, bah. Skinny87 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Perhaps I could just ask on the MILHIST talkpage and see if anyone's interested in forming the taskforce, as Kiril suggested? Skinny87 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the best option; normally, task forces are created after a minimum of five (well, I'm not sure if it's five, but I think it is) express their interests in forming it. That way we're assured that the task force won't be immediately inactive. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review backlog

Hello there fellow Coords, we currently have a backlog of 13 articles at A-Class review. 5 of these have no comments at all. Can anyone with any free time please review some of the articles and close any that have reached a consensus. There are several that only need revisits, or one more comment before they meet our minimum threshold. Thanks, regards. Woody (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through Dreadnought again, which will take me awhile. After that, if I still have time, I will comment on more...I haven't reviewed any A-class candidates for a long time, and I kinda feel like it right now...something to take my mind off of my RfA. ;) Worse comes to worse, my friends will return and I will have to comment on some later, but I will get to it eventually. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reviews are much appreciated, especially the truly-detailed ones. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Updating the Handbook

I've updated #Open tasks the task force checklist we discussed in November and I've updated the #Instructions section with "What is expected of a Milhist coordinator?". It doesn't sit well under intructions so better location ideas would be appreciated. Feel free to copy-edit, tweak etc --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I BOLDly added....a space. :) Cheers and g'nite for me, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a play with the handbook layout - please revert as necessary! EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! It's precisely the solution I would have come up with, had I thought of it :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. I've done a bit of copyediting as well. Kirill 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Little Bighorn

As something to watch, there's currently an dispute going on over the Battle of the Little Bighorn article involving 58.165.128.120 (talk · contribs) who I suspect may be Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) based on their editing pattern and style (I am not aware of any checkuser investigation which has confirmed this, however, and I may be wrong). I know nothing about this battle and have no comment on the dispute at all (including whether this IP editor is being at all disruptive), but it may be worth watching as if it is Mrg3105 his right to vanish does not nullify his editing restrictions which do not expire until six months after 23 July 2008 (eg, 23 January 2009). Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice this and this? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The first one is what caught my attention and the second one is fairly conclusive. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. When the dust settles, I'll try to get it to GA again. Should be fairly easy.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, this is definitely reminiscent of the older conflicts over soviet naming conventions (same accusations, same style). Cam ^(Chat) 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) I've dropped a note on the talk page. EyeSerene^talk 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

There's a thread here which may have CU implications and it would better that someone uninvolved consider them. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You have CU now right? But I assume you wanted me to do it. Seems like we are three days late on the expiry of the CU data. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This user IS, without a doubt, user:Mrg3105 because of a comment he made at Talk:List of fleets and major commands of the Royal Navy and I am keeping an sharp and beedy eye on him. I'll double-check the restriction. Because of my personal involvement with Mrg however I'd prefer not to be the only one involved if an editing restriction is imposed. Buckshot06(prof) 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For information, the terms of the personal restriction are here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're certain this amounts to socking, I'd be fine with a block per WP:DUCK. I've messaged them about the tone of their comments, and they seem to have moderated them slightly, but I'm not sure they're bringing anything helpful to the content debate at Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn. EyeSerene^talk 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And then again I suppose the question is whether the sock is evading the various editing restrictions placed on mrg3105. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite - the issues as I see it are: (1) Is this an alternative account of Mrg3105?, (2) If so, is it an attempt to evade their editing restrictions?, and (3) Is this evasion causing disruption? At the moment I think the answers are (1) Almost certainly, (2) Perhaps, and (3) A little. Maybe another day or so will suffice to see how they respond to the latest posts on the LBH talkpage; I think further evidence of WP:IDHT would be enough for me. EyeSerene^talk 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review Question

I've come across a non-MILHIST PR of a MILHIST article. The problem is that I am somewhat unsure of how to list this article like we would for our PRs. B-52 Stratofortress is being peer-reviewed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/B-52 Stratofortress/archive2, and has had a prior MILHIST PR, here. Could someone handle this? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I moved the old Milhist PR to archive1, then redirected it to the current peer review over at PR. I then transcluded the usual WP/MILHIST/PR/B-52 to the WP:MHR page. I also updated the article history as there have been a few PRs over time. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)