Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

request for assistance

Can an uninvolved coordinator (ie anyone but me and Nick) take a look at the disputes occurring at Talk:World War I. Nick-D & I went in initially to keep the disputes under control, but things have gotten so convoluted that i'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore. Cam ^(Chat) 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a mess; I gave a quick take, with more to come. Been a while since I've dealt with WWI.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess, and yeah, there's likely to be even more of it. I've butted out to avoid becoming over-embroiled in the disputes, which is part of the reason i'm asking for someone else to check in. Cam ^(Chat) 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has been a sorry mess for some time. Part of this is probably down to the confluence of the pivotal role played by the Balkans/Eastern Europe in WWI and the recent upsurge in Balkan/Eastern European nationalism on-wiki leading to all sorts of undue weight implications. I'm not sure if there's a quick fix for any of this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can no longer follow the arguments either - it seems to boil down to POV-pushing. There was some discussion on the WW1 talk page recently about bringing that article up to the standard of the WW2 one, but I can't see that happening without an editor willing to take the lead and drive this like Oberiko did for the WW2 article (though his reward for that was to be hounded by other editors). Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shame, isn't it? As an aside, I'd love to get actively involved in the Alexander the Great article because he's long been an interest of mine but I quail at the vested interests there. The only way forward in these situations is to get together a posse of determined editors and hit the article hard, but that's not really within the rules :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On any other article, I'd gladly do it, but 1) I don't have that kind of time (although with a 2-week exam break coming up, you never know..), and I don't think anyone wants to go through the witchhunt that Oberiko had to deal with. Cam ^(Chat) 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto - I don't know enough about WW1 and don't need the grief, though changing the material on the campaigns would be easier than the causes section. All the work did pay off in the WW2 article though - User:Paul Siebert, a few other editors and I have been fighting a successful rear-guard action to keep it up to standard now that it's concise, accurate and fairly well referenced and so far we've been able to hold off the edit warriors. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't almost all of out most important articles snafus? American Revolutionary War and American Civil War are filled with trouble too. If WWI is worse it's because you have far more world views. If anyone can read German, look at the German WWI article and see if we can learn anything from it? Then again, I noticed that the Vietnamese WWI article, supposedly a FA of theirs, doesn't even have any inline cites.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've got a general consensus for a possible new layout here, it's just a matter of implementing it (which is always harder than discussing it). Cam ^(Chat) 07:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can block anyone who is being rowdy... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked that talk-only soapbox troll. I think he's been pulling all your legs. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, he's clearly a troll and probably a sock puppet. There was no reason to not assume good faith initially though. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeping track of closed A-reviews

Per comments here, what do you guys think about setting about a table on this page (or any page) where coordinators who close reviews can keep a tally by nominator username of A-class articles passed. The tally would be deleted at three and started over, just for the purpose of knowing when we have to give out the medal. Otherwise, it seems as if we're missing a lot of editors. If they are coming to us and asking if they deserve it, they are being motivated to pass A-class articles by the medal... so it's working. In my opinion, we should make sure it works on our end, as well. :) Thanks, JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea; we could do it here or directly on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards. Kirill 06:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Kirill's proposed venue seems like a good one. Editors should also encouraged to self-nom: perhaps that would cut down the admin :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We should add something like that to the instructions (editors are encouraged to self-nom). JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It sort of does already ("Editors may nominate themselves or any other qualifying editor") but I'll make it more explicit. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Now re-written slightly, to make it much clearer that any editor can nominate or self-nominate. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I created this table in my sandbox; it's not really a table, as much as it is a list ( :P ), but it works in the meantime. I don't know who has passed ACRs in the past that might need theirs added, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I added Tom, but I'm sure there are many more who are close. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How far back does this go? I might be close with Alaska-class cruiser (November 9), Lexington-class battlecruiser (December 24) and ...maybe... USS Nevada (BB-36) (October 4). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? One minute's difference?!? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was working on it before you even brought it up. FYI, 1 August is the first day they are eligible. It seems as though we've missed quite a few judging by how many open noms we now have. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Something like this might do it, with the name struck thru as the medals are awarded.

Editor	1st ACR	2nd ACR	3rd ACR
Bellhalla	U-3 class submarine
JonCatalan	Operation Winter Storm	Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the fastest way to bit this together is just to start at Aug 1 and work forward listing everything. Then delete the articles that have been put towards awards. It's a cut, paste and edit exercise in Word basically. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Or just remove that line of the table when it is awarded. Remember, I've been adding those who lack one ACR to JonCatalan's sandbox: User:Catalan/Sandbox, plus Bellhalla just got another ACR up and running, if we're going to implement that upgraded medals for certain milestones, he is 66% (if the two pass) done with his fifth ACM. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how you've done it :) But if we put everyone in, perhaps it's more of an incentive to do ACRs 2 and 3? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the motivation factor. As for how I've done it, I'm just remembering all the maritime history articles that have gone through the system since August. I'm sure I'm missing quite a few that don't fall into that category so your suggestion to go through the archive should be done as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing this discussion prompted me to look at my A-Class articles: It seems that SS Minnesotan and SS Washingtonian may have been overlooked in the tallies. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You forgot another one: SS Timothy Bloodworth, I'll set up the nom for your 5th ACM shortly. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Geez, Bellhalla, you're keeping us in business here! Cam ^(Chat) 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've went through the archives since August 2008 and added all eligible articles and editors to the sandbox here: User:Catalan/Sandbox. Thankfully, we haven't missed anymore awards, but we did miss quite a few early articles, Abraham, B.S. and Bellhalla should of had their most recent awards even earlier, but that has been rectified for Bellhalla with the current nom. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Impressively thorough, MBK. Nice work ;) EyeSerene^talk 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I also awarded three ACMs yesterday and am about to award another, If you'd like to vote, please do (I notice you haven't). -MBK₀₀₄ 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MBK for doing all the work. ;) We can now go on and create a table on this page, unless you guys just want to use my sandbox. It's not as if I use it. :P JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ack, thanks for the reminder. I forgot to watchlist that page (still finding my way around, I'm afraid). Voted ;) EyeSerene^talk 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, there is also a discussion on the new ACM with oak leaves here. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I head out to my last day (at least for this week) of hell (Biology, Calculus for Business Application II & English 116; the latter is not so bad), here are some reviews that can be closed (I'm sorry I'm not doing this myself, but my morning is just full of class and I'm horrible at updating the article history): Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of tanks in the Spanish Civil War... and there are quite a few articles that are just there. I will see about reviewing/supporting them when I get back from class. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Doing..., I'm going to close this ACR (my first close!) and update the Article History, plus add a nom for yet another ACM. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, plus Jon, you couldn't close your own review even if you wanted to. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved coordinator take a look at the ACR for Operation Totalize to see whether consensus has been established? Cam ^(Chat) 07:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Same with Japanese battleship Yamato. Cam ^(Chat) 06:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Cam, I'm on now, but I have made it a point to not close any ACRs on Maritime-warfare articles since I've probably edited the majority of them that we've seen or will see. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Impending Problem

Gentlemen, we have an impending problem: According to the news services, President Obama is preparing to issue an executive order that would start the process of shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. When that happens, I expect a lot of people will be visiting wikipedia, some of whom will undoubtedly commandeer our article on the subject for use as a soapbox. Since this is already a controversial topic I thought I would bring this to your attention now so you all have some lead time to decide what to do if and when that happens. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

While I am not in the least bit disheartened by the closing of the camp, I do share your concern about the article here. Remember the Sarah Palin Wheel War that went to ArbCom? We don't want that happening again. My first action would be to watchlist it, and be EXTREMELY mindful of potential POV pushing (for both sides). Cam ^(Chat) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Thanks for thinking of that Tom...I watched CNN today, and I am ashamed to say that I did not think of this possible ramification... :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Away

My laptop is in the shop for what could probably be best described as an autopsy. (I suppose I should be grateful that it didn't try to catch fire like its predecessor; instead, it just bided its time until the service plan expired, then quietly gave up the ghost a mere ten days later.) I have limited access to another computer, so I'll still be around a bit while I get this sorted, but I won't be able to respond to anything quickly. This is my third laptop failure in five years; perhaps it's time to go back to a desktop :/ Maralia (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's hoping your laptop problems go away.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, catastrophic laptop meltdown is a bitch of a problem. Cam ^(Chat) 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I had to deal with something similar not too long ago (as Cam probably remembers - never did retrieve those maps!), and I think they ought to rename the service plan expiry date for what it really is; the self-destruct date. However, my sympathies too, and I'll watchlist your talk-page for the duration if that helps. EyeSerene^talk 08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do remember that. Those maps took forever to remake, if I remember correctly. You are correct about the self-destruct date. Everything seems to fail about 2-7 days after the warranty expires. Cam ^(Chat) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell me that - my current laptop warranty is nearing its end and all this talk about laptops failing shortly after the expiration date has now officially registered as a concern on my attention radar. I really do not want my laptop to crash, I'm strapped for cash and can not afford a new one if it my current one goes down. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, it's often one of the easily- and cheaply-replaceable components that dies (in the ones I've fixed it's normally the hard drive). Just in case, make sure you have a set of recovery disks and everything important is backed up ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the replies (and welcome back, Tom!). It took me three days to clear viruses and malware off the secondary computer that family members use—ugh! My laptop is officially dead; hoping I'll be able to replace it soon. Maralia (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Idea

Would it be possible for us to add defense acts passed by governments, declassified documents, and other military history related paper work of this nature to wikisource? It occurred to me that if we could do that it would allow people to look at the actual reports generated by government bodies concerning military affairs rather than have to go off the wiki to look at the paperwork. I know some articles on poems and certain documents like the US declaration of independence and constitution are on wikisource, but would it be viable for us to attempt to expand there to improve coverage here? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. I'm not sure what the copyright status would be though - I guess it would vary depending on the date and country of origin. Maybe best to check over there first? EyeSerene^talk 20:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for other nations, but anything done in the US by the OS gov is PD unless otherwise noted. Beyond that though there have to be thousands of documents from various nations on things like...the 100 years war, or the Meiji restoration, or the battles involving more acient nations like Rome, Greece, Sparta, Persia, and so forth. Those have to be in the public domain, and with the advent of the globalized account system its now possible to orchestrate a milhist effort to reach and publish those documents on wikisource without having to go through a lot of red tape on the wiki.

Good point - I was fixated on stuff like the UK's 'thirty-year rule' for releasing classified documents, and how that relates to copyright. It would be a fantastic resource to have it all on tap though. Obviously we must rely on secondary rather than primary sources, but I'm sure it would still be incredibly useful. EyeSerene^talk 21:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This differs from country to country, and in most countries it's not doable. For instance, I'm pretty sure that Australian legislation is copyright of the Commonwealth of Australia, and reports and the like produced by the Australian Defence Force and Department of Defence are definetly copyright. Given that this kind of material is now routinely placed online on fairly stable websites, there's no real need to move it to Wikisource. Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea itself is good, however, I see two problems. First, the diplomatic documents are primary sources, so by using them extensively we can easily step into the realm of OR. The second problem is that a considerable part of those documents are non-English documents. Anyway, it would be extremely interesting to translate them and to add to wikisource, and I don't think historical documents are a subject of copyright.
I just found that a bunch of declassified Soviet archival documents is available online (the online version of the book issued by the Ministry of Foreign Arrair of the Soviet Union just before her dissolution). These documents cover one year period from Munich crisis to German invasion of Poland and contain all Soviet diplomatic correspondence. As far as I understand, these documents are being extensively used by western scholars during last decades. I have to consult with someone who know present Russian copyright law, but to my understanding historical documents are in PD in Russia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help...

...if this continues... =/ I am in the right here, right? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not good. First, I've watchlisted MILHIST-OUTREACH to watch for further incidents. If it gets overly-carried away, I'll raise it at ANI (and issue some warnings). If it gets excessive, MBK, Roger, Kirill, Nick, Tom, EyeSerene, or myself can apply the hammer. Cam ^(Chat) 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If I have to throw down the hammer its going to look like this:

You have been notified :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to be on the receiving end of that. Cam ^(Chat) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a good situation; both editors are enthusiastic and produce very high quality articles, but they seem to rub up against each other the wrong way. I've noticed spats between them, but didn't realise that things were this bad. I'll keep an eye on the discussion - I've worked on articles with both editors in the past (and enjoyed the experience), but I don't think to anywhere near the extent where I'd be perceived as non-neutral. The best solution would probably be an agreement to avoid each other, and seek external views over any disagreements as soon as they come up. There are a large number of enthusiastic Australian military history editors at present who can provide external opinions on any issues which are under debate. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way Ed, without wanting to engage in WP:AN-style bitching about the decisions made by other editors when they're working under pressure to try and resolve difficult situations, I don't think that you should have reverted Pdfpdf's posts: he was entitled to post a robust response given the very strong language posted by Abraham, and this does seem to me to be part of the 'Editor assistance' and 'Ask for a third opinion' parts of the dispute resolution process. That said, it's been done (in good faith and with very good intentions), and the discussion appears to have moved onto other issues. I'm not sure whether ANI is an appropriate venue for this; perhaps a RfC? Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(@ Tom) - Please be careful. You may hurt someone... ;)

(@ Nick) - I feel that the hotline is a place for relieving stress; having the editor that causes you stress show up there and try to rebutt everything is, IMO, completely counter to the purpose of the hotline, no matter what is put there. If Abe wants/wanted dispute resolution, he could have gone to DR or opened an RfC, but all he wanted to do was let off some steam—hence the stong language. However, Pdfpdf there responding to him would just built up more steam, which is why I reverted him. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point but pdfpdf may also feel stressed (in fact he says just this). What we want here is less drama not more of it, especially as many establised editors regard a revert as a dismissive slap in the face. The best way forward is probably for Pdfpdf and Bryce to try to steer clear of each other for a bit and everyone else to step carefully in order to calm the situation down. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I was stuck in a lose-lose situation? (Revert = bad, leave it there = bad)? :\

See my talk page, Roger...I'm trying to help. Should I just sit down and shut up instead? =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We all feel like that sometimes :) And yes, your talk page efforts are an excellent step in the right direction. Well done! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) I wasn't exactly sure so...who better to ask then a crazy member of ArbCom? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, making decisions in which all the options will involve greatly annoying other editors is the most difficult part of being an admin, and wading into a dispute is never much fun. Your talk page discussion is excellent and exactly why I voted to support your RfA. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Working on high-profile articles tends to have the same result as starring in the soap-opera known as ANI. Cam ^(Chat) 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

...which is one of the many reasons that I like my WWI-era ship articles... ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be that relaxed - horrible, strange disputes can start on even the most placid articles. For instance, several editors and I went through a truly awful experience at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer about six months ago (much of the weirdness, but not the bad-faith attempts at mediation or the nonsense request for arbitration, are preserved at the article's talk page). That experience was driven by a single editor over a single sentence and left me convinced that Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes do almost nothing to protect well-meaning editors from cranks. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes... I remember that rather well for some reason ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(out) Jesus H. Christ... all of that created by one guy? :S Holy cow...those both violate WP:TLDR baaaadly. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class re-review instructions

Weren't we going to integrate the contents of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class reappraisal review instructions into Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class review instructions via some form of collapsing box? It seems to have fallen through the cracks. ;-) Kirill 05:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we were going to, don't know how that went by us. Cam ^(Chat) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we were. While I was looking at it, it occurred to me that if we de-duplicated the text (the bits about moving pages, archiving and so forth) it would probably sit okay without being collapsed. In the event, I forgot to de-duplicate the text. However, I've now posted the collapsed version and will look at de-duplicating it (and seeing where that leaves us), um, real soon now. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ACR question

I'd like to know if the closing coordinator of this A-class review had any special reasons for disobeying the ACR guidelines and closing the review with only two supports. The respective ACR had faced many issues and even some opposes, so I doubt it was the case to close it prematurely. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I felt it had consensus from the reviewers, there were no explicit opposes and it had an easy majority of support. It is precisely because it had such a detailed review that I felt consensus had been met. Woody (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Our current ACR policy says that consensus for promotion requires support from three uninvolved editors. We normally close ACRs according to this policy, not according to personal "feelings" that consensus had been reached. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, consensus is always a feeling, but that aside; the removal of opposes, mainly from Catalan and the fact that three other people had commented on it, but not opposed, led me to believe that consensus had been reached. I read the article and couldn't find any issues that hadn't been addressed so I closed it as promoted. If you like Eurocopter, you can open it again, I will leave my explicit support and then you can close it again. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: the criteria state "promote normally requires" (emphasis mine), it also states that they are open for a calendar month only, this was open for 28 days and had received comments from 5 individual editors, with no opposes. Woody (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not necessarry to re-open it. However, according to our policy that review did not reach yet consensus for promotion, that's why I wanted to warn you. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but there is no way of knowing the deliberation and thought process that had gone into closing that review. I had weighed up the options, assessed it against the criteria and judged the consensus accordingly. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, we've had ACRs failed because they've only had two supports (the AMX-30E ACR failed because of this, and about two weeks later it passed a FAC). I don't see any reason to re-open it; but, perhaps we should have a discussion on these types of reviews. It's true that the ACRs I'm referring to normally had two supports and no other comments, while this had plenty of comments and two supports. But, to be on the safe side, we should develop some type of policy. In the case of Dreadnought, there's no point in re-opening it; if it was passed, it was passed. If necessary, it can be reviewed for delistment at some point in the future (if editors feel it doesn't mean qualifications). JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, what is the policy for a review with three supports, but one oppose? The oppose has been responded to, but the editor hasn't continued to argue his case or hasn't struck out the oppose (I have left a message on the editor's talk page, and he even supported another ACR after that). JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That is open to the Co-ord discretion, we already have the instruction: If you feel that any criteria-based objections have been entirely resolved. then you can promote it.

In terms of 2 supports and lots of comments I don't think there is any need for a policy, it should be up to coordinator discretion. All articles and reviews are entirely different, they will all vary in the amount of consensus there is and we cannot codify "discretion."

I see the Dreadnought review as something of a special case: it was 60kb long, it had a very detailed review and it had been open for a month. I saw no reason not to promote it. Woody (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misinform. The guideline is as follows: Consensus to promote normally requires (a) that at least three uninvolved editors consider the article has met all five military history A-Class criteria and (b) that any criteria-based objections have been entirely resolved. So the coordinator is supposed to close the review when it has 3 supports and all criteria based objections are resolved. This guideline was added in order to be respected and it doesn't say 2 supports and lots of comments, it clearly says 3 supports. If each of us would close reviews in accordance with our preferences and what we consider special cases, will such guidelines be of any use in the future? --Eurocopter (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not misinforming, nor am I misquoting. If you read what Catalan writes the Wehrmacht review has three supports and one oppose, if the oppose has been dealt with but not responded to, you can still promote. My response was not regarding the Dreadnought review which is a different matter and falls under "normally requires" which is not a definitive "must in all cases have three supports regardless of other considerations and we must rigidly follow this because this iz ze rules." WP:IAR was created for a reason. Can we let this lie yet, or do you want to open up a Re-review? Woody (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the right interpretation. What we want is a situation where we normally look for explicit supports but exceptionally promote if only two are explicit. In other words, we wouldn't want the three-support rule to degrade to a two-support standard practice. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then let's change the guideline in a way it would cover such situations. The current guideline says consensus is reached when the review has three supports, so we could change it somehow to leave at coordinator's discretion if consensus to promote is reached or not (in review cases without 3 supports). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to clarify them further? The instructions are already quite nuanced: Reviews remain open for a maximum of one calendar month or until such earlier time as a project coordinator determines that either (a) clear consensus to promote or to fail exists or (b) no consensus will be reached (in which case the status quo prevails). Consensus to promote normally requires (a) that at least three uninvolved editors consider the article has met all five military history A-Class criteria and (b) that any criteria-based objections have been resolved. Surely, this describes the situation we are already talking about, no? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current instructions are sufficiently flexible to allow for moments of discretion - that such cases are exceptional is emphasised by the fact that this thread exists at all. I see no issue with Eurocopter bringing it up though - when we choose to act on our discretion, as Woody did, we also need to be prepared to justify that decision (which I think Woody has done). EyeSerene^talk 12:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well, then from now on we should all proceed in this manner. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this review? Or, what suggestions do you have? (I've already left him a message, about a week ago.) JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave another poke? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I spotted that poke last week and had another look at the article but didn't respond. I'm afraid that I still don't think that the article meets the criteria, though as I'm clearly in a minority on this I'm not happy about blocking the article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to that opinion Nick, you shouldn't be persuaded by other peoples comments. If you havve an objection with reference to the criteria, then that can stop its promotion. It will only hit the same issues at FAC. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuff that gets overlooked by us will only be jumped on at FAC so you're right to have rservations about promotion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(Utterly tangential PS: Could another coord please award Bryce Abraham with chevrons w/ oakleaves? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Done. EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ta. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting find

I was cruising around different projects attempting to determine if we are the only ones left still not using C-class when I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Questionnaire 1. Its an interesting idea, and I thought I would share it here and see if there was any interest in our doing something like this and sending it out in the bugle. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea - it would allow the 13 of us to gauge how our performance is received. I would suggest doing at the end of each coordination tranche to see how the previous tranche was viewed, as well as what the incoming tranche could improve on. Cam ^(Chat) 08:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one way is to ask questions, with multiple-choice responses. Such as

"Is X an effective coord?": [_] strongly agree [_] agree [_] no opinion [_] disagree [_] strongly disagree

and number-crunch the results. However, coords active in the larger TFs will get a much higher number of approvals than coords working in the background. Also, as the results won't be secret, respondents will probably skew towards approval (because only the most disapproving respondents are likely to respond negatively).

If we are to do something like this, I suspect we are much better off focusing instead on what general changes/improvements the membership think would be most beneficial. Most "problems" are easy enough to fix once we become aware of them. The easiest/most comprehensive route forward is to run a workshop to explore concerns/ideas and use the results from that to draw up a questionnaire, which gets voted on. However, we may have a problem getting enough people participating on the basis of "if it ain't bust, don't fix it" and consensus is that Milhist works pretty well.

All that said, the problem at the next election will be getting enough good candidates to stand and getting enough people out to vote. The very low votes at the bottom end last time was an issue when we had to consider alternates.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While I intend to run again, so that will help (hopefully). Also, do we have any plans at this point to include a vote on whether or not to adopt C-class with the march elections? I seem to recall that we tossed that idea around, but I do not know if anything actually came of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be the time to ask the project whether or not to include C-class. I recommend doing this.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Third time's a charm? Woody (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's consensus to do this among the coordinators, why not? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of developing a questionnaire and having a straw poll for C-class in the next election. I don't think that the questionnaire should cover individual coordinators though; the renomination and election process allows editors to provide feedback. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest preparing a concrete proposal for C-Class rather than just having a poll on whether we should have that level. Since the B/Start assessment is automated, C-Class would almost certainly need to be as well, unless we plan to abandon automated assessment entirely; this somewhat limits our options for how C-Class would actually be defined, so we should be careful not to offer something that we can't deliver. Kirill 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We had one (or perhaps two) during the last discussion, didn't we? They'd be worth resurrecting. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll be bold and ask some questions on the talk page, and see how it goes.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Plus set up the banner to announce it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Kirill 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Should coordinators be paid?" What kind of question is that?! Seems bleeding obvious that the answer is yes. Cam ^(Chat) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would flush out the skinflints, then we could be beastly to them. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance with B-Class criteria

I have asked here instead of at WP:MHAR because I would like the coordinators to chime in on this. I have been asked to reassess List of current ships of the United States Navy back to B-Class (I downgraded it for not having an image). I am against this because the list does lack an image. The Brad101 (talk · contribs) is of the mind that the tables cover the B5 criteria. Since I believe that the final destination for this list is FLC, I would like your thoughts on this. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always considered tables to satisfy B5 myself, although I haven;t really thought about how we define the B5 with regards to visual medium. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So have I. The idea is to have some sort of graphic to break up the page, rather than insisting on an image per se. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It meets the B-Class criteria in my opinion but it wouldn't pass FLC without an image, an adequate lead and those refs sorted out. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

B5 can often be the hardest to judge; does one crappy little image or one minuscule infobox really make a difference between a B and a Start/C? A little spelling out someplace wouldn't hurt.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

←It seems as though I was in the wrong here on my interpretation of B5, and I yield to the consensus. I have accordingly re-assessed the list back to B-Class. Thanks for the input. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review backlog (2)

Copied from main talkpage

We currently have a large backlog of A-Class review articles that need reviewing. Anybody with any spare time is kindly requested to help review the articles against the A-Class criteria and comment accordingly. Any help given is most appreciated. Thanks and regards, Woody (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

List of articles needing review

USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. • Project Pluto • SMS Berlin • Battle of Köse Dağ

Will do when I actually have time tomorrow. Thanks Woody! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Would an involved coordinator mind closing Battle of Marion ACR? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

January awards recap

I've taken over the task of keeping the Awards department up to speed and as such at the behest of Roger have with the assistance of YellowMonkey, gone through the ACR and PR archives for the fourth quarter of 2008 in order to allow for new awards of the {{Content Review Medal}}. The results of this are posted here: User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST#Content Review Medal Tracking. I propose that we award the CRM to the top 10 editors, and since there is a tie at the low end of the top 10, we should make awards to the 12 editors with 8 or more reviews during the fourth quarter. Does anyone have any objections to this? Also, there is one outstanding nom for the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves languishing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards that could use a few more support votes before being awarded to Bellhalla. One more thing, would it be possible to write into the closing instructions for successful ACRs to list the editor and article here: User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST#A-Class Medal Eligibility Tracking? That way we can stay on top of the noms for ACMs and that way we never get into the situation again where the editor asks us if they are eligible for the award or not.

As for the actual recap: There has been one award of the WikiChevrons with Oakleaves (to Abraham, B.S.), one (with another pending that probably won't be awarded until February) of the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves (to Bellhalla), and eleven awards to the Standard A-Class Medal (to Abraham, B.S. twice, Cam, JonCatalan twice, Cla68, Eurocopter, Hawkeye7 twice, The_ed17, and TonyTheTiger). Plus we had the results of the Military historian of the year and as usual the results of the Contest for the month. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting that out, MBK. Can we move the trackers out of your userspace into projectspace though? Perhaps to a subpage of the awards page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/Nomination tracking? I do think, incidentally, that it's easier to check, update and follow if the data is in a table, with the actual article name visible (instead of a symbol). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that MBK004, those are excellent tracking mechanisms. I'd suggest that the task of updating these lists be included in the instructions for closing ACRs and PRs so that the work of tracking reviewers is spread out. Could I ask that I be substituted for Oneiros for the Military History of Australia during World War II ACR though - I've done almost all the work on this article (including responding to the GAR and ACR), while Oneiros has made very few edits to it, and there was some discussion in the ACR over whether they should have nominated the article. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, I was on the fence with that one as well, but I went with the nominator at first. If we are going to do this that way, I wonder how we could use this as precedent because even though TomStar81 has nom'd USS Texas (BB-35) in order to have his third for an ACM, I'm responding to the suggestions at its ACR as much as he is? (We've done almost equal work on the article prior to the nom as well) Should there be dual-credit? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that credit should be evenly split for nominations where more than one editor has made major contributions to the article. I'm not sure how this should be worked out and enforced though. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and awarded the 12 CRMs. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, a procedural question, Kirill just a few hours ago awarded the outstanding ACM with Oakleaves to Bellhalla, with a February timestamp, but added it to the Awards page and January Newsletter as a January award. What should we do about this? For now I've fixed the date to February on the awards page and created the February newsletter with the mention of the award. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We've often added stuff to the previous month, but January was getting a bit crowded :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Auditing and a suggestion

I am in the process of going through the FA class articles we have to determine when the were promoted, when the last formal review process for an article was administered, and what the status of the external links and dab links are. This is tedious work, but it seems to be paying off already as I have found a few article from 2005-2006 that were promoted to FA but have not been official reviewed since then.

Owing to both the necessity of this work (we got to find these articles and either put them through PR or take them FAR) and tediousness of having to independently look into every single article history template for dates and the link to fac so I can check the the article with the featured tools link FAC now uses I am wondering if it would be possible to create an automated script interested parties could add to a monobook page, or if other projects like the idea if it would be possible to create a bot that could retroactively add the {{Wikipedia:Featured article tools}} template to all earlier FAC pages, and then track and audit all applicable GA, A, and FA class articles and generate reports to interested projects on the date the article was promoted, the major contributors, the last time the article saw any formal review process, the status of the external links within the article, and the presence of bad links that may or may not require attention.

I believe that creating an automated script or going in with other projects to make a bot would make it easier for our project (and/or other interested projects) to track articles that need attention so that we can better maintain GA, A, and FA class articles within there scopes. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not convinced that we need to devote more attention to reviewing existing FAs; the regular FAR process seems to be sufficient at weeding out those that no longer meet current standards, and I suspect that pushing too much in this area will harm project morale to an extent that will outweigh any benefit gained, as well as distracting our most productive editors by making them go through obligatory reviews even if no review is really needed. The use of "review" somewhat obscures the point of the FAR process, I think; it is fundamentally there to remove featured article status, and articles should not be sent there unless one thinks said status should, in fact, be removed.

(If anything, we should just push the remaining half-dozen or so articles hidden from the showcase for having insufficient citations to FAR, and then let things progress as they normally do.) Kirill 02:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The official policy of FAR is to improve articles back to FA standard, rather than to bin them [unless necessary]; it's generally how the coords see it, although from the nominator's viewpoint, it would usually be to bin an article that they view to be of (very) poor quality. I would have to disagree that FAR is used to highlight articles that don't meet WIAFA, but it is usually for articles that don't even meet GA, let alone A-class standards. Because of the incumbency/inertia of consensus, an article usually has to be really poor to be thrown off, although most things that go to FAC and even get no support could hang onto FA status if they already had it and were at FAR (excluding the really bad ones then get a group of strong opposes within a day or two froma cursory review). People aren't going to send something to FAR, or vote it off once it is there if the % missing/bad/unformatted refs are down to 15-20% because it either seems petty/pointless although if the article was seeking FAC, it would get blocked until these things were fixed, eg Ahmedabad passed FAR last year, but in the culture section, there are five paragraphs, two are unsourced, one has one sentence referenced, and the other two have one reference at the end, but only one sentence is actually covered, so effectively there is only 10% of the section referenced. There are a lots of cases like that where a FAR gets treated even more softly than a GAN. So FAR doesn't really work except for binning really weak FAs from the old days and to restore the raw basics to such an article and then it will pass again, as people don't want to knock something backwards unless it is flagrantly bad. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the hidden FAs on the front page, I think a lot of the visible/"acceptable" ones fail WIAFA too. I looked at a few starting from Z, and Ziaur Rahman and Yom Kippur War and Yoweri Musuveni of the first seven would easily fail FAC, although only the latter two would be removed if they ended up at FAR, and the former would easily stay due to inertia. The Sikorski one, seventh from bottom, already is at FAR, half the refs are from a special occasion tribute book but has entire paras attached to the book without any specified pages. The other three would pass. Only the flagrantly unreferenced articles are hidden from the front, but to be honest, with the comfort of inertia, it might be a bit pointless trying to make FAR and FAC relatively equal by putting it under the hammer unless it's project wide, because it would likely only make people leave the project-the only way to make an article to 90%+ "correct/polished" for modern FAC is to do it unilaterally, trying to force people to get improve an article via FAR will likely result in a 75% "correct/polished" unenthusiastic pass at lower than new FA standards. An attempt to make it properly done like a new FA will result in ill-feeling because of a threat to take the star away over the little things, whereas the notion of withholding the star until the little things are correctly accounted for in a proper manner doesn't grate at all since there is no sense of loss. YellowMonkey click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Military fiction

First two posts copied from WT:MILHIST. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice there's a war films task force, is there a more general military fiction task force? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but there's one for Military biography. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there something proposed or discussed awhile back concerning a joint NOVELS/MILHIST "military fiction" task force? Just wondering, as that doesn't sound like a terrible idea - think books like The Guns of Navarone, Red Storm Rising and MacArthur's War and authors like Dale Brown, Stephen Coonts and Tom Clancy. (the problem here is that (a) I don't remember/didn't see the result of the aforementioned discussion and (b) does MILHIST only concern itself with non-fictional things? And if it does, is it time to change that and put these things under our scope?) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting idea though it would represent a considerable shift in scope. We've traditionally taken the view that fictional works only fall within our scope if they accurately depict military life/affairs, which is often a fine judgment call. There's a strong argument for including keynote novels – for example, Catch-22, Death of a Hero, Johnny Got His Gun, Memoirs of an Infantry Officer and Slaughterhouse-Five – though it's in the nature of a wiki for criteria to become more loosely instead of more tightly applied over time and this would soon expand to include all sorts of stuff. In addition to tagging the novels themselves, there'd soon be the need for an intricate support structure, categories of war novels, war novelists by war and/or by nationality etc.

What I'm saying I think is that it's a much bigger job than it might seem on the surface, though this could be considerably eased by collaborating with say WikiProject Novels or WikiProject Literature, or both. Overall, a War novels task force is probably a good idea but we'd need to recruit new people to make it work. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read this before, just to let you know - didn't know what to reply. After mulling over it a bit, I don't think that NOVELS or LIT are active enough to help much in this, so ... maybe in the future? :/

And on a (somewhat) related note, can someone help me here? What task forces do I put a work of (realistic) fiction under? The U.S. task force? None at all? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've not read it but it probably doesn't fit well in any. It will be a good opportunity to use the "no=yes" string (ie no task forces). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Related discussion here; comments welcome ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming elections

Timetable and structure

We probably need to start thinking about this.

• Twelve coordinator slots. Too few, too many?
• Nomination period: 00:01 Sun 1 March - 23:59 Fri 13 March
• Voting period: 00:01 Sat 14 March - 23:59 Sun 29 March?

Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Things have been running very smoothly with the current coordinator lineup and there have been no complaints from the project's members (quite the opposite if the number of new PRs and ACRs is any measure!), so maintaining the current number of coordinators may be the best option as long as there are a reasonable number of votes for all the coords - perhaps we could consider a cut off number? (say, 10 votes minimum). Given that there's no strong need to cap the number of coords we could even adopt a voting system where everyone who gets more than a certain number of votes is appointed a coordinator - this wouldn't differ much from the results in the last couple of elections anyway. I see no problems with those election dates - I think that they avoid the university holiday periods in the southern hemisphere. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas, Nick. It would be good too to get more editors involved in the project admin, either as volunteers or as coordinator nominees. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They avoid the northern hemisphere holiday periods as well. That said, I think there should be a cap on the # of coordinators within the project IN ADDITION TO the vote minimum. There have been elections where turnout has been very low (hopefully not this one). I think a dual "prerequisite" is required of 1) you have to have votes within the top x candidates and 2) you have to have y number of votes. In that way, it prevents it from becoming too much of a popularity contest. Say a minimum of z and a maximum of b coordinators (I apologize for the letter variables - suffice it to say that I hate having so much calculus in my brain), meeting those criteria. It prevents us from having overwhelming bureaucracy with an overwhelming # of coords, yet allows us to have some sort of standard to ensure that it isn't simply a "best of the worst" kind of election. Cam ^(Chat) 23:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A maximum of, say, 15 or 20 potential coordinator seats might not be unreasonable as a goalpost, but I doubt it would become much of a practical issue given our historical results; even with a 10-vote minimum bar, the number of successful candidates is unlikely to be unreasonably large. Kirill 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in the last couple of elections (any possibly earlier elections) there's been a noticeable gap between the number of votes achieved by the successful candidates and the unsuccessful ones. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do we think about a maximum of 15 candidates and a minimum of 15 votes? This could stimulate wider voting and incentivise bottom-end voting. Should we start trying to drum up fresh new candidates? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be agreeable to that. Woody (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Incidentally Roger, I seem to recall that the # of votes that got you your initial positions as asst. coordinator were just above 15, so I can see your logic behind that number. Cam ^(Chat) 06:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. In that case, we'd better push it up to 20, to keep the riff-raff out :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Simultaneous referenda

There has been talk of simultaneous supplementary referenda:

1. Ratifying the coords discretion to coopt (TomStar)
2. Floating a proposal so coords can remove someone (me)
3. Adopting C-class (TomStar)

Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first proposal, especially given that we needed to coopt coordinators only a few weeks after the last election, weakly support the second proposal in-principle but would like a bit more information on how it would work and agree to the third. I'd suggest that the vote on c-class include a description of how it would work - the more I think about rating articles as C-class on the basis of whether they pass certain B-class criteria the more I like the idea. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I raised #2 because I had a couple of emails a month or so back asking about it. The proposed grounds were "behaviour unbecoming a coordinator" :) Inactivity is a possibility too though with six-monthly elections this isn't the end of the world. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I personally don't see a great need for a way to sack coordinators, but we are, to a certain extent, the public face of the project and seem to be developing a limited role in conflict resolution, and this would provide a safeguard and potentially useful accountability mechanism. I note that a few editors also suggested this in the very successful ideas workshop. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be the same mechanism as co-opt, but in reverse, and rolled up into the same proposal. I'll draft something if we think this has mileage. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. 1 and #3 are good. #2 seems just a childish way to make being coord a high school-ish clique.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1 is good. 3 is good. 2 is iffy - removing someone because of "behaviour unbecoming a coordinator' is fine with me, but if we decide to have an open number of coords (basing it solely on if you get greater than __ votes), then removing someone based on inactivity might hurt the project more than helping. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it could indeed cause problems under that scenario though, conversely, we're probably better off having one coordinator less than having a coordinator who actively damaging the project. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problems with any of the three, though I'd hope that as all the coordinators are experienced editors with reasonable levels of clue, we'd recognise if a situation made it necessary for us to step down, and do so voluntarily. I don't see a need for any formal mechanism for dealing with complaints; we're not short of noticeboards (I know I haven't found them all yet!) EyeSerene^talk 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to adopt #2 then we need to establish some sort of criteria whereby those accused of conduct unbecoming can be measured on a project adopted scale of conduct. At the moment we do not have one, and in the absence of one as Bedford notes the concept of having executive authority to remove a coordinator can be "gamed" by those who disagree with a coordinators desicion regardless of whether the coordinator was in the right or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that any of the present coordinators, or past coordinators for that matter, are petty and vindicative enough to game like that? I don't :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt any of the past, current, or soon-to-be-future coordintors would do that, but I am thinking about the "one disgruntled user" who would make all manner of motions and noise to have one or more coordinators removed over some percieved wrong that may or may not have actually happened. Thats why I brought up some sort of conduct code, so that those who would move to remove would have to cite some sort of grounds to do so. It doesn't have to wild or exotic or long, just something simple like "a coordinator can't be removed unless users can cite a greivous breach of the policy and/or guidelines on wikipedia" or somoething to that effect. Absent one of these we may find the coordinators under seige everytime we move into controversial territory (word choices or articles rating or such) or terrirtory in open conflict (edit wars and such). TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No need for anything that complex as I was envisaging this as coordinator-initiated thing. Something like the lines of: "The coordinators may by [insert voting mechanism] coopt new coordinators or remove existing ones." Suitable voting mechanisms might be: simple majority vote, majority vote + 1, majority vote + 2 etc. That would cover items #1 and #2, then. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond abiding by the usual Wikipedia conduct rules (ie civility, neutrality, coi etc) I don't see what other criteria we could put in place, although what you're suggesting sounds rather like the WP:RECALL criteria for admins. Is that what you had in mind? EyeSerene^talk 21:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we allow coordinators the actual decision on whether to remove a coordinator, then we can avoid the ability to game the system. With regards to the gaming of the system, I believe Tom has a valid point. I'm thinking back to what was somewhere around 6 months ago, where mrg3105 attempted to have Nick-D removed for some absurd reason that had absolutely nothing to do with conduct and everything to do with personal grudges. That said, I think a system does need to be in place to deal with the potential. In that regard, I agree with Roger. We need to be beholden to someone, yet need to have the measures in place to ensure that the system isn't gamed. Cam ^(Chat) 23:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as structuring C-Class via the B-Class criteria is concerned, the size of Category:Military history articles needing attention to technical criteria shows that the bulk of our Start-Class articles fail either B1 or B2, so requiring both for C-Class isn't going to produce a particularly useful split. The obvious options I see would be to require B1 but not B2, or B2 but not B1. If there's interest, I can set up categories for those combinations (or any others people would like to see), and we can determine how large the resulting article sets will be before we propose anything to the project. Kirill 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could leave the implementation part of the C-class referendum out of this election and instead simlpy focus on whether the community wants C-class adopted into our hierachy. If our members decide to embrace the class then we can spend the next six monthes in open discussion suggesting ways to implement the system, then hold another referendum in October to present the option for implementing C-class and let the community dicide which is best. Just something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Kirill on this. The big objection is the work involved and if we can show it ain't real work and it has real benefit, I think it will pass. I don't see much point in putting off again. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, though just to play devil's advocate for a second, I wonder if it's approaching this issue from the wrong direction? For me, it's far more about the benefits (or lack of) than the work involved, which can probably be automated to a large extent. If I see no benefits, why would I support even a trivial amount of work? EyeSerene^talk 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right to play devil's advocate. The big benefit is that it makes article groups more manageable. Ideally, if we're restrictive about C-class, it will give us a single sub-set of B-class in waiting. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I dare suggest one additional idea as well: In this upcoming election, or if the need to coopt after the election arises, lets try and see if we can woo members from the parent projects of the task forces in which we cooperatively run to serve here. If we could or coopt users who are involved with BIO or FILMS or other projects we share task forces with it may serve as an additional invigorating drive for the task forces, and may help generate renewed interest in some of the TF's that appear to be non responsive. Just something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why coopt? Why not just ask them to stand in the election? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I meant by the "in this upcoming election" part, I would rather we encourage the other projects to submit their candidates rather than coopt them, I threw cooption in as an option if no one was willing to stand. I think the other projects will play ball, BIO and FILMS both run coordinator departments and they have a stake in this since they share TF's with us. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not ask them and find out? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. For the moment I limited the extension only to FILMS and BIO since they are the only two projects I can think of off the top of my head that I know for sure share a task force with us. I have invited them to comment either on their main project talk pages or here. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't get hopes up about BIO. Last year they had no body in charge to end their assessment drive; I wasn't even a member but I closed things up for them as no one else would. They made our last assessment drive look good.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the extension be extended to the national/national history projects (WP Canada, WP United States etc)? Cam ^(Chat) 06:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I say yes. The more candidates we have the better. We'll have about two weeks forth of Q&A before the elections to quiz potential new coordinators from the other projects on the finer points of our project that our members deem important before we elect anyone. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a bad idea. While anyone is welcome to stand in coordinator elections, it seems unlikely that editors without substantial experience with military history articles would be elected, and if they are elected I'm not sure how successful they'd be - even with the best will in the world, these editors wouldn't be as motivated to do the drudge work which is all that the coordinator jobs involve (unless you guys aren't telling me about all the babes and parties which also come with the job!). Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Nick, what I am thinking about is the people who are in the task forces. Its true that the vast majority of the people in our TF's are drawn principle from this projects membership, but some do come from the other projects, and the idea here is to try and woo those people into signing up for the coordinator elections. However small that base might be, it still exists, and for us to ignore it even though it lacks any real substance could work against us. In a worst case scenario, nothing will come of it, but we won't know that for sure until we try it, and even if it fails other projects better suited for this sort of thing may take up the idea and implement it successfully elsewhere. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Greetings to all from FILM! Tom pointed me here to share my thoughts on the matter with you. Let me first preface by saying that at the moment I'm only speaking for myself. As some of you may be aware, the Films project is greatly influenced and indebted to MilHist in terms of much of our structure and layout. However, one parallel that I proposed some months ago, without success, was to assign our coordinators to oversee our task forces. Unfortunately, that seems to be closer to what you're looking for, IMHO. I'm not certain that formally investing outside coordinators with MilHist coordinatorship is a good idea, much for the same reasons as Nick. What is needed is closer cross-project coordination, and this would ideally be more easily workable if our project had implemented task force oversight, because then the task force's chosen coordinators on each side would naturally be liaisons on behalf of their projects. I'm not certain how my coordinators will react at the moment, however - my last few proposals to try to strengthen or emphasize our somewhat atrophying task forces have not garnered any strong support. Any general advice on this larger topic and MilHist's experiences would also be greatly appreciated. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Input needed

See this: Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#A-Class. While I have responded, it might be a bit flippant. If you all concur, I'll tone it down. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like there's some confusion in that thread. The whole GA/A/FA thing was brought up during the C-Class proposal debate, but seems to have been indefinitely shelved. For those, like me, who find the situation anomalous and confusing: A-Class is indeed above GA-Class in the assessment hierarchy, but GA-Class is not the same as GA status. GA is an external assessment process that runs in parallel to, rather than in line with, the assessment hierarchy. WikiProjects can award GA-Class as they see fit, although normally this is only awarded when an article has achieved GA status. Because GA is outside the hierarchy, articles can be A-Class, B-Class or even C-Class and still have GA status. There have been proposals to remove GA-Class and/or decouple both GA and FA from the scheme, which I think would better reflect the reality of what happens. EyeSerene^talk 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a (somewhat) related discussion on the assessment department talk page, incidentally. Kirill ^[pf] 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And then there's this: Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Proposal. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That ballooned fast. :) I'm following all three, though I haven't commented on the third. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And here's another very interesting proposal: User:Physchim62/Sandbox. Kirill ^[pf] 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a little help?

I am in need of assistance here. While I would be able to handle it and explain everything on my own if I had time, I have to finish USS Connecticut (BB-18) tonight (long story). Thanks guys, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Project page length

Our main project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history) seems to have grown to around ~300K in total size again, which may be a bit too much. Do we want to consider some ideas for shortening it?

A few things that come to mind:

1. The list of task forces for each coordinator can probably be de-transcluded (and perhaps even moved here entirely). People looking for help with a particular task force will see the names listed on the task force page itself; I can't think of anyone besides us that would be interested in a full list of each coordinator's task forces.
2. The awards listing could be de-transcluded and left as section links, as we've done for the MoS.
3. The showcase could be moved to a subpage (or several subpages).

Thoughts? Kirill ^[pf] 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I thought this was about the *talk* page :) Agree on all three. A transcludable showcase might be otherwise useful, too. Maralia (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the showcase just for show-off purposes, but I fully agree on the first two. (On the flip side, if it is still way too long, maybe it should go...) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The showcase is about a third of the vertical page length; I'm not sure what portion of the raw size it corresponds to, but I suspect it's fairly significant. Given the rate at which it's growing, we'll probably have to come up with something for it sooner or later. ;-) Kirill ^[pf] 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The broader issue of redesigning our main project page has come up in the workshop, so I've done some prototyping that includes the above items, and started a discussion about it at WT:MILHIST#New project page design. Kirill ^[pf] 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there's consensus for the fourth design.--Patton^t/c 20:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter, and FP/FS

Two questions:

• Is there some logistical reason we seem to have never listed newly featured pictures and sounds in our newsletter? I suspect it's just an oversight, and have added a section for this in the February newsletter.
• I'd like to see each newsletter link directly to the previous and following issue. Any reason not to? Should it be inside or outside the transclusion?

I'm going to talk to Durova about improving our coordination around FP/FS; any brilliant ideas would be appreciated in advance. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In order:

1. Nope, I guess it was overlooked.
2. The linking idea is a very good one. I'd put them side by side on the masthead panel, centred under the logo/title block.

Thanks for the ideas! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tool...

Did you ever want to know which of our project's members are active and which are inactive? Well, instead of going through each of their contribs, try this tool! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice tool. A few months ago we removed inactive individuals from the TFs; should we do so for the main project, using this tool. Like say remove everyone who hasn't been around for a year?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

With an election coming, what might be more useful is to remove from the main list and the TF lists everyone who hasn't edited for six months and, at the same time, update the main list with people on the TF lists but not the main one. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a neat tool, but unfortunately it doesn't generate the new lists. With the number of members we have, moving everyone by hand—even if we have a list of who needs to be moved—is a rather excessive amount of work, in my opinion. Kirill ^[pf] 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Open award proposals

Resolved

 – Awarded. EyeSerene^talk 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Chevrons + Oak Leaves:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Ian Rose; 1 vote short of majority
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Raul654; 2 votes short of majority

Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 13:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Vintage Port wine

Hi Coords! I hope youse don't mind me butting in here, but I just wanted to note that there appear to be about five articles under ACR that seem to have garnered enough support for promotion. Also, I don't know how many of you have seen my pledge here, but I have offered to award a barnstar to any editor who gives comprehensive reviews to any three Milhist FACs from 10 February until the end of the month (28 February). It appears I don't have many (if any) takers at the moment, but this is also open to Coordinators, of course, and it would be great if any of youse would be able to give a review of two if you are able. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If my posting here is inappropriate, just let me know. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Selection of Port wine

Not inappropriate at all, and thanks for the nudge ;) Oh, and make it a bottle of Port, and you're on. EyeSerene^talk 11:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was on my way over to say the same thing but Abraham B.S. was quicker. Cla68 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Which do you prefer, Eye? The vintage or selection? ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cla68! I've closed three, but no more time today to do more. I'm not fussy, Bryce - as long as it's expensive and costs you a fortune in airmail ;) Congrats too on another successful ACR! EyeSerene^talk 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene, you might also want to remember to add {{ArticleHistory}} to the talk pages when you indicate a successful/unsuccessful ACR. I've gone back through and done it. Incidentally there are two new nominations for A-class medals per your closures. (One is still being formatted as I type now, but will be up within 3 minutes). -MBK₀₀₄ 14:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved coordinator mind closing this ACR please? It has well-enough supports and most issues resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, give me a few minutes. -MBK₀₀₄ 09:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can a ACR theoretically stay open indefinitely, eg, at 1-0? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Award nominations in limbo

←There are two current nominations for the A-Class medal with only one support + the nom (myself), starting here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#Abraham.2C_B.S._.284.29. Additional coordinator attention would be appreciated. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

POKE: There is one open nomination for an ACM languishing in the usual place. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

New page design and associated cleanup

I've converted the main project page to use the new page design, and fixed (most of?) the obvious things that needed to be changed with it. There are a number of items that still need to be done, however:

1. Links on other project pages to material formerly on the main page (e.g. showcase, task force listing, etc.) need to be updated. The most likely places for such links are in review instructions and similar places, but there are no doubt others.
2. Now that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News available, we can probably get rid of the stand-alone outreach department; the newsletter-related subpages need to be moved from "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/..." to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/...", and links to them updated. We can then split off the stress hotline as a stand-alone page, and redirect the main outreach page to the news page.

   I've started on the newsletter relinking. I will keep the redirect for now to ensure that we don't have redlink planet all of a sudden. Cam ^(Chat) 05:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

   done up to February 2007. Cam ^(Chat) 05:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

   I think Roger's finished moving the rest of the subpages, so I've gone ahead and redirected the outreach page. Kirill ^[pf] 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Now that we have an archive search tool, do we still need to maintain the manual listing of archive topics (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive)? If the tool is sufficient, this will save us some maintenance work.

   I don't think we should have to now that we have that tool. Cam ^(Chat) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, I've redirected the archive listing. Kirill ^[pf] 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments are welcome, as are reports of anything not working after the change. Kirill ^[pf] 01:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

World War II article, again

There's currently a dispute over a sentence in this article which would benefit from other editors' views. The issue is whether to include a sentence on negotiations between the USSR and Germany which could have led to the Soviets joining the Tripartite Pact, and if so, how this should be worded. Any comments at Talk:World War II would be great. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Geez; not again. I'll take a look tomorrow when I get home from school. Cam ^(Chat) 07:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys may be interested in this... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. The current discussion has collapsed into a major case of TLDR. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:MHO backlash :P

Where should we put this (if anywhere), as it was located in our Outreach Department... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== Welcoming new members == :''Generated by {{subst:[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Welcome]]|~~~~}}'' {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Welcome}}

It's already linked from the handbook, and I don't think it's of great interest to anyone but the coordinators. Kirill ^[pf] 02:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of MILHIST ACR and General Review Process

A discussion has sprung up [[1]] about the alleged decline in MILHIST reviewing standards, particularly in terms of ACR quality. The project is coming in from quite a bit of flak, and some Coordinators, present and previous, are speaking up as well. Could we get some comments on the situation over there from more Coordinators? Skinny87 (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's rather ironic in the light of recent discussions elsewhere... EyeSerene^talk 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this comment best belongs, but I have been frustrated by a number of recent articles which have gone to ACRs without a PR first. As voting to oppose an A-class nominee is a bit of a big deal, many editors (including myself, to be frank) are reluctant to do this and abstain on articles which technically meet the A-class criteria, but which really require further work to advance further. When significant changes are suggested in ACRs its too common for the nominating editor to do the minimum required to address those specific concerns. If they don't intend to promote the article further this isn't a problem, but it leaves them exposed if they then push straight through to a FAC. In short, I think that Sandygeorgia has a point in that some of the Milhist A-class articles which are being nominated for FACs need more work and it's important that editors are aware that there's a big jump between A-class and FA standard, even though articles have to be fairly good to reach A-class. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a PR before ACR, really, mostly only the glaring errors in the basics get discussed there. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. We can take several routes forward from here. Either we toughen the standard again, or we make it more difficult to achieve consensus (more supports needed), or we give coordinators the ability to make a "deciding vote", since pretty much all of us have prior FA experience. Cam ^(Chat) 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there's anything wrong with the A-class standards or the review mechanisms (especially as a single sustained 'oppose' vote is enough to prevent the article from being promoted). What's needed is a greater willingness from reviewers to call a spade a spade and editors taking time to further improve A-class articles before nominating them for a FAC. A good first step would be for all A-class reviewers to leave comments on articles they support - I think that it was Kirill who noted a few months ago that all A-class articles can be further improved. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the statement that A-class articles can be further improved. There are some improvements I plan on making to USS Texas (BB-35) even though it is A-class and GA before I go for a run at FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree...A does not equal FAC, so we can't improve the standards much even if we wanted to (unless, of course, we want to start our own FAC... Which is a resounding no. :)

So Nick, to clarify - do you mean that all supporting editors should leave comments on what should be done before FAC? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that editors should try to identify areas where A-class articles can be further improved when they vote. I always try to do this, though there have been one or two articles in which I couldn't think of anything sensible to add. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that there's a considerable difference between A and FA classes, as well as between ACR and FAC (i've been through these processes few times with my contributions, and there is much work to be done after each ACR and before each FAC - plus that in several times the articles were not promoted to FA, even they passed an ACR). However, I do not agree that an article has to undergo a peer review before attempting ACR. The current peer review process is quite slow, so putting a good article which clearly meets all A-criteria under peer review seems to me a waste of time. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hijack this discussion and suggest the coordinators to craft proposals before going to the mainpage with it. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A-class toolbox

I like the new toolbox, but I think it might be put to more use if a proper introduction to it is written either in the A-FAQ or in the respective toolpages. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews

I'm one of the few MILHIST GA reviewers and feel like a lone wolf who has to do all and everything. It's a shame, I'm not an expert on all and everything. For this reason, I suggest to make an effort of our project to improve GA by directing more editors to each review who in turn can limit their scope to certain aspects like MOS or citations. That's actually possible within the current GAR framework. When an article is chosen for review it says: Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). That's were other reviewers are invited. Next step can be: Second opinion: this reviewer is requesting another editor's input on the article. if it's a tight case that can be decided by one or more additional reviewer/s voicing her/his/their opinion on the subject. If all concerns by the reviewers haven't yet been adressed the article can be: On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed.. Last but not least, one of the reviewers can let it pass. That mustn't be the same who inititated the review.

What MILHIST can do about that is making a suggestion for "our" GA process public via mainpage or newsletter and listing all GAC on our review alert system. Possibly, the icons for the current status can be added to the respective entries. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be easy enough to add a listing of open GACs to the announcement template, provided that we have people willing to keep track of the reviews as they open and close (the automated article alerts may help with this, if we set up a listing for the entire project).

The next step, I suppose, would be to see if we can transclude the GAC subpages into the review department; the feasibility of that would really depend on the formatting. I suspect we may have some problems if the subpage doesn't use a header listing the article title; if that's the case, we'd wind up with a dozen sections with the same header.

Another point to consider would be whether or not we want to list GAs in the showcase and/or the newsletter. Kirill ^[pf] 21:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, you're not alone out there. I certainly try to do my share of MILHIST GA reviews though, admittedly, not as many as I nominate :). I can appreciate your sincerity at trying to improve GA articles, but it seems like it would create more problems than it would solve. Here are some potential pitfalls I could see:

1. It would create an additional burden on nominators and reviewers alike, not to mention additional burdens on coordinator time maintaining lists, etc.
2. Not all MILHIST GA candidate articles are reviewed by MILHIST members. (Personally, I usually prefer the reviews from non-project reviewers because it often provides an outside opinion on an article as to jargon, or technical or specialist terms, etc.; one of the few outside opinions outside of the FAC process.) If this project were to have differing standards for GA or differing methods for promotion, etc., it might discourage outside reviewers from evaluating MILHIST articles, essentially making it an A-Class lite. It would also strengthen the notion raised at the above-linked discussion of "fan boy" promotions
3. More stringent standards for MILHIST GAs could cause people to list in another related category. Then we'd have the specter of GA-Class articles passed under differing standards.
4. As to referencing and citation issues, good article criteria require a certain level of sourcing but don't ascend to the same level of format precision required at FAC. For example, bare URLs in notes, as atrocious as they are, could be considered to meet criterion 2(a).

Improving GA articles is a worthy goal, but I think the appropriate venue to discuss improvements would be at WT:GAC rather than within the project. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My whole issue with the GAN system is that there is no "formal standard" for a lot of things. If I do review GAs (which has happened on several occasions), I tend to hold them to much higher standards than the GA criteria says I should. As another example (and I know I've likely flogged this one to death), EyeSerene's GA-Reviews are phenomenal. Both articles of mine that he has reviewed passed their ACRs with no issues approximately a week later, and both are now FAs (one of them had one of the quickest and least stressful FACs I've ever seen). On the other side of things, you have articles (in particular those about US Interstate Highways) that take no time to write, have maybe 10 or 11 refs, and pass GAN no problem, even though I wouldn't consider them remotely ready for GA status. The GAN system has so many flaws that it would need serious modifications in order to fit our standards. I do like Wandalstouring's idea with the idea of a partner GAN-Review, and I think that it's possible that it could work - if properly implemented - within MilHist. On another note, I'll fly the idea around at WP:GA later to see if there's any takers for making it a wiki-wide standard. Cam ^(Chat) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with adding reviews to MILHIST is that we are already short of reviewers for A-class articles here... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that we are short of reviewers, but GA is part of our review system and it has a quality problem because of single reviewers. My suggestion is to solve that within the existing GAC framework. If things work out well we can suggest changes to the GA system, but changing a wikiwide process is a lot more difficult.

@Kirill: The review page does contain the article name and we can automatically create it.

@Belhalla: I understand your concern for outside opinions, so see this more as a stepping stone for generally improving GA by having more people review one GA. At first, this seems to lead to MILHIST excluding outside opinions, but we can even face that with an obligatory second opinion that is again an invitation for everybody.

@Cam: Sure, every GA reviewer has his field of expertise and some are stricter in some fields than others making the whole process a roulette. There were articles I made fail the first time that promptly passed when someone else was reviewing their content. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Two MILHIST articles on main page

USS Connecticut (BB-18) is today's featured article, and Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais is the lead DYK (the one with a picture meaning that it will probably get the most views). Eyes on those two would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, two was a little under the amount that actually showed up, there were four within a 24 hours period, Connecticut as TFA, Minas Gerais and Haruna at DYK, and Danton at ITN. Cam's added a blurb about this in the next issue of the Bugle. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Random thought: is this notable enough for our history? As a 'wow, this is one of the high points of the project for content building'? (I doubt it, but just throwing ideas around, like normal.) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

With my numerous DYKs, I'm sure it has happened before.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But in three different sections of the Main Page? We're not talking about multiple articles in our scope in the same DYK update. We're talking about the day's TFA, an article in two DYK updates and an ITN entry. All during a 24 hour period. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard at all for an ITN as well. Lots of conflict in the war.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be pretty common. The Gaza stuff and Tamil Tigers are there a few times and there are always DYKs every day because about 20-35 DYKs make it every day. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Based on the latest A-Class-related discussions at WP:1.0, we've come up with the idea of creating a coordinators' working group to deal with issues which affect multiple WikiProjects. No doubt this will be of interest to just about everyone here. :-) Kirill ^[pf] 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I would be :) Do we just sign our names? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Eventually we'll get around to sending out formal invitations, but no sense in waiting. Kirill ^[pf] 04:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if we sign up now we can avoid having to be asked to sign up later on. I've just signed up. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Separating GA/FA from the assessment scale

One of the ideas proposed at the recent WP1.0 meeting was to separate GA and FA assessments from the rest of the assessment scale; this would mean, for example, that we could have a Featured A-Class article, or a Good A-Class article, and so forth. This would leave the project assessment scale as Stub-Start-[C]-B-A, with FA and GA tracked by separate flags.

As a practical matter, this would require that we come up with a strategy for dealing with FAs that do not go through the ACR process; I think it would be inadvisable for us to gather sets of FAs that were assessed at a level lower than A-Class, and the assessment automation mechanism would mean that we could potentially wind up with, say, Featured Start-Class articles. In light of this, I would propose the following:

If GA and FA are taken out of the normal assessment scale and tracked separately, FAC would be accepted as an alternative to ACR; in other words, an article could legitimately be assessed as A-Class either by passing ACR or by passing FAC. Thus, all featured articles would be automatically ranked as A-Class (but not all A-Class articles would be featured). This could be enforced by the automated assessment mechanism.

(This is, of course, all contingent on the GA/FA separation being accepted in principle; it's a bit too early to say whether it will fly with either WikiProjects or 1.0 automation developers.)

Comments? Kirill ^[pf] 05:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this passed around a while ago? I seem to remember commenting on a discussion on this. Cam ^(Chat) 06:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind is a discussion we had some months ago about no longer using GA-Class within the project, but that was a pretty different proposal. Kirill ^[pf] 06:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And killing off GA means killing off getting a WP MILHIST Triple Crown.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We've already earned it, Durova just hasn't awarded it yet because we can't come up with an image for her to put a crown on top of to symbolize the project. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. In any case, though, we'd still be eligible for Triple Crowns regardless of how GAs were tracked; all that's required there is that the article be passed by the GA review process, not that the article be assessed as "GA-Class" by the project. Kirill ^[pf] 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is something I'm very strongly in favour of, and I'm glad to see it resurrected! I think Kirill's proposal of automatic A-Class on reaching FA is sensible, although I'm slightly more wary of doing a similar thing with GAs as there's no single point on the scale that equates. Perhaps B-Class on reaching GA might work? EyeSerene^talk 12:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If this does fly, we really should adopt C to fill the gap of losing (well, sort of) GA.

Similar to what I proposed on the assessment talk page, how about we have C as a watered-down normal B? This would be slightly automated to have with a C having to pass 3 of the 5 normal B requirements (with #2 [comprehensiveness] being required). Obviously this will have to be proposed to the project before being implemented, but I wanted to get the opinion of the coordinators first - if most of you guys are against this, I somehow doubt that the project would pass it :)

(@ EyeSerene) - that seems sensible. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat wary of auto-assessing based on GA status, since the results of the GA review process tend to be a bit unpredictable. The good thing, though, is that the B-Class assessment doesn't require a lengthy review, so we could easily get away with simply filling out the checklists for GAs as needed. It's highly unusual for a sub-B-Class article to pass GA review, in any case. Kirill ^[pf] 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think an automated 'GA confers B-Class' system would be 100% reliable; the odd lemon does slip through the GA system. This is happily increasingly rare though, as the quality of GA reviews has steadily increased with the introduction of the GA review sub-page. I'd still strongly encourage Milhist editors to make use of (and review for) the GA WikiProject if this does go through, as it's one of only two places where an article gets an 'outside' assessment, and it's an excellent training ground for reviewing (per the post below).

Re C-Class, I'm still not convinced that it brings anything useful to the assessment scheme to subdivide incomplete articles into upper- and lower-incomplete, although I can see that it might help to motivate editors to turn C's into B's. However, naturally I'd support its introduction if that's the way we all decide to go. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New reviewers' coaching

The easiest way to get new reviewers is probably to grow our own. What do we think about setting up a New Reviewers' Course on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Special projects/New Reviewers' School? Broadly, this would involve tips on how to approach reviewing for B-class (to start with), then A-class (and GA, if needed) and offer feedback/support. Reactions? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me - the guidance for B-class would be particularly valuable and I think that I could offer some stuff on A-class reviews (though I think that I'm a tougher than average reviewer). On a semi-related topic, is there an essay somewhere with tips on how to advance articles from A-class to FA-class? Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The progression B-class > A-class > FAC is pretty much linear, with the criteria intensifying rather than changing so an essay would be really handy. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a superb idea, one where we could also have listed those reviewers who are willing to act as "coaches" of sort for newer reviewers. Cam ^(Chat) 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I'm not sure if this should be under special projects, or under WP:MILESSAY. Is it going to be static text, or something more interactive? Kirill ^[pf] 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "school" should be somewhere pizzazzy. High profile, with a supporting talk page for on-going queries. We could probably attach it to the Assessment Dept. The "how to" on progressing articles could be in WP:MILESSAY though.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in... I've been around almost 4 years, and I would love to see new reviewer's coaching. I've been reluctant to take on GA and A class reviews because of inexperience. Educating established but inexperienced review editors seems not only like a good idea in itself, but it might help folks like myself aim to finish some pagespace instead of starting some. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to chip in :) I'm glad you think it'll be useful :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up during the workshop on the main talk page; the GA WikiProject uses a mentor system, where experienced reviewers list themselves and can be contacted to provide help and advice an any aspect of the reviewing process (from applying the criteria to the mechanics of what template updates to make etc). I've basically stolen their format and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/Mentors. This is only a tentative idea so we can see how such a system might operate, and I'm quite happy to delete it, but it's the sort of thing that could be linked from a New Reviewers' School and (prominently) from any other review pages round the project. EyeSerene^talk 09:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The way forward is probably to get the coaching and the mentoring (can't we find a better word?) all under one roof, for centralized discussion etc. The other related idea is to have a "How to" school, about taking articles up through the stages. Perhaps this could be integrated somehow too: they're two sides of the same coin. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I can see that taking some time (especially if we're writing reviewing guides etc). Meanwhile we've got editors who want to get involved now. However, I'm happy to take my foot off the accelerator until we've talked it through properly ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't let me hold you back while we bumble and fumble for an overall solution :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh :D Experiment over (besides, I like your Academy idea below much better). EyeSerene^talk 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a good idea, but we should probably decide on a single subpage and put all the material there, since we're going to wind up with a dozen different pages if we each create one.

Given that "/Assessment/..." subpages are used for A-Class reviews, how about something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/Training? Kirill ^[pf] 11:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Or we could be really ambitious (why not? it's never stopped us in the past) and plunk it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy? This could then branch off into Review training; a how-to on article building; a how-to on copy-editing; perhaps a how-to on Fair Use (I could ask Awadewit to do it); another on image restoration (if we can get Durova to magic something up) etc. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

←Roger, that seems like the best idea. Not only does it allow us to grow but also gives us a better place to put the essays by Kirill and TomStar81 on project coordination (plus, I plan to write one as well in the coming weeks). -MBK₀₀₄ 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is an excellent idea. There are also a number of other essays (e.g. the FA ones) that could probably be moved there. (Once that's done, we may be in a position to retire the project essay concept altogether.)

On a (minor) point of nomenclature: should we label this as a department (i.e. the "academy department"), or not? Kirill ^[pf] 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Academy" has a ring to it, but what does everyone else think? (Maybe we should ask Bellhalla or Noclador to whistle up a logo ... And before anyone asks, I don't think Lt Wiki-Petan would be suitable as dean.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Academy" sounds good (and yes, let's steer well away from cutesy) EyeSerene^talk 09:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just something to consider, but I brought up here that it may be a good idea for wikipedia to invest in a general reviewers project. If it turns out that such a project gets off the ground we could move such a workship there and continue our intro sessions with other users. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still think that it would be a good idea to have our own 'reviewer's academy'...instead of pointing them to a general Wikipedia page, we can say, "Oh, click here in the project; it's got everything you need to know about how to assess articles using the MILHIST assessing criteria."

And, on a side note, I like the name choice of "academy". Makes me think of the Naval or Air Force Academies :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be too indulgent to suggest a slightly different and rarely used word: "academe"? BusterD (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll not make that suggestion. BusterD (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) In the absence of a better name, I'll set this up "L'Accademia dell'Istoria militare e navale" over the weekend. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)