Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Happy New Year!

Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

I do hope everyone had a pleasant New Year's Eve, and a good New Year's Day. Couple of points I thought I'd go over here so we can hit the ground running.

I would like to avoid the repeat of the late delivery of the newsletter this month. I asked Maralia about following up on the numbers for 09 and their comparison to the 08 numbers, that should appear as an editorial if she is willing to write about that; otherwise, our letter is missing the contest department and the last of the 09 promotions (if any).
Of the above ideas I raised concerning TFs and such: have any of those reached a point where we could move them out to the main talk page and gain additional input, or should we a wait a little longer and see if any additional feedback comes to us? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest to avoid late delivery? November was exceptional. It was ready to go on 5 Dec but Cbrown1023 was absent 25 Nov to 10 Dec with exams (with other real life stuff dragging on afterwards). This is a volunteer organisation (with everyone taking breaks from time to time). I have always found him incredibly helpful, very easy to work with and - in the two years he's been doing it - there have been just two hiccups. Roger Davies ^talk 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant no offense, it was just the combination of circumstances that lead to the late dispatch. All I meant was lets try to have it out before the end of the month this time, that's all. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as task forces go, I think we should move forward on implementing the proposals that have already been discussed and approved before we bring out new ones; otherwise, we run the risk that people will be upset that we're essentially resetting the discussion after several months of constructive ideas. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been a whole lot of traffic regarding the proposals in the last couple of weeks, so I think we can go ahead and start to implement things as per Kirill's comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, so do I. I'm just winding up again after the Crimbo break (and Happy New Year all!), so I'll do this today if not sooner :) EyeSerene^talk 08:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I should probably mention that, for the merged TFs, I am planning to copy/paste the content of one to the other, make any appropriate renames, and leave a redirect from the defunct TF. This seems the simplest way of doing things unless anyone has any other ideas... EyeSerene^talk 08:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That won't really work, since most of the content of the merged task force will be deprecated boilerplate that simply gets replaced by the new task force's version. In effect, we have five distinct scenarios:

Merge Taiwanese into Chinese (optionally leaving a Taiwan working group)
Merge Lebanese into Middle Eastern (optionally leaving a Lebanon working group)
Rename Military science to Military science and technology, then merge Military technology into Military science and technology
Merge Romanian into Balkan (optionally leaving a Romania working group)
Rename Indian to South Asian, then merge Pakistani into South Asian (optionally leaving a Pakistan working group)

The two renames (3 & 5) need to be performed before any merging is done, since the renaming process is somewhat convoluted; the easiest way to do it is to create a new task force (since that process is documented), then merge the old task force into it, but do a move-and-delete operation on the actual task force pages to retain the history. The messy part is then restoring the boilerplate on the moved page to point to the new task force name rather than the old one.

Merging a task force into another is mostly handled by changing {{WPMILHIST}} to treat the merged task force's tags as aliases for the target task force's; then, you need to go through the task force creation procedure and delete all of the infrastructure created for the old task force. Only custom parts of the old task force page (e.g. participant lists, categories, etc.) should be merged across to the new task force page; most of the other stuff is simply replaced by the target TF's counterpart infrastructure.

We have not, incidentally, decided whether we want to retain some of the merged task forces as working groups under the target (in which case the task force page should also be merged into a working group subpage).

If you'd like to try doing this yourself, I'll be happy to look over your shoulder and help out; alternately, if you don't feel fully comfortable doing it, I can go through all this myself. The one thing I do strongly recommend is spreading these out and leaving a couple days for each merger, so that we don't have multiple mergers happening at once; that will make it much easier to check and make sure that nothing got overlooked. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, I admit I was being rather simplistic! If you don't mind, I've had a go at the Science & Tech TF: I moved Mil science to Mil science and tech, moved w/delete Mil tech & engineering to Mil science & tech, restored the deletions at the new science & tech TF to preserve the original science TF history, then manually updated the scope, membership lists etc. I did the same with the talk-pages, though it didn't seem worth merging anything here as the old Mil science TF talkpage had no recent activity other than the same notices as on the tech and engineering talkpage.

I haven't touched the {{MILHIST}} template; I assume we'd just add the aliases from one TF to the other, remove the first and rename the latter, but there are differences, such as in the template images used, that might need some thought (and I haven't done anything with the categories yet either).

Anyhow, I'll wait until you've checked over what I've done and given the OK before plunging in again. I hope I haven't made a hash of things, but I apologise in advance for any mistakes and resulting cleanup... EyeSerene^talk 18:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The page merger looks okay at a first glance, although there are obviously some parts that will still need to be updated with new categories/templates/etc. I'll go through it in more detail once the merger process for the TF is complete, but a couple of immediate observations:

Undeleting the history of the second task force seems to have left us with a history that's impossible to follow, since the revisions are interleaved; I'm not sure it's really worth doing it just to preserve all the edits. Maybe we should just do a plain merge and redirect, and simply leave the history at the redirect.
There are a couple of subpages whose existence may not be obvious (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Popular pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Article alerts, and their military science counterparts) that should be deleted.

Beyond that, I think you can go ahead and try doing the template & category updates. The only high-risk item in there is {{WPMILHIST}} itself; please let me know if you'd like more detailed instructions for the changes you'll need to make.

You can, incidentally, use the steps in the task force creation instructions to check your work with all of these changes; when you're done, all the templates/categories/links/etc. should exist as they would have if you were creating the task force from scratch, and all the corresponding items from the task force(s) that no longer exist should be deleted or redirected. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice :) Re your first point, no argument with that. The only real advantage of the undelete is that it makes manually merging the content easy (from a simple comparison by clicking on the last diff), but you're right that it does make the history hard to follow. For the next one I'll stick with a manual redirect for the second TF. Re your second, I did check those pages and assumed a delete would be ok, but meant to check with you first and forgot to mention them above... so thanks for the catch!

I'll have a go at the templates etc next; re {{WPMILHIST}}, it currently specifies Image:MilHis Sci.jpg for the defunct science TF and Image:Würzburg radar Berlin.jpg for the tech & eng TF. Do we want to keep one of those, or have an entirely new image? (or perhaps use a placeholder and ask the TF membership to come up with a new image?) EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We can probably use one of the existing images as a placeholder, at least for the time being. If the task force members want to pick a new one, it won't be a problem to swap it out; but the existing ones aren't particularly controversial, and I'm not sure it's worth spending the time to try and find something more suitable, given the fact that there's no "natural" image for the topic. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've sorted out {{WPMILHIST}} and the other templates, though if you don't mind checking that would be very welcome. I haven't deleted any of the defunct templates/cats yet (just in case!), and haven't touched the userbox - as it happens, we apparently never had one for the Science TF, so the simplest thing would probably be to update the existing Tech & engineering ubx to save breaking members' userpage links... although obviously then the ubx template name won't match the task force. Your thoughts would be welcome :) The new categories seem to be taking a while to populate themselves, but I guess that'll filter through in time.

A couple of other questions - do we need to do anything with the V1.0 assessment table (currently a redlink) and the article alerts (also redlinked and seems to be displaying oddly in the announcements template)? EyeSerene^talk 19:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The assessment categories aren't populating because they're created at the wrong capitalization; the articles are actually being directed to, say, Category:B-Class military science and technology articles, not Category:B-Class Military science and technology articles. Other than that, the category and template setup for the new name looks good; you can probably go through and delete the old ones at this point.

The easiest thing to do with the userbox would probably be to move the existing one under its new expected name; the redirects will take care of the rest.

The redlinks are normal, and will go away once the respective bots go through and create the needed pages.

Overall, though, excellent work; I'm thoroughly impressed with how smoothly this has taken place. :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(od) Tch, missed the sortkey and those caps in the assessment category names - the perils of copy/pasting into multiple open browser tabs! Fixed now anyway; the cats are filling up nicely and everything seems to be updating as it should, so I think that's everything done now. I've deleted all (I hope) the former cats and templates, though there may still be a couple of redundant pages floating around the V1.0 territory...

I moved the ubx per your suggestion - I didn't realise that the mediawiki software handles redirected transclusions, so I've learned something too. Thank you very much for your help and kind words, though to be fair it wasn't as difficult as I first feared it might be. You've put a logical and flexible structure in place, and with that and the guidance from the TF creation "how-to" above it was just a case of taking things slowly and methodically :) I'll wait for your final say-so, then move on to the Indian/Pakistan merger. EyeSerene^talk 11:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good; I think we can move forward with the next merger. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll get on it over the weekend. Because a fair number of editors signed up to the Pakistan TF I think creating a Pakistan working group would make sense, so I'll go ahead and set that up too. EyeSerene^talk 10:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

~~In progress (note to self: completed up to no.6)~~ EyeSerene^talk 12:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now completed the Indian/Pakistani > South Asian merger; do we want to create Indian and Pakistani working groups for the new TF? (BTW, a double-check of {{WPMILHIST}} etc would be welcome!). EyeSerene^talk 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me, although I'd suggest redirecting the Pakistani talk page rather than just archiving it. As far as working groups are concerned, the number of articles in both areas makes a working group's limited infrastructure somewhat unwieldy, so I wouldn't bother with setting one up unless it's specifically asked for. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing what Kirill says here. Good job, Eye Serene, well done. Roger Davies ^talk 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks :) I'll hold off on the workgroups; we can deal with that as TF coordinators if/when the time comes. Only one other question then: should we retain the link to WikiProject India in such a prominent place on the TF page, given its wider scope? EyeSerene^talk 08:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it'll probably be unwieldy to put every related project's navbox up at the top now. We could leave it in place for the time being, I suppose; but creating a "Related projects" section somewhere might be neater in the long run. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea; maybe something worth doing when we've finished with the mergers. I've now done the China/Taiwan TFs, so if everything looks ok I'll finish up with the final two. EyeSerene^talk 11:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. The only thing we need to be careful about is making sure all of the aliases in {{WPMILHIST}} are separated by pipes ([1]); if they're not, then things will break horribly if more than one of the tags is actually set. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for fixing those. I've been checking your fixes to my fixes to see where I'd missed things, but didn't notice that. EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

December Bugle

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I've added the Contest Dept stuff; (given the applicable Contest awards); copy-edited the December issue; and posted the new edition in Announcements. Can someone give it an urgent quick look through before it goes out? I've told Cbrown1023 it will be ready to go after 02:00 (UTC) tonight though I don't know when he's planning to despatch it. Thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 20:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note: could we add now in the last moment a notice regarding Allingham contest. Something like "The Henry Allingham World War I contest entered its second phase with the following users qualifing... ". Editors competing in the second round can be found here. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done :) Roger Davies ^talk 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man for you quick response! --Eurocopter (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger! I had already awarded the barnstars! Each are located just above the awards you posted. Oh, well, I just went and removed the duplicate awards from both talk pages. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks, Bryce. (New Year's Resolution: stop using the "New section" button and awarding away without checking first.) Roger Davies ^talk 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol! No harm done. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ACR for closure (2)

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I am conflicted from closing this ACR which has three supports: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Florida class battleship, because I do not close WP:OMT ACRs. Could an uninvolved coordinator please handle this?

Also, I'd like for there to be a consensus of more than two-three coordinators above at this discussion. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That ACR might not be ready for closing; it appears that Sturmvogel 66's comments haven't been responded to yet. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct there, my error, perhaps it is getting late? -MBK₀₀₄ 07:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Osan - this one has timed out, but it does have three clear supports as well as one that is not so clear. It does need to be closed today, regardless of the outcome. -MBK₀₀₄ 09:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm closing it as promoted now; it seems that Auntieruth55's comments were fundamentally addressed. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. I wasn't sure about how to include the article's GA review in the article history template though (I find that to be one of the more fiddly templates) Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it is difficult, here is how it is done: [2], also I've already fixed this, but do not forget to update the tally on the showcase for the number of A-Class articles. -MBK₀₀₄ 09:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Military fiction task force

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Apparently, the Novels WikiProject has set up a military fiction task force of sorts (see WT:MILHIST#Miltiary Fiction Task Force). We should probably contact them to inquire (a) whether they'd like to operate it as a joint task force, in which case we can inject our infrastructure into the page, and (b) whether they'd have a problem with fixing their assessment categories to the standard Category:Military fiction articles by quality rather than their current Category:Military fiction task force articles by quality (which will conflict with the names our templates generate). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, I apparently missed all mention of that. As a member of the Novels Project myself, I'd have no objection, but that is more a question for WT:NOVELS. I'll leave a message there now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done [3][4]. Feel free to add your comments! :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me if Novels wants it. – Joe N 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought: if we adopt this task force jointly with WP:NOVELS, all military fiction books, whether fiction or non-fiction, are going to be categorized under our scope somewhere... is everyone okay with this, especially considering this current discussion? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, for the sake of maintaining some sense of structure to the TF, as well as ensuring that only relevant articles are included in the project, that we should limit it to perhaps historical military fiction. On another thought, we'd then have the potential to merge the Military Historiography Task Force with the Military Fiction Task Force, possibly creating a grand "military books TF", or something along those lines (though with a more majestic sounding name). While we definitely want to have a place in the project for military fiction, we have to also draw a line between military fiction and science fiction with a military twist. Cam ^(Chat) 03:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And that is the problem, because a purely NOVELS military fiction task force would cover all of these; it's in their scope. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily the case, actually; consider, for example, the current NOVELS task force's scope:

All written fictional works, and important information which deal with military or war fiction that is not primarily associated with Sci-Fiction or Fantasy worlds.

I think the NOVELS editors are thinking broadly along the same lines as we are in terms of the "historicity" of the novels.

As far as combining this with historiography, I'm not sure that would really make sense either from the standpoint of clustering related topics (where would poems, short stories, and so forth fit in?) or from the standpoint of current scope (since historiography includes not only books and historians, but also historiographical theses and such which are closer to military science than to literature). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I assumed that a NOVELS mil fict task force would cover everything based on what the scope of the entire project is. Never thought to actually look at their page and see what their scope was exactly. Don't mind me... :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

My home desktop seems to have gotten hold of a new trojan horse, so new that neither of my two anti-virus programs have been able to stop the damn thing yet. As a result, effective as of the end of this message, I am going to discontinue editing from the desktop account in the interest of safety. I'm leaving this message here to inform you all of the problem, and to give permission to block the accounts if they go destructive here on Wikipedia. I have a laptop, so my ability to edit here shouldn't be compromised too badly. -- TomStar81 (70.245.127.52 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Heh. I hope that they do go rogue. I would take great pleasure in blocking our lead coordinator. ;) Rebellion! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now THAT would be a first. Cam ^(Chat) 03:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Such an awful thing to say! Surely I'm not doing that bad a job, am I? ;) On a more serious note I just finished handing out the milihistorian of the year awards. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't recomend blocking Tom: you wouldn't believe how much trouble I got into for (accidently!) blocking EyeSerene as Mrg sock. Who'd have thought that blocking an admin and milhist coordinator in very good standing would turn out to be a bad idea? ;) Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How many people actually believe that was an accident? ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably best not to ask that question :)) EyeSerene^talk 10:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I notice that we have a welcome to the project template, but not an invitation to join the project template. Would it be worth or while to create one? I seem to recall that some of the projects here do have such a template, and it could be of some use to us. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have always thought that an invitation template is somewhat impersonal, I mch prefer to give a personal note on the talkpage of the user saying come join us if you want and if you think it would be helpful to you. That always seems to do the trick perfectly well. Woody (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea actually. I created one for WP:TROP a while back, and it's generally proved useful. While I do agree that hand written notes are better most of the time, an invitation template can include all sorts of useful links and bits of advice. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The advice and links come in the welcome template once they have signed up. You don't want to burden people too early on. Woody (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Roger created a little invitation for editors to join task forces some time ago when we were discussing the inactivity and small number of members in some TFs. This should be in the archive somewhere, and perhaps with a tweak this might be adequate? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found that inviting editors to join the project only works once they're established in Wikipedia. By this time a templated message is a bit inappropriate - I normally congratulate the editor on their contributions (highlighting the best ones) and point them in the direction of the project. Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Two examples I made quite some time ago: User:The ed17/Ed-MILHIST or [5]. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Script for closing A-Class reviews

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Seeing how inconvenient and cumbersome closing A-Class reviews can be, I was wondering if we'd be able to get a script created to automatically close them. I'm not good with coding, but does anyone think it can be done? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Amusing idea. I have no coding skills, but this does sound like a good idea to me. I am concerned about instructions for how to operate such a script if adopted, I personally make no use of any of the tools offered here on site, but if someone where to explain how this would work I wouldn't mind giving it a shot. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an idea the does merit discussion, but as most of you have probably noticed, the instructions to currently close the reviews as well as open them sometimes are lacking. It is for that reason that I usually go through each closure done by another coordinator and clean-up any mistakes or omissions. When I close reviews, I use tabbed browsing and prepare everything before submitting the changes all at once. Also, even if there was a script, I would continue to manually close the reviews. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A-class status quo reappraisal

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I think we need to reexamine just how we maintain our A-class articles. At present they do not loose their status as an A when they become a FA (in our template on the talk page), whereas GAs do loose their status. Hence, when an article is demoted at FAR, it is not put back as a GA, but currently it is automatically an A-class article again (in the eyes of the template). Admittedly this is an extremely rare occurrence, but I have a feeling that this will become more and more common. Today we just had two FA demotions (Military brat (U.S. subculture) and Soviet invasion of Poland) and both articles passed ACRs in late 2006/early 2007. While I am going to put both up for reappraisal reviews of their A-class status, I don't think we set out to clog our ACR system with these reviews every time their is a FA demotion. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the articles ought to drop to B. If an article has sunk to the point that it requires an FAR and gets demoted, I'd bet that 999/1000 times it would not meet our A-class standards either. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well most of the time articles that get FARed are the most obvious targets from 2005/06 with no sources, so they obviously fail from a one minute glance, eg Ziaur Rahman and a few of those gun articles that only had one hobby-website as a source, although in these two cases, it isn't flagrantly obvious to the outsider, so an ACR would be hardly a drain on resources YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As both those articles could be potentially brought to A class standard without too much work, I'd rather they be re-reviewed than be automatically demoted to B. However, I don't see anything wrong with giving the editor who handles the delisting to have discretion on what to do - in instances where the ex-FA is clearly in very bad shape (lots of tags, major content problems, etc) it could be reassessed as B or Start with a notification placed on the project's talk page rather than go though an ACR. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well the Military brat article could be saved, but with the ban and topic ban of Piotrus via ArbCom, the invasion of Poland article is dead in the water so to speak unless someone else decides to step-up. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that he was one of the editors who argued in favour of keeping the POV material which contributed to Invasion of Poland being delisted, I doubt he would have done much anyway. I'd favour an ACR for the article in question here to raise awareness of it and its potential - this ArbCom case will hopefully make it easier for other editors to work on Eastern European articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the aftermath of this case may help the general situation, and I have already stated that I was going to put these up for reappraisal (in fact those will be my next edits, to set that up). I still have an issue with the situation in general that currently every A-class pass that gets demoted at FAR instantly becomes A again and then requires a reappraisal review. I think the GA folks have the system right. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you - in cases where its clear that the A class criteria aren't met and that a significant amount of work would be required to meet them, the delisted article should be rated as B or start without first going through an ACR. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if people think that Piotrus's FAs are full of nonsense content then now would be a rather convenient time to FAR them. I frankly have no idea on anything outside Vietnam apart from the usual guys who give themselves away by soapboaxing all day or those who push POV on really obvious things such as current events YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(od) I think much of this is the result af our slightly unintuitive assessment hierarchy. Both GA and, to some extent, FA, sit outside the project assessment system, although they link in at various points. For example, Good articles only lose their GA-Class, not their GA status, when we promote them to A-Class. Only Featured status overwrites Good status, hence former FAs not reverting to GAs when demoted. Unfortunately for us though, I don't see an easy way to get around having to manually check every demoted FA and placing those that warrant it up for A-Class reappraisal. Demoting all of them automatically to B-Class would, I think, mean more work as we'd have to redo the ACR no matter what. EyeSerene^talk 11:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What we could do is place them A-class article promoted to FA-class up at ACR at the samew time said articles are put up for FAR(C). In this manner the article can undergo both processes at once. If an article maintainer fails to save the article then it can be bumped down below a-class when the FARC closes, but if the article maintainer moves to maintain his or her article's FA-class status then the article of necessity would pass the ACR regardless. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Next semester

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Well, I have news about next semester: depending on your opinion, it could be good or bad. I thought this would happen, so its not s surprise to me, but I am going to have to sit a semester out owing to a low GPA. As far as that effects me and the project, it should mean a little more free time during the spring to get involved here, although I likely will do some job searching while awaiting the fall semester. Just to let everyone know. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the US education system and terms like GPA, so I hope I'm not too far off the mark in saying that I'm sorry to hear that (the enforced break in your studies I mean, not the Milhist involvement!). All the best with your job hunt and the rest; I'm sure everything will work out for you. EyeSerene^talk 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GPA is Grade Point Average; in the US, you are rated on a scale from 0.0 to 4.0. The latter is a perfect grade, A+ or better all across the board. My GPA is 2.4, or about a solid C, and that was just a little too low for UTEP. I'm hoping that Fall will be the answer, since there are more entry level classes offered mainly on account of the freshman I think I may be able to get back in. At any rate, thanks for the luck. I sure I can put that good to good use :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to focus as getting that bachelor's is far more important than Wiki or anything else. I say this as someone who's dropped out of school twice and have sorely missed that BA when applying for jobs. It's become a basic qualifier for any sort of white-collar job, not just a nice-to-have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got my BA, damn proud of that too ;) (although in all honesty I was a little upset with my self that it took me 5.5 years to get it). The problem now is that UTEP requires those wishing to pursue a Masters to have a 3.0 GPA at all times, and I lack that; hence the wait. I do intend to get back in though; I look at my education as a generals stars: I got four - elementary school, middle school, high school, and now a bachelors. I intend to collect the remaining two stars for master and doctorate; or die trying :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a former member of the Reserve Bank of Australia's governing board once told me that any university qualifications past honours level had a negative impact on individuals' lifetime earnings. A few months ago I was on the graduate recruitment panel for the large organisation I work for, and we didn't take level of qualifications into account (we focused mainly on the candidates' skills and interest in working for us). Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick, apologies if this goes too deep, but about how old are you? I always just assumed that you were a mature 20- to 22-year old (don't ask why, I don't know), but suddenly I am doubting that... :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Very) late 20s. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was wrong. :) A favor to ask: would you have the time to go through User:The ed17/Sandbox/Iowa class battleship#Reactivation potential and cut everything in there that is unnecessary? I'd do it myself, but while I'd prefer to say I don't have a pro-battleship bias ... I kind of do, which would affect what I cut, and I know I would leave too much uneeded information in there. I need someone with a very, very sharp knife to whittle that down to around two paragraphs. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I don't think that I have the background to do anything first-rate. By the way, I intend to fix up the Dutch BB article this weekend so it's ready for a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, anything you can do would be helpful. Re Dutch BB, sounds good to me; I'll have a last look through Breyer and make sure he can't add anything beyond what I've already done. Incidentally, I don't recall if I ever thanked you the work and lead role you have taken with that article. If I didn't, thank you very, very much; if I did, thanks again. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request II

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Hey guys, Operation Tractable is slated to be TFA on 22 January. We all know how much spam and 4chan vandalism occurs when that happens, and I have a Spanish Oral Exam and a Chemistry Lab Exam that day and am thus unavailable to patrol. Would i be able to recruit anyone here to assist in keeping the page vandalism free on the 22nd? Cam ^(Chat) 22:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got eyes on it as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted :) EyeSerene^talk 10:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mine as well. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Cam ^(Chat) 07:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy recently. I have too. – Joe N 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Task force reorganisation complete

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've now enacted (under Kirill's patient guidance!) all the task force housekeeping changes that had consensus (discussion now archived here). All affected task force coordinators should have received a notice on their talk-page; mostly it's just a case of updating watchlists for those coords that were overseeing now-defunct task forces. I'll write something up for the newsletter later.

One item that might be worth revisiting on WT:MILHIST is the proposed NZ/Australian TF merger, which had unanimous consensus in principle but no consensus for the new TF name and scope. What do people think? EyeSerene^talk 13:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We can probably lump that in with whatever Tom has in mind (above). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, and it'll perhaps give the recent changes a chance to bed in before we hit the project with more proposals :) EyeSerene^talk 14:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ACR closure (3)

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Normally with three supports and three reviews after eleven days I would promote without question, but because of the extended discussion, I would be appreciative if a few of my colleagues would opine their thoughts on the status of this ACR:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Smedley Butler

Also, if you feel that it is a promote, by all means go ahead, it is not my intention to close 90% of all the ACRs we have, it just so happens that I've closed most of them this year so far... -MBK₀₀₄ 05:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that, in view of the ongoing discussion (addressing two outstanding issues as I read it) and Ian's withholding his !vote for now, we could let the discussion continue for a day or so more. I'd perhaps be inclined to post something to the review page explaining that it'll be closed soon and while current consensus supports promotion, it would be helpful to resolve the outstanding issues first. EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable, go right ahead. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And in other reviews I've got an easy close for a coordinator.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Soviet invasion of Poland - has three demotes and the only reason I haven't closed it is that I initiated the review. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler now closed; I'll do the other tomorrow if no-one else has picked it up in the meantime. EyeSerene^talk 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've failed Soviet invasion of Poland. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got a critique of your closure. The correct terminology is demoted not failed for the ACR close note, failed is used in {{WPMILHIST}} and demoted is used in {{ArticleHistory}}. Also, you probably neglected to archive the review here, which I have taken care of. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. We have two more ACRs that appear ready for closure. Naturally, would do so myself but I am involved in both.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I closed Cedric Howell as successful. Can someone look it over to make sure I've done it all correctly? Also worth noting, this is Abraham, B.S.'s third successful ACR for his most recent A-class medal. Of course I can't handle the second one :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Parsec. Your closure appears to have taken all the steps, and is fine. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of Germany

This ACR still needs to be closed, but several coordinators have commented and therefore cannot close it. If you have not commented please close it, there is also another ACM for Parsecboy to come after this close. It would be nice to have it awarded by the end of this month (hint). -MBK₀₀₄ 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This one can be closed as demoted. The only reason I haven't done it is that I initiated the review:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Military brat (U.S. subculture) -MBK₀₀₄ 04:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is amusing

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

I'm in the middle of exam break right now, and my history class was given a WWII reading assignment over the break. As a result, they've all been burning through wikipedia like nobody's business (even though we're technically not supposed to). I find it really ironic that most of the articles they've been reading are articles that I wrote/helped to write. I'm getting a good kick out of this. On another note, thanks again to everyone who's agreed to stand guard over Tractable on the 22nd. Cam ^(Chat) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Normandy Team is one of the most prolific group of editors I've ever met since I'm around and it should be taken as an example of cooperation and high-quality contributions. Perhaps we should try revitalising it by making it a working group within the project (such as Operation Majestic Titan). Thoughts? --Eurocopter (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. Shameless plug: we've currently bogged down a little with Battle of Villers-Bocage, which has failed FAC twice now, so any help there would also be very welcome :) EyeSerene^talk 10:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As do I. A working group would be a good idea, although as a nitpick the OMT example is actually a special project. All the same though, if you formalize it then I support that too. I may even have to get in on the editing myself if that's the case :) TomStar81 (Talk) 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a special project would do considering the high traffic most Normandy campaign articles have. If nobody has anything against it, we should establish it by next week. BTW, we should try get Skinny back in business. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Skinny's unwell at the moment according to his user page. You're right though, his presence is missed; hopefully he'll be back in fighting trim soon. EyeSerene^talk 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah just noticed that soon after posting my last comment. I'll contact him and see how's he doing. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A Normandy special project, eh? I would suggest Operation Overlord as the project name, but then that one was pretty obvious, wasn't it? ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be done, but I would suggest Operation Normandy (to not mix it with historic names). If we agree on the name and nobody has anything else against it, I could move on and create it till the end of the week. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves here; at a minimum, we need to make sure that the people currently involved in this effort want it to become a special project. :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My ears are burning :) Ta for the praise, gents. I', feeling much better now, but I will be moving to Chichester quite soon and won't have the 'net for a while until I can get a connection going there. And I have to admit, I'm a tad burnt out with wiki at the moment, especially after all the fuss over Operation Tonga. Skinny87 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe anyone would disagree if we'll make it a special project instead of keep using Cam's talk page. :) --Eurocopter (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd like to see some input from Cam before we go and pull his subpages somewhere. :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's only fair. Cam's a good chap and I'm sure he won't mind, but he should have a say :) EyeSerene^talk 09:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As one of the team lackeys am cool with the above proposals. Although while we are at the moment an unofficial group just plodding along what does the move to being a "special project" actually mean?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We'd become an official group just plodding along :) EyeSerene^talk 17:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response; I was away all weekend. I'm good with it. Incidentally, at this point it is looking unlikely that I will be standing for coordinator reelection in the coming cycle. I've just got way too many real-life priorities at the moment (school, scholarships) to devote the time to coordinatorship that the job requires. I want to focus my energies on OMT and Normandy drives (I'm in the middle of preparing for a large-scale drive with the Kongo battlecruisers), and I feel that shifting my time towards that will be more conducive to me getting more productivity out of the 'pedia. Cam ^(Chat) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ed)I give my best wishes to the Normandy Team, yours is a gigantic task. But I'm afraid I won't be touching Operation Tonga again, not after the rather bruising encounter on the talkpage a few months ago. As far as I'm concerned, there's a good framework in the article and a lot of information - to get to FA I think it will need the info on the German forces updated and their actions during the operation added, and the Aftermath section reworked to flow into the rest of the Normandy campaign. Skinny87 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Two proposals for new awards

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

After a look through the A-class and FAC/FAR process I've noticed that we seem to have an absence of reviewers, not that this information is new or comes as any surprise, but it seems to be more visible these days with the increase in pleas for more eyes on ACR and FAC articles. Additionally, with older GA+ material in need of maintenance to ensure that it remains compliant with current standards I was wondering if there would be any interest in creating a reviewers medal system similar to the one we use for the A-class nominations for those who actually review GA, A, and FA-class articles in their nomination states. Setting up a system like this may help compel a few extra people to leave comments on articles undergoing higher assessment.

If we implement a system like the ACR medal one currently in production then the review system will increase with new medal teirs (oak leaves, oak leaves and swords, Diamonds & Oak Leaves and Swords, etc), and that could help gain and retain people while reducing the need for coordinators (MBK in particular) to constantly leave messages asking for more input on the A-class articles. Similar systems for GA and FA class could be implemented by altering the color coding so the assessment grade could be determined (ie: green medals for GA reviewers, blue medals for A-class, gold medals for FA).

In the case of already recognized content, I was wondering if there would be any interest in introducing a medal for those who voluntarily place their articles up for PR or a formal review for the article's current assessment level. This would be of great assistance for our long term goals by helping encourage editors to maintain their content appropriately. What do you guys think about these ideas, are any of them worth pursuing? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a tiered system of reviewer-type medals. I've mostly focused at GA as they usually are easier to do and more quickly resolved, but I've started to dip my toes more into the higher level reviews in simple payback as I expect to submit more of these myself. But it would surely be nice if we could get some more eyes on our reviews to help to reduce the backlog at GAR, which runs about a month or more, depending. We should probably scale the reviewing medals so that the lowest level is easy to get, but more and more are required for the next level. One issue for GAR that I'm not sure about is there some sort of mechanism already in place to track them, or does somebody do that manually via watchlist? I'm not sure about something for PR submissions, sometimes they can be really helpful, other times not so much. I tend to do it when I've got structural issues or it simply does't feel right to send it up for a GAR just quite yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:GAN/R keeps a tally of backlogged GANs by topic YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In this proposed scheme the PR would only apply to editors submitting content already at or above GA class to ensure that its still worthy of its current level. We all know that the criteria for higher assessments shifts over time, having an article come in for fine tuning at PR (or GAR or ACR or FAR, if the article requires more serious input) would help us maintain our articles at a consistent level, rather than risk content falling off the wagon due to lack of interest. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be able to fish a few reviewers out if they get their content review medals paid from the last two quarters. Maybe the creditors still cheesed off about their returns. Yes, Wikipedia works too much along the lines of cost-benefit analysis, from the ruling class to the working class....... For the people resubmitting old GA+ articles, it might cheese reviewers off to have a long queue of people armed with old articles lining up waiting for the reviewer to state the obvious thing that the article is 80% unreferenced, or that ndashes and formatting is all over the place, so that they then put them in and pick up a collectible. It might be easier to just ask a person to just reference or expand an article by 50% or whatever the bar is and then submit their claim for remuneration.... like cash for clunkers.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Content Review Medals

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

When was the last time we passed out content review medals to the man and women who have been active in the military history review process? The last medal I have is dated from 2008, and that did seem to provide some imputes for members to review. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we're two rounds behind there, Jul-Sep 09 and Oct-Dec 09 - I've noted it and been meaning to act upon it but not done so as yet. Now we're well into the New Year, perhaps we could get two to four people on it and knock both rounds off fairly quickly - I'll be one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you taking the first or second group? I'll take the other, but I'd like to avoid doing the group you are already doing so we can streamline it and avoid taking the same chunk :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was starting at the beginning, i.e. Jul-Sep 09, so if you'd like to take Oct-Dec 09 that'd be great, Tom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

March Coordinator elections

Latest comment: 14 years ago43 comments14 people in discussion

I know that we are still about a month away from the next election, but I wanted to get this up so everyone in the current tranche would have a chance to see it. I'm interested in hearing who you guys think would be good coordinators for the project, because I intend to leave messages on a few talk pages to ask those user whom I feel would do well in this role to consider running for a spot on the next tranche.

Off the top of my head, I can think of MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) and Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs), both of whom I think would make good coordinators. Is there anyone else who you guys think would make good coordinators? I'd be happy to leave messages for them on behalf of all of us when March 1st rolls around; otherwise, I'd be happy to hear who else may be consider a good fit for the team. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bee and Ruth are the first that come to my mind, Tom. On a related subject, though, I'm interested in sounding the rest of the coords out about the frequency of elections. I for one believe that the election process and perhaps even more so the divvying up of task force responsibilities that accompanies it takes us away from more important work and therefore should occur only once every 12 months, not 6. Obviously the current group was elected for a 6-month term, therefore we should hold the March elections as planned, but I'd be interested in seeing who else thinks that those should be for a 12-month term instead. I think in previous discussions a few suggested that shorter terms were 'safer' but, while some coords do indeed accomplish more admin work than others, have any of them ever seriously abused the privilege? If they ever did, they could be recalled, same as new ones can be coopted. Anyway, that's my opening round, what's everyone else think? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that moving to every 12 months would be a good idea, if the community agrees. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We could do that, but it would need to be approved of in a referendum during the coordinator elections, since that is when we usually put to the community wide spread reforms like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above, although I think having a regular turnover of new blood helps to prevent our arteries hardening too much :) Would a referendum during the upcoming elections be for those elections or the following (Autumn) ones? EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Slow down, this is a three stage process and we are only at stage one: we need to establish consensus among ourselves for a change in this aspect of our operation; with 15 coords here that means 8+ need to be in favor of the idea. Thus far its been only you, me, and Ian, and we need more input than just three for such a shift. Step two will be to take the matter to the community to seek their input, and if there is sufficient evidence that our members are interested in such a shift we go to step three, which is to add the matter to a coordinator election. For the time being we still need to work out some logistical matters related to the idea, like the best time for such an election, the number of coordinators to be elected, the matter of what to do in the event that a coordinator becomes inactive, and so forth. A little brainstorming here would help firm up the plan so that when it comes to the community we are in a position to answer questions that the community may have. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's basically what I was getting at - what sort of timetable are we looking at? I think the upcoming elections may be too close to give us time to properly gauge community consensus for such a big change if the idea is to introduce the 12 month term this time around. EyeSerene^talk 13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

IF consensus emerges here that its a good idea then we can bring it up in October for a referendum vote, although we have lots of work to do to get there first. For now, lets just see where the idea takes us. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems sensible - apologies for any confusion I caused :) EyeSerene^talk 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like a good idea to increase the terms to 12 months. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea, but as mentioned, we first need to gain consensus among the coordinators, then present this to the project for a vote in the upcoming elections and then if approved, implement it in the October elections. Geez, these election cycles do go by quickly. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was originally against extending the term when it was mentioned some time back, but considering how rapidly the six months goes I can now understand the extension. As an aside to Tom's comment above regarding prospective coords, I happen to think AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) would be well suited and preform well in the role. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(od) We discussed changing the format a while back (here was the discussion, if anyone wanted to read it), although nothing came of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left the messages for the three suggested editors, allowing two weeks for them to look over the requirements and ask questions if they like. On the matter of the election dates; if there are no objections, I would propose that open the nomination phase 00:01 March 1 and run it through 23:59 March 8, with the election phase opening 00:01 March 9 and lasting until 23:59 March 21. This is roughly comparable to the timetable we kept for the September 2009 elections, and it seemed to work for us six months ago, so I see no real reason to use all 31 days of March when 21 worked for us last time around. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems good to me. EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems ok to me as well. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, the time table is adopted :) On a related note, an update on the editors who were suggested above as potential coordinator candidates: As of this message time stamp both AuntieRuth55 and AustralianRupert have turned down the offer, the former citing school work and a dissertation and the later citing a medical discharge from the army and needed recuperation time as reasons. MisterBee1966 remains undecided. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So no rest for the wicked (i.e. the rest of us) unless someone decides to nom out of the blue... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was planning on putting my hat in the ring. Roger has asked me twice in the past, and while I don't have the reviewing chops of any coordinator now serving, it's about time some of the ACW regulars step up. I'll likely need some hand-holding if the project members support my nom, but I'm willing to serve at least six months. Perhaps we might evolve a tranche system like Arbs do. I was going to ask User:Kumioko, a methodical user with a gnomic nature who nonetheless makes substantial contributions to the project. User:Kresock might be another willing to step up. The real leader of the the ACW cluster is Hal Jesperson, but he's not a joiner, so I doubt he'd respond to prodding, even though he's the logical candidate. BusterD (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of asking all I mentioned to consider the prospect. And I asked User:North Shoreman, long a personal ally on historical bios, plus JimWae and Jimmuldrow, both major contributors to the ACW main page as well. BusterD (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and the initiative. As for the hand holding: its not a big deal, any one of the senior members can help you out should you require assistance. If the aformentioned editors have any questions they are welcome to ask any of the current or former coordinators about the experience, and more information about coordinatorship can be found in on this academy page. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

JimWae and North Shoreman were quick to decline. I'm hoping some of the others are considering the idea... BusterD (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me that I'll still be on wikibreak during the first part of the nomination phase. I'm moving this month, and I won't have internet at the new home until March 6. This shouldn't keep me from self-nominating, but would preclude a bunch of questions and answers. Should I just self-nom when I'm ready to take and answer questions? BusterD (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Self nom when you ready. As a practical matter, the Q&A section stays open for the entire election phase, so those wishing to ask questions can do so as the voting begins. As long as your nom is in by March 8 its in good hands. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Referendum

Closed as No Consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We discussed passing a motion noting that former coordinators may operate with project dispensation earlier this year, did anyone feel that we made enough progress on that point to put the matter up for a referendum vote? Also, aside from the extension of time coordinators serve, were there any other project wide referendum issues we need to put up in March? TomStar81 (Talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"that former coordinators may operate with project dispensation" - what? Reword that for clarity please; I can't understand it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I read it as "ex-coordinators may still contribute in coordinator-like roles". I think - Tom, correct me if I'm wrong - this was to address some of the objections to appointing emeritus coords. As I understood the proposal though, it only applied to ex lead coordinators? EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Right on the first point, not the second: the idea is to have this apply to the 5-stars and the lead so that those coordinators who wish to remain active but do not wish to be full fledged coordinators can participate in the capacity of the elected coordinators at their discretion. It is designed to address the issue of awarding coordinators the title emeritus by allowing us to avoid the need to ratify the position by communal vote for everyone wishing to remain active within the coordinator community, and passage of this referendum would allow those coordinators wishing to remain active in a lesser capacity to do so with project dispensation. As a practical matter, we already informally extend this courtesy to former coordinators, passing this referendum therefor would not upset the status quo of the practice any. This would also allow us to reserve the position of emeritus for the elite of the elite, rather than turn it into a blanket award for anyone serving as the lead who vacates the position but wishes to remain active to some extent. We do need to settle two matters related to this referendum though: first, are we all agreed that this is a good idea, and second, how should this be worded. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is wise: for example, I'm not sure if I'll run again, but I'd like to be able to (legally) occasionally comment here. Perhaps something along the lines of "Former coordinators who left the role in good standing may contribute to coordinator discussions and fulfill coordinator roles," would work? Someone else probably has a better idea, just a suggestion. – Joe N 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But do we want those who have not been elected in the most recent election or given emeritus status voting on ACMs and Chevrons with Oak leaves along with closing ACRs? I'd say no. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with this and completely share the sentiments of MBK. Unless I am grasping the wrong end of the stick here, this basically means that once an editor is elected a coord in a single election they are appointed in that compacity for life if they so chose without having to officially run for the position again. I am completely for ex-coords commenting here and that the emeritus position be reserved for the elite of the elite, but not an appointment for life on former coords. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A point of clarification here: those not elected to the current coordinator tranche or operating with the position of emeritus would be disallowed from exercising coordinator authority on our pages. This proposed referendum is more for granting permission for ex-coordinators to comment on this page and assist in a similar capacity to their elected counterparts, but at the cost of participation in awards requiring coordinator votes and the ability to close and archive PR and ACR material within the project, the latter of two of which will stay reserved to the currently elected coordinator tranche, co-opted coordinators (where applicable), and the emeritus coordinators exclusively. I, too, am adamantly against turning the position of coordinator into a lifelong position for every members, but as the years have gone by a handful of editors who held assistant coordinator or coordinator positions have shown a desire to remain active in a lesser capacity, and this referendum would permit ex-coordinators to remain active at the expense of the aforementioned rights and privileges. Also, keep in mind that this is not as firm now as it was when originally proposed a few months ago, as such this may not even make it onto the ballot in March. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I still do not see the need for this. It has always been our modus operandi to let anyone comment here within reason (I did sparingly before I was elected) and all former coordinators are explicitly welcome here in my eyes and previous experience. I fail to see why what has been our standard procedure for years needs to be explicitly voted upon by the project. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In a broad sense its because I like getting project approval for perceived changes; I suppose its my way of heeding the warning at Esperanza that all projects should "...be open and transparent to all editors at all times and not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's." TomStar81 (Talk) 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

TomStar81 raises a good point with the Esperanza example. Better to have current coordinators elected by the current active membership. That keeps everyone in touch. Yes, everyone can comment here. Best for the project in the long run if it's on as equal a footing as possible. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Durova is right here—everyone has always been free to comment on this page, regardless of whether they hold any particular position. As far as I know, this arrangement has never actually been questioned in the years we've had the coordinator system in place; given that it doesn't appear to be an open issue, I'm not convinced that it's necessary to hold a formal referendum on it. Our liking for formality aside, I think we'll look rather silly if we put something that everyone considers to be a perfectly obvious fact up for a vote; to draw the obvious conclusion, would we really prohibit people from commenting here even if such a referendum were to fail? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Durova and Kirill have expressed this perfectly. In my view, everyone has always been welcome to comment here and all I think this, well, basically pointless referendum would achieve is mass confusion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we might be touting a solution in search of a problem. The input of any editors, former coords or not, is always welcome and often very valuable in getting an 'outside' perspective here. I don't think we need to formalise it beyond that understanding. EyeSerene^talk 08:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I'm also a little uncomfortable about emphasising the gap between "ordinary" editors and coordinators because it's illusory. There are very few extra things (voting on awards and closing ACRs) that coordinators can do that others can't. Roger Davies ^talk 11:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems consensus on this issue has drifted from support to oppose since last discussed I think it may be safely assumed at this point that there is no longer sufficient support for this matter to survive a referendum. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Showtime!

I've got the page up for the March 2010 elections, but for the life of me I can not get the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/March 2010/Status to report that voting is not yet open. Can someone tell me what it is I am doing wrong? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

January Newsletter

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/Newsletter January 2010

Anything else that we need to add to this before it goes out? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

- I added the "for the coordinators" section, would anyone be able to take a look and add/subtract/copyedit? Thanks, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  - Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    - I'll leave a note for Brown then and we can get this out by the end of the week. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      - Uh Tom, looking at Special:Contributions/Cbrown1023, he hasn't edited since 19 January. Perhaps an alternate delivery method would be preferable? -MBK₀₀₄ 07:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
        Not necessarily. He doesn't edit much on en:wiki but is generally around on other projects. I usually email him to tell him the newsletter is ready and he usually delivers within 48 hours of that. Roger Davies ^talk 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ACRs for closure

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

There are a few ACRs that are post the 20 days for closure; I'm involved in the reviews, so I would prefer not to close them on COI grounds.

Also, since we seem to be getting these messages here on a more frequent basis, would there be any objections to placing an = ACRs ready for closure = tab before the discussion tab so that we can add ACRs ready to be closed there instead of having to leave new messages every time another one is ready for closure? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea, since I'm usually the one starting this conversation. Also, Tom the rule is 28 days not 20, most of those still have almost a week to run. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

None of them save the first seem to have enough consensus to close. I've closed that one however. Cam ^(Chat) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about that Cam, Tom mis-calculated, they all have about week to go since the rule is 28 days instead of the 20 he used above. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

<sheepish grin>Yep, m'bad. Sorry about that :) </sheepish grin> TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd looked at the last four and, last I checked, all of them were pending for a copy-edit. Can we hold these until that's completed? – Joe N 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, since they are all from the same editor, I was planning on dropping them a note asking them to refrain from nominating multiple articles at once again (per established policy at FAC and to a lesser extent here so we don't strain reviewers) after these were closed. I'd say it would be better to close them as no consensus than keep them open for months. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agree on both counts. There are very few editors (Cla68 and Catalan being possible exceptions) who are/were capable of juggling the demands of multiple ACRs at once. Given that all of these remaining ones are in need of some serious work before a full support count, I'd agree on closing them as "No consensus". Cam ^(Chat) 06:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ACR section

I've established am ACRs for closure section, but I would ask that someone with more experience in closing ACRs that I have write an academy course for the process so we can leave a link for that process in the section. When we get our new coordinators - and we will get new coordinators - such a course will undoubtedly be useful in making sure they close the ACRs correctly. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that should fall to me since between myself and Eurocopter we were responsible for a clear majority of the closures over the past year. I'll add it to my to-do list for when I have some free time once these research projects are over. -MBK₀₀₄ 10:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New tool in the FAC toolbox and its purpose

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For those who frequent the ACR pages you will now notice a new tool in the toolbox. Per this discussion, it seem to be an intended suplement to, and possibly the replacement for, the current edit count feature. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin requested

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Some of the Normandy Team are currently working on getting Battle of Villers-Bocage ready for its third crack at FAC. However, we're being plagued by an anon who some will be familiar with and who has been regularly showing up on these articles with all sorts of objections (but never any sources). They've been blocked a few times, but their dynamic IP address makes this largely ineffective; making the best of a bad job we've been trying to work with them as far as possible and removing their contributions when they descend into trolling and abuse. With their newly-registered account, Blablaaa (talk · contribs), they've started to pointedly follow suit. Their net effect has been to derail the article development and monopolise the talk page. Obviously I'm too involved to take admin action, but is talkpage semiprotection worth considering here (and possibly more blocks including a rangeblock; see talkpage history for list of IPs and note they have made some semi-helpful contributions in other areas)? EyeSerene^talk 09:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same anon who was plaguing Tractable, Verrieres Ridge, Totalize, and Falaise Pocket at an earlier date? If it is, then I am definitely not the one to talk to about that issue, given that I've been involved in other articles with this user. Block the account immediately, but I think we may need a little bit more on this. Cam ^(Chat) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've exercised admin authority to protect the page for 4-days while I ascertain the facts here as they relate to this article, but if this has been a constant problem then I would suggest arbitration since we now have a registered account present and editing on the article. It could be the Normandy Team's chance to protect these pages with a ruling from a higher authority on site. Arbitration not withstanding, I am willing to semi-protect the articles if the edit history shows repeated instances of disruptive editing. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting on my arbitration clerk hat here, I wouldn't go to arbitration just yet. Any request for a case there needs to have evidence of prior tries at dispute resolution, either through the community at AN/ANI or via Mediation, etc. Going straight to arbitration is not an option unless you want the request declined. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the responses. I'm reluctant to head arbwards (and as MBK notes, we have no formal DR to point to). However, it is the same chap Cam's referring to and I know others have had difficulties with them too. They don't tend to edit the actual articles very much, but post endlessly to the talk-pages. Over time we've managed to get them to tone down the rhetoric and accusations of anti-German bias, but they persist in posting their unsourced personal opinions - hence my unusual request for talk-page semiprotection. Thanks for that Tom - if/when their current account gets blocked, it should cut out the rest of the flak and let us finish up the article at least.

As for a long-term solution, I don't know. Currently they seem to have moved on to other articles and appear to be editing fairly constructively, though on closer look their pro-German/anti-Allies agenda is pretty obvious. Their talk-page contribution goes on unabated (the latest sample at Talk:Battle of Britain). Personally I'd like to see them find another site to play on, but enforcing sanctions has proved difficult in the past. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a textbook case of tendentious editing, which is both a systematic WP:NPOV violation and a form of disruptive editing and hence a blockable offence. The editor should be warned for their disruptive behaviour and be blocked if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, based on my experiences with this kind of editor, whatever they add needs to be checked against its source - its not uncommon for this kind of editor to misinterpret sources by ignoring qualifiers and differing views or make claims which simply aren't in the source provided. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked into the registered account's edits and, if good faith is assumed, they're basically OK. The talk page posts are more troublesome however, as it appears that they don't really get that talk pages aren't discussion forums. I'll keep an eye on them as the IP behaviour is out of line and this appears to be the same editor so there's a high probability if it would reoccur. I'm afraid that I don't have either of the books they're using to add information about German and Soviet losses, but these really do need to be checked. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I think we can work with POV editors as long as others can moderate their influence, sources are used accurately, and they know when they need to back off. The talkpage behaviour is the real nuisance. Your assistance is greatly appreciated :) EyeSerene^talk 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I've struck my initial assessment of the editor, as it was a bit harsh. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST template and Special Projects

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It was proposed a while back that we modify the milhist template to support the special projects we have, does anyone know if that is being worked on? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's sitting on my plate, in principle, but I don't believe we ever decided what features we want for them. It would be easy enough to give special projects any (or all) of the things currently available for task forces; are all of them worth implementing, though? For reference, we have three distinct items being generated::* Overall article collection categories:* Assessment level categories:* Attention needed categories:Do we want all of them created for special projects, or only some of them (and, if so, which ones)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking just for OMT, I'm of the opinion that the first two categories would be useful but not the attention needed category. We already make an attempt to keep a table updated that the WP bot would do if the categories were implemented. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with MBK, the first two would be useful; the third not so much. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move forward with that in mind. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing open task items in navigation template

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've taken a stab at making the navigation template slightly smaller by collapsing all the announcement & open task items into a sub-section, and would appreciate any comments; is the result an improvement, or was the previous format better? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it :) Now that the section's collapsed, would it be useful to include direct links to the various subsections of the Review page? EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure; if we did have those links, wouldn't people expect them to be under the review department in the "Departments" block, as the related alerts listing is? On the other hand, some of the things under the open tasks, like the popular article listing, might fit better conceptually under one of the departments as well.

I'm wondering if a better solution might be to combine this new section with the existing department listing to create "Departments and open tasks"

Open tasks
- Articles needing attention
- ...
Assessment department
- ...
...

Then, we avoid having to either duplicate links or artificially split out task-like items from the underlying departments. Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

← I've taken a stab at combining the two sections and filtering some of the open task items under the appropriate departments. Comments on the new arrangement would be very appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Again I like the changes, nice job. The reason I asked about the reviews is because I wonder just how much distinction there is between the Assessment and Review departments. Reviewing is a form of assessment, so it's always seemed to me that logically the two should be under the same department. Intuitively when I click Assessment, I expect the link to take me to where article assessment takes place (including ACR) - it seems odd that most of the page is actually our quality statistics and that ACR happens in a different venue. Given that, I was thinking that providing a direct link to the ACR section of the Review page might help clear up any confusion. EyeSerene^talk 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ACRs for closure (4)

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel
- Done, except for Article history--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  - What was the result? EyeSerene^talk 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    - Not successful, I'll take care of the clean-up work unless you want to. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      - Done, article history implemented. Sturm, remember to leave a line in the review like most of us do explicitly saying the result of the review like I've put in this one. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      - You edit-conflicted my reply saying I was about to do it, but I wasn't quick enough :) Sorry about that :P EyeSerene^talk 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ACRs for closure (5)

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 - Ready for a no consensus close I think, and I closed the first one as such and am conflicted. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Lets hold off until Ed and Autieruth return an give an opinion; if they support we can close this one as successfull rather than as no consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  - I'll try to finish reading it and give an opinion today or tomorrow. – Joe N 13:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)