Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 29

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history | Coordinators
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Dank in topic ACRs for closure (Kaga)
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

World War I Contest summary

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

As some of you may know, the World War I special contest has just ended and it has been a success in my opinion. I wish to present this summary in order to encourage future such activities. After four months of contest, in which initially participated 20 editors (only 12 actively), I present you the following achievements:

  • 265 initial article assessments done
  • 365 B-class checklists completed
  • 5 new Peer Reviews submitted
  • 43 new DYKs + 1 new ITN
  • 5 new FPs + 1 new FL
  • 2 new Good Topics
  • 99 reviews of FAC/ACR/GAN
  • 238 article improvement level ups, of which:
    • 54 Bs
    • 22 GAs
    • 13 As
    • 6 FAs

In conclusion, I believe this was a benefic activity and engaged editors in a constructive project improvement competition. Furthermore, I think this very first special contest should remain as an example and we should organize other similar ones in the future. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great outcome Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely impressive - much credit to all involved. EC, have you written something up for the newsletter? EyeSerenetalk 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Not yet Eyeserene, but I'm planning to do so. There is still plenty of time to write in the March newsletter. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
True, I was being over-keen. Really all I meant was "this is worth showing off about" :) EyeSerenetalk 10:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Did anything further get written for the newsletter? The above stats say that there were 43 DYKs, but I'm digging into the submissions pages a bit further to try and see how many new articles were created (not all were submitted for DYK) and how many articles were 'touched' by the contest (in this case, touched means mentioned on a submissions page and counted for some form of points). Some of the articles involved will appear more than once in the above stats (especially if they went through several rounds of level ups). What I was hoping would happen would be a single page listing all the articles and what happened to them during the contest, though that might be difficult to do. The starting point would be the submissions pages here. I'm going to throw something together in my userspace and will pop back here to link to it in case it would be of interest (if there is a better place to discuss this, I'll go there instead). Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The stats I came up with are here (that section is a summary, the full list of the articles is also on that page). It is possible to do a before and after distribution for the articles with graphs, but I didn't do that (someone could easily do that though).

    Depending how you count the articles, there were 114 articles created or improved. Of these, 49 were new articles and 65 were existing articles that were improved. The starting class distribution for the 65 existing articles was: 0 FAs, 0 As, 1 GAs, 10 Bs, 24 starts, and 30 stubs. The final class distribution for the 67 existing articles that were improved was: 4 FAs, 6 As, 20 GAs, 32 Bs, 3 starts, and 0 stubs. However, to this must be added the final class distribution for the 49 new articles, which was: 2 FAs, 0 As, 2 GAs, 15 Bs, 18 starts, and 12 stubs. This gives an overall final class distribution for 114 articles of: 6 FAs, 6 As, 22 GAs, 47 Bs, 21 starts, and 12 stubs.

    Overall (considering both new and existing articles), the overall number of stubs decreased from 30 to 12 (those 12 are all new articles), the overall number of start articles stayed about the same (a small decrease from 24 to 21), the overall number of B-class articles increased from 10 to 47, the overall number of GA-class articles from 1 to 22, the overall number of A-class articles from 0 to 6, and the overall number of FA-class articles from 0 to 6 also. The list in my userspace can be used to do a more detailed analysis, noting that several articles have improved further since the end of the contest, and the above analysis only looks at what was formally submitted for the 'article creation and improvement' sections (some DYKs were never submitted for that, and the above analysis also omits the featured list, the featured pictures and the featured topics, so counting those you end up with: 117 articles (50 of which were new creations), 1 list, 5 pictures, and 2 topics). Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow. That project was not just a success, it was wildly successful. A pat on the back to all who participated. Thanks for taking the time to do this, Carcharoth. If you want, please add a summary of that on this month's newsletter! :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I have added a news thread to the March newsletter. Thank you for your efforts Carcharoth! Perhaps you would be able helping to organize a future similar activity, any ideas? --Eurocopter (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Eurocopter. I'd say more of the same! Maybe ask the other participants as well what they liked best and what ideas they have to extend or add to future activities? The talk page of the WWI taskforce would be a good idea, and there is that Centennial page - I posted in both talk pages a few times but I'm not sure if people were not following the talk pages or whether they were too busy on articles, but it is a question of getting people actively involved and keeping interest going all the way up to this centennial. I have a few ideas (collaboration on a major article, focusing on a particular subtopic, tagging and assessment drives), but maybe one of the other talk pages is a better place to discuss, with notices to get the contest participants and others interested? Also, the extended stats I gave above could be put on the contest talk page or front page, maybe? I may do that later, as I've also done a few graphs and compiled view stats for the DYKs (not posted those yet). Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I was referring to similar contests but in other areas. WWII probably? --Eurocopter (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see! I'd love to take part in something like that, but I'm surprisingly bad at helping organise things like that (despite what it sometimes looks like). I only ever commit to helping out when I'm positive I will have the time to do something properly, as in the past I've let people down by saying I'd do something and then I've not devoted enough time to it. Also, I still have plenty left to do with the articles and books I hadn't finished working on as part of that WWI contest. If there is another contest on another topic, I'd be happy to help out with small tasks and to take part, but (unless no-one else proposed a new contest) not much more than that, sorry. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Though having said that, I'd be more likely to do more reviewing in a WWII contest, though that might not be an entirely good thing.

German far right POV pushing

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Has anyone else noticed an upsurge in German far right editors targeting World War II era articles recently? The standard behavior is toning down material which is negative towards Germany claiming that this is necessary to prevent 'bias'/'misrepresentations' or is unreliably sourced and adding material about Allied misbehavior (typically backed by cherry-picked or unreliable sources and presented without any context whatsoever). The use of German-language sources is often also part of the picture. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples, Nick? Skinny87 (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Some examples would be helpful, to help see what is happening. Would it make sense to create a watchlist of WWII articles akin to Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles UK? Woody (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's one example. Linksnational (talk · contribs) was going through the various articles like German war crimes and War crimes of the Wehrmacht and pushing his POV just last week. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Linksnational (and their socks) is a prime example. Some of the editors involved in the Eastern Europe edit wars (who I won't name publicly) have also been doing this for a long period of time. Checking the references used by these editors tends to quickly reveal that they're making stuff up - it's not uncommon for the reference to say something quite different to what they've claimed it says (sometimes the exact opposite). From what I've seen, most of the articles on German and Western Allied World War II-era war crimes other than the Holocaust are affected by this problem to some degree - there are some quite ridiculous articles about Allied war crimes which seem to have been put together by POV pushers. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It's disappointing to hear that other editors/articles are involved than the one or two I was already aware of. I wonder if we've been targeted off-Wiki, though what I've seen has seemed uncoordinated and random. EyeSerenetalk 12:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that it's random. These guys bounce their nutty views off each other on their own websites and then trickle into Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yay for political agenda pushing! Seriously, this stuff drives me nuts regardless of what side it comes from. The left-pushing that happened on the conservatism article a while back pissed me off almost as much as the right-wing bias that trickles into military articles. Cam (Chat) 02:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Related to this, those of you that know him will be delighted to see that Blablaaa is back. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election: Securepoll desperately needed

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion

I think it is wrong that voters see the tally before the announcement of the results: it can't help but distort their decision-making.

When, oh when, will SecurePoll be made user-friendly so we don't need developers to set it up? It worked so well for the ArbCom election. Tony (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Both valid points, but as you say securepoll needs friendly developers at the moment to help set it all up for you and that is just too much effort for simple elections like these in my opinion. Shame really (though I would rather developer time went towards flagged revisions for BLPs first) Woody (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If we move to once a year elections it may be worth investing some time into looking into this. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the need. MILHIST is already viewed as a bureaucratic-heavy project, probably due in part to having 15 coords, and it's not like our role is all that important. We close ACRs, do the needed janitorial work, cook up ideas and present them to the project, and try to mediate some disputes. If we actually had serious power, SecurePoll should be looked at, but we really don't, so there is no need to stress overtaxed developers. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. While I think there's a strong argument for securepoll with larger votes (RfA, ArbCom elections) I really don't see a great need for it at our level. In votes where support/oppose/neutral are all options, and where one user's oppose vote can easily sway many others, that's a good thing to have. The way our voting system is set up - simple approval, not a percentage tally or anything - means that there isn't any worry of swaying supports to opposes - or vice versa. As Ed has said succinctly, if we had more major duties (such as formal dispute resolution or something), then there'd be a strong case for it. Given that we are mostly just there as janitors and essentially members of a brain-trust, I don't really see what the use would be. Cam (Chat) 04:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that there's a very strong case to be made for having 'oppose' as an option (as at present there's no way for editors to state that they think that someone is unsuitable), but secure voting doesn't seem necessary given that the stakes are low and there's no history of coordinator misconduct. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should consider adding an oppose section when we discuss the 12-month term in more detail after this election? I think Tony has a point - the system as it stands could be open to a certain amount of gaming - but like others I don't think it's a big deal at the moment. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be in the future though with longer coord terms. EyeSerenetalk 16:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It does seem to me that Securepoll would be rather unnecessary: the only thing wrong with the system now that it could fix would be people voting for someone just because they're in the majority or their friends voted the same way. An oppose section, however, so people can bring up serious issues they have with a candidate, might be worth further discussion after this election. – Joe N 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think securepoll is unnecessary, and if there are any concerns about any of the candidates they should be addressed on WT:MILHIST or some other more appropriate venue. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
While I sympathise with the notion of secret voting, and to some extent it appeals to me simply due to the surprise element at the end (I’m still a kid at heart!), we're not exactly out of step when it comes to open voting in WP, for instance the elections of administrators. So I’m leaning towards leaving the MilHist coordinator elections as is on this point.
Having invoked admin elections regarding open ballots, I may be hoist on my own petard if I then recommend not allowing “oppose” votes in MilHist elections, since such votes are a feature of the admin election process. My argument against “oppose” votes for us however is that introducing them will add more time to the election process, since we’d have to go through a weighting of opposes vs. supports for each candidate. In WP admin elections, the governing body only has to address that weight for one candidate. We’d have to do it for 15 or 20, so I don’t think it’s worth it. May not be perfect but in the coord elections, if you don’t like someone, you just don’t vote for them, you vote for others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Credoref accounts

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For those who don't follow the FAC talkpage, Wikipedia:Credo accounts has popped up on a seemingly first come, first served basis. Head on over there if you could find an account useful for research. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, but I think I was too late. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please can you stop your bot from posting to my talk page. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice you're already listed here not to get the newsletter, but it looks like Cbrown1023 (talk · contribs) (who kindly runs the bot on our behalf sometimes) doesn't use that exclusion list for other announcements. Unless he can suggest an alternative (like perhaps creating a second exclusion list for all project announcements), the only thing I can think of is to remove your name from the Milhist membership list. Anyone got a better solution? EyeSerenetalk 16:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This is one of two announcements that I ask be delivered to everyone including the exclusion list. Aside from these two, the lists are passed out in accordance with the wishes of those members who want to receive the newsletter and those who do not. This ought to be the last notice you receive for a while, if it makes you feel better. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator emiratus

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Could we change the guidelines with coordinator emiratus to allow non-head coordinators? I think other coordinators can help the project just as well as the head. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We actually had a big discussion about this; it was decided that we would not immediately adopt a measure to this effect as the only major difference between users and coordinators is that the coordinators have the ability to close ACRs and PRs within the project. If you would like to make a new proposal though I would be willing to listen to what you have to say in your suggestion, but note that we are attempting to reduce the idea of major differences between coordinators and users, so keep that in mind if you decide to pitch a proposal here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Correction, we had two big discussions about this, here and here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
On a slightly more procedural point, the text about coordinators emeritus is merely a description of what has taken place so far, not a normative guideline. It's perfectly possible—at least in principle—that a coordinator who had never been lead could be nominated for an emeritus position, and voted into such a position by the project's membership; it's just that this hasn't actually occurred in practice. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, It's not all coordinators. I feel we should be able to recognize people like Eurocopter who serve many terms without becoming lead, and continue to do good work for the project. I don't think just any former coordinator should become emiritus because they were coordinator for one term, but these people deserve recognition. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can any of the pages at Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Introduction be ported over for use in the academy? It would offer us something of a head start for the purpose of getting this thing up and running, and while some of the info may not be useful to use it could prove beneficial later. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes good sense to avoid reinventing the wheel where we can, so certainly some of that should be very useful. Whether we should actually pinch the content or just link to it though, I'm not sure. Maybe a paraphrased version with a link, similar to the {{main}} template, might be a good compromise? EyeSerenetalk 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Careful monitoring of naval articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments11 people in discussion

Per this discussion on a user's talkpage, might I ask the coordinators if there is some way of monitoring naval articles - especially those on U-Boats - to make sure that we don't have huge copyright/plagarism concerns? I don't want to get into the storm of fecal matter that is the use of PD text in wikipedia, but I think something should and needs to be done on this front. Perhaps corralling all of the U-Boat articles into a taskforce so they can be periodically checked by coordinators, for example?

The problem is more widespread than U-boats, as this current FAR demonstrates. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
We have automated bots that check the article info added to make sure it stays copyright free, but I am unsure how that would apply here. In any case, thanks for the heads up. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not a copyright issue, it's a plagiarism issue, one that seems to be endemic in naval history articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We've no realistic way to manage a task force of that nature since the articles in it would appear and disappear on more or less a day by day basis. Without any stable content the task force would collapse in on itself, and the same would also be said of a special project and a working group. In theory, we could see about building a bot for the purpose of checking to make sure that milhist articles do not include material plagiarized or material that is openly a copyright violation, but this creates problems in so far as how we define plagiarism. As noted above, thats a ****storm of opinion, and trying to nail down the specifics in such a way that everyone agrees with the decision would be virtually impossible. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So your solution is to pretend that there's no problem, and even if there is you can't do anything about it? These articles have in some cases like the one I mentioned above gone through this project's A-class assessment. What does that check? I for one will be taking a very close look at all future naval MilHist articles at FAC, and very likely GAN as well. This nonsense has got to stop. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I never said there was no problem, I said the solution to the problem is unrealistic in my opinion. We are here to discuss how to address the problem, not how to ignore the problem. If you find you have moment to constructively contribute to the discussion you are more than welcome to do so. Insulting my intelligence on the matter does not help the greater problem, which is what we are here to address. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no more patience for this nonsense. I will confine my comments in future to the MilHist naval articles presented at FAC, until you get your arse in gear and sort this problem out. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Calm everyone. Tom, that's how Malleus talks, don't take offense (Malleus, I don't think we've interacted before, but I've read through discussions you have participated in).
AFAIK we don't have major copyright concerns, but I do know that we have major copy/paste non-copyright DANFS issues in virtually every non-GA/A/FA American naval ship articles, and (as Malleus pointed out), some of those articles as well. I don't support delisting Bridgeport over sourcing, but plagiarism is a separate issue...I may have to go copyedit that to at least modify most of the DANFS text. Aside from those articles, I don't believe that we have a major problem? So, the question is how do we address these 1000+ articles? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The most efficient way to start would be to go through the pages that link to {{DANFS}} and create a list of articles that need to be rewritten. Given that most of them will be fairly short, fixing them shouldn't be all that difficult a task. We could probably set up a drive similar to the Tag & Assess runs to drum up participation. Shiny gold awards do wonders for motivation ;) Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. That seems like probably the best proposal. I am so sick of dealing with this. I just finished peer-reviewing a classmate's essay for history that I'm reasonably sure was entirely stolen from this site. Mein Gott it's ridiculous. Cam (Chat) 04:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this long-term, would it be worth tightening our A-Class criteria to include checking for plagiarism as a promotion blocker? We won't catch every article that's tagged for Milhist, but we might at least ensure those that come through our system are intellectually honest work. EyeSerenetalk 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'm pretty sure that the next big Wikipedia scandal is going to concern either FAs that have been either plagerised from other sources or where their sources don't support the text, so we could get ahead of the game by checking for where material comes from. The big question, of course, is how to do this? I've read very widely on Australian military history and can generally spot material on this topic which has been lifted from somewhere else (more often than not the Australian War Memorial's very comprehensive website) and stuff taken from US military sources is generally easy to spot (the key phrase to look for is 'in support of' - only the US military seems to think this is a meaningful term), but I don't like my chances of spotting anything else. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Aye, there's the rub :) When reviewing, where sources are online (or if not, but I happen to have the book), I'll sample them, but we can never guarantee that no plagiarised work - or copyvios, for that matter - will get through. However, I'd hope that with a combination of sampling sources and googling a selection of phrases from an article we'd do enough to deter the practice. Ultimately we have to rely on editors adhering to good writing practice though. Plagiarism and especially close paraphrasing is easily done, and not necessarily intentional. I've caught myself out a few times when re-reading stuff I've written. EyeSerenetalk 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(od) I couldn't agree more strongly with the A-Class tightening up idea. It could be simple as each reviewer looking for the object of the article online and seeing if random sentences and phrases match at all. Skinny87 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that solves the issues with GA's and A class reviews ect but the people here need to get into gear and begin impoveing these Naval (especialy U-boat) articles. I was lead on to believe that Uboat.net was PD since I had seen several other articles with exact text in them. (U-505 is a good example).--White Shadows you're breaking up 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
For starters, does anyone know where we can find a good collection of PD material for U-boats? Also, to what extent should lock down on cannibalizing PD sources for our article information? Its inevitable that some cannibalizing will occur, but I have seen over the years how this issue ruffles people's feathers and quite frankly I am tired of running the same old broken record debates between the two camps. I'd be open to an amendment for the MoS on this issue as it related to articles with in our scope, if for no other reason than to clarify the project position on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be a bad idea, as I think it turn into a trainwreck/proxy for the larger plagiarism debate. I know that I will probably catch some flak for this post, but I'm not sure that anything is going to change these articles. I mean, it's all grand and cool-sounding to start a project similar to the old "tag and assess" drives, but how many people would actually join this and contribute a significant amount? Thousands of articles is a lot of copyediting and rewriting. We can discuss this to death, but seeing as (a) this isn't a copyright violation and (b) copy-vios are > plagiarism/copying of a public domain US gov't source, I think we ought to focus our attention on the copyright issues. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree - copying and pasting from PD sources is OK for most articles as long as this is properly attributed. It's only when the article goes for GA/A/FA status that it becomes a show stopper. As very few articles are ever brought to these levels it's not a major problem - any editors working on upgrading articles to GA/A and beyond should know that they need to rely on independent and recent sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, it only becomes flagged as a problem at GA/FA, but it's a problem in all articles. Plagiarism is intellectually dishonest and immoral. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
We're not a university, so PD material which is appropriately cited is OK - the editor who includes such cited material isn't claiming that it's their own work and its clear to readers that its come from elsewhere. Calling this 'plagiarism' and using language such as "intellectually dishonest and immoral" really isn't very helpful - all you're doing is pouring fuel on a fire, which undermines your own case. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Plus, if we hadn't utilized DANFS way back in the Dark Ages, many U.S. ship articles today would be nothing more than a couple lines and an infobox. Anything GA or above, and probably even B-class, shouldn't use direct copy/pasting, but it's not worth the effort to convert the thousands of stubs and starts. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hard to know whether to laugh or cry. Just shoot the messenger, always the best way. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this really going anywhere? Why not just agree that if we find any copy-vios from Uboat.net that we'll reword them ect? I don't really see any "drive" by a large number of editors to fix the issue plausable.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Quite. Clearly what little drive there is, is to sweep this issue under the carpet. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Always easier to identify a problem than to work on fixing it, isn't it? You're just as capable of doing so as any member of the project. Just like everything else on Wiki fixing the problems depends on individuals who care to devote energy and time to it. And if you lack that time or interest yourself, you can hardly blame the rest of the project if they feel the same.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Why not try removing your head from your arse? I have no interest in U-boat articles, or any other naval history articles for that matter, but this project allegedly does. No stomach for fixing the problem though. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
My, my, such naughty things to say. Such an adult response, too! Rather a bit revealing, dontcha ya know? And, as always, it's easier to criticize than to do. Keeping a civil tongue in your head might make your message go down a bit easier, don't you think? But you seem to prefer a much more antagonistic approach. Wonder why that is? A bit more seriously, you've identified a problem and I expect that it will be dealt with on an individual basis, rather than the systemic way that you might prefer. But you can go away now, and please take your potty mouth with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with Sturmvogel66, Malleus Fatuorum. We are all making extremely civilized conversation here about the problem you have raised, and you are biting our heads off at every turn. We coordinators put up with enough BS out in the article names spaces, we don't need your attitude on top of all that. If you can not stay civil to to my fellow coordinators and I, then refrain from commenting here. I for one am in no mood to have my intelligence insulted, and an once of kindness will work just as well as a gallon of attitude. Furthermore, my good man, by whining about the articles but offering no solution of your own you are only contributing to the problem, and that makes you no better than the people who plagiarize or engage in copyright infringement. Think about that the next time you edit here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm not trying to "shoot the messenger" or anything akin to that. I'm simply pointing out the realities of the situation. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to let this become sidetracked. As I'm certain he'll readily admit, Malleus can be very forthright and has never been particularly interested in playing the diplomat but I know from personal experience that there are few better editors and, as we all do, he has the quality of Wikipedia at heart. However Mal, from some of your comments I wonder if you believe we coordinators have more of a role than we actually do? We can persuade, cajole and encourage, but there are very few areas where we can actually enforce. At the risk of repeating much of the above I see the situation as follows:

  • Plagiarism: the definition we currently go by is "the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit" (my emphasis). The guideline page further states, for PD sources, "the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim providing it meets the Wikipedia content policies. If this is done then be sure to cite the source, and attribute the work through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is is usually placed in a 'References section' near the bottom of the page." (Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Public domain sources). Therefore, as others have pointed out, as long as such articles are attributed properly we don't have a technical problem.
  • Credibility: this is the main point from my perspective. Although I believe copy/pasting even with attribution doesn't reflect well on editors, for sub A-Class articles I don't see a major issue with retaining articles that have been created following the above. The alternatives would be to rewrite them or remove them. Rewriting is an ideal solution per Parsecboy, but given the numbers apparently involved and the fact that this would probably come down to one or two editors doing nothing but for the next year or so, I can understand why there's no appetite for this. As coords we could propose a content cleanup drive, but I'm personally sceptical what sort of take-up we'd get. Removing the articles seems extreme; despite the obvious weakness of relying on a single source, having them is probably better than not having them.
  • Quality: this is the only area that we as coords can directly address because A-Class articles must be promoted by us. While we might be largely powerless to do as much as we'd like about older articles without rewriting them ourselves, I think as proposed above we can try to ensure no new promotions contain any copy/pasted text (attributed or not). I'd like to see this added as a specific criteria preventing A-Class promotion - whether or not we should apply it retrospectively is another debate :) EyeSerenetalk 09:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with EyeSerene's post, though I'd note that under the current arrangements for closing A class nominations at WP:MHR#A-CLASS there isn't a consensus to promote articles if any criteria-based comments are unresolved, so it is possible (and, in my view, correct) for a single editor to stop an A class promotion if they point out that some or all the article's text has been taken from a problematic PD source and this isn't rectified (this represents a failure to meet criteria A1 and potentially A2 and A4 depending on the individual case). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point, although if I was wikilawyering I'd say the criteria as currently written don't rule out attributed copy-pasted sections in an article. I suppose it depends on the size. I think writing something up - not necessarily a new criterion but an expansion of an existing one - might be worthwhile doing for its visible deterrent effect, as much as to remind reviewers to Google a few phrases during their review. EyeSerenetalk 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, there's a point I'm not following. Words like "plagiarism" and "dishonest" wouldn't apply if the editor acknowledges in the endsections that material comes word-for-word from a PD source; is anyone arguing that it's okay to quote without acknowledgement? It's not; Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA, which means that, unless they say otherwise, every editor is claiming to hold the copyright on their edits (licensing them for free use, as long as attribution is given). When you don't use quotation marks and don't acknowledge that you don't hold the copyright, then you're claiming to have the copyright when you don't. That's my position, although I always defer to Moonriddengirl, MLauba and others who work with them on copyright questions. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement. My concern arises where articles that contain extensive (albeit attributed) word-for-word material are discovered at A-Class and FA review. Although not in technical violation of any WP policy, at that level I don't believe it's something we want to encourage as embodying our best work. EyeSerenetalk 09:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to tell article writers that they have to write a certain way because I said so, but I hope the writers will understand that these articles reflect on all of us. I really don't want to hear about an article that I copyedited, "Didn't you notice that that was a copypaste?" It would make me look like a poor writer, even if it's "legal". I'll be happy to consider doing the re-writing myself on a case-by-case basis. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed to properly cited and attributed PD text in even a FA-class article; it all depends on how well it's written. Most DANFS text that I've looked at, forex, needs to be rewritten to meet even GA-class quality standards. That's why I voted to delist the Bridgeport article. So I'm certainly not going to oppose an article simply because it has PD text and I don't think that we shoud make that sort of thing forbidden. Far better, IMO, to judge each case on its own merits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice of inaction

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'll be on the road today returning to El Paso, where I expect to find a lot of friends and the last of the family. I'm guessing that between the welcome back diner and the travel lag I will be off for the better part of today. Just an FYI. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

...Tom, we don't need notices of every time you will be away for more than a few hours. To notify us of a week or more would be courteous, but I'm not even sure that those are necessary. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ACR reappraisal review process

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

It is my intent that whenever a MILHIST article is demoted at FAR, and it successfully passed an A-Class review on its way to FA, since the article retains A-Class after FA demotion, I will immediately nominate those articles for a reappraisal ACR. Accordingly, since USS Bridgeport (AD-10) was demoted, I have started a reappraisal review. Can we agree that this course of action is acceptable and should be our standard-operating procedure when this sequence of events occurs? -MBK004 04:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. EyeSerenetalk 08:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Me too. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Works for me, even if my vote no longer counts, although most of the issues that would cause a demotion would likely cause it to fail the ACR, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion about using the newsletter to encourage On this Day entries on the mainpage

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've put this on teh main talk page, but repeating it here. There are tons of unsourced start-class articles on the anniversaries on the main page, and it is at the moment a self-serve outlet. Many A/FAs are not on there, probably because of a lack of awareness. I added some FAs and As to the main page queue, most of the ones I sampled were not there, so awareness is not there and I would like to ask teh coords to publicise it. I wrote a thing about this in the academy but didn't make a thing of publicising/campaigning for people to put theire quality stuff there instead of the Start-class stuff sitting there. For disclosure I was prompted to show some urgency by an admin Ragib (talk · contribs) who kept on reinserting an article he is involved with, Operation Searchlight citing WP:OTHERCRAP even though it is a start-class article sourced to involved army officers. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Selected_anniversaries YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

IX Coordinator Tranche

Latest comment: 14 years ago33 comments15 people in discussion

I've marked the election page as historical and handed out the awards as per the election results. A welcome to all new and returning members of the coordinator family. As we have both old and new business, I will lay them both out here, respectively, so all can see what is currently being worked on:

  • Our dab link discussion is ongoing, as its been open for a while it may be useful at this point to start some sort of moving ahead discussion, or perhaps low level straw polling for consensus.
  • Our as-yet-to-be-merged task forces discussion could stand a check and input; I'd like to see that wrapped up in the next 30 days or so if possible. Since this one is more limited in scope, that should be doable, but as always we can extend that should the need arise.
  • We need to initiate a project wide discussion concerning the motion to increase the time in office for the coordinators; I am inclined to say that we should not attempt to implement this next election cycle unless the community ratifies the idea in a referendum vote since the issue will be more firmed up at the time.
  • A discussion on the position of emeritus was proposed by Rin tin tin 1996, that may or may not be appearing on the main talk page soon.

Any other business I have neglected to mention, or any questions anyone may have concerning the above list? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need another referendum? They've given us permission, so let's work out the details ourselves without silly bureaucracy.
I would like to propose something: a reduction in the number of coordinators for the next tranche. I believe that the project exudes an image of needless bureaucracy with seventeen coordinators that wield little real power. If we have nine coordinators + two emeritus, we should be able to do the job just as well. A loss of two or three wouldn't have a large affect on anything, and if it goes farther than this, co-opting can be used as necessary. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
We can work all that out during the discussion, I'm sure it will be lively :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but let's not focus all our attention on chasing our own tails. ;-)
As far as other matters still on our plate, there are a couple more items which have been brought up at various points:
  • WP:NOVELS has a task force which might be converted to a joint one; if I recall correctly, there was general agreement that it should be done once our own renaming/merging efforts were complete.
  • There have been several ideas for content-oriented drives circulated (fixing BLPs, improving/merging stubs, eliminating {{citation needed}} tags, etc.) that might be followed up on sometime in the next few months.
Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Hello fellow coordinators. If I'm not mistaken I have to sign up for a task force now? Personally I would be interested Military aviation, Military biography, German military history and World War II. However if push comes to shove I gladly take on other jobs as well. I also wouldn't mind if the more senior coordinators just told me what task/obligation/duty they want taken care of. Not sure if this is the right place to express this idea, potentially it is already established and I didn't see this yet, but what I would like to establish is a "request for picture" project. Example, I know for instance that the tail rudder of Hans-Joachim Marseille's Bf 109 is on display at the Luftwaffenmuseum of the Bundeswehr in Berlin. I would like to post a request here and maybe someone just happens to take a picture and could post it because I was looking for this. Two to three times a year I visit a museum myself and wouldn't mind taking a picture that someone else is looking for. However I need to know that someone is looking for something in particular. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Heya MB! (can I call you that?) Welcome to the coordinating squad. We'll sign up for task forces in a couple days; there will be a dedicated section so that the fighting, death and destruction are confined to one place. ;) @"Request for Picture" - that certainly sounds feasible. Should it just be added into WP:MHL or would a separate page be easier? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to the newly-appointed coordinators! (And a "get back to work" for the reelected ones! :)) –Juliancolton | Talk 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Julian, and thank you for your service during your term in office. Don't forget your thoughts are always welcome on these pages :) EyeSerenetalk 07:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Task force allocations

OK, now that we have all had a couple of days to enjoy the results of the March election it's time we get cracking. My first order of business today is task force allocations. The table is below, so add your name to whichever task force you would like to oversee, but keep in the mind the following please:

  • There are 48 task forces currently and 15 of us, while that may average out to about 3 per person we like to have more than one person overseeing each task force. With a total of 4 slots for each spot in a task force on the chart - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and standby - that means that everyone ideally should pick up about a dozen different task forces.
  • Be Bold. Most of our task forces see little traffic outside the usual PR, ACR, FA, FAR(C) notices, so don't be afraid to sign up for a task force you know little about.
  • Add your name to the nearest open slot please, using the format [[User:example|example]]; this helps us keep track of who's on first.
  • Veterans, please leave a few spots in the popular task forces open for the new guys. Morale improves when we get to oversee our personal areas of interest, and it will help the new guys gain experience points.

Note that because we have yet to merge the Australian and New Zealand task forces both appear on the list below, however I have marked two of the four rows as N/A since the task forces will be merged. If you pick up one of the two open slots for these task forces your responsibilities will carry over to the new task force when these two are merged.

Task force adopted Coordinator Coordinator Coordinator Standby
Fortifications Dank Ranger Steve NativeForeigner
Intelligence Parsecboy EyeSerene NativeForeigner
Maritime warfare Parsecboy The ed17 Dank NativeForeigner
Military aviation Ian Rose Joe N MisterBee1966 Eurocopter
Military biography Ian Rose AustralianRupert MisterBee1966
Military historiography MBK004 Patar knight Woody
Military land vehicles EyeSerene Ranger Steve NativeForeigner
Military memorials and cemeteries Ranger Steve AustralianRupert Woody
Military science and technology EyeSerene Patar knight Ranger Steve
National militaries EyeSerene Eurocopter Woody
War films Ranger Steve EyeSerene Patar knight
Weaponry Ranger Steve Patar knight Woody
African military history TomStar81 NativeForeigner Woody
Australian military history Ian Rose AustralianRupert N/A N/A
Balkan military history Ian Rose Eurocopter
Baltic states military history TomStar81 NativeForeigner
British military history Joe N MBK004 Ranger Steve
Canadian military history The ed17 Patar knight Woody
Chinese military history EyeSerene Patar knight
Dutch military history The ed17 MBK004 Woody
French military history Ian Rose Joe N Woody
German military history Parsecboy Woody MisterBee1966
Italian military history Patar knight TomStar81 Woody
Japanese military history AustralianRupert Ranger Steve NativeForeigner
Korean military history AustralianRupert TomStar81 NativeForeigner
Middle Eastern military history EyeSerene NativeForeigner Ian Rose
New Zealand military history N/A N/A AustralianRupert
Nordic military history MBK004 TomStar81 Woody
Ottoman military history Dank Ian Rose The ed17
Polish military history Joe N TomStar81
Russian and Soviet military history Joe N Eurocopter NativeForeigner
South American military history The ed17 MBK004 Woody
South Asian military history AustralianRupert TomStar81 NativeForeigner
Southeast Asian military history AustralianRupert TomStar81
Spanish military history EyeSerene TomStar81 Woody
United States military history Joe N MBK004 Patar knight
Classical warfare Parsecboy Patar knight NativeForeigner
Medieval warfare Parsecboy Patar knight NativeForeigner
Early Muslim military history The ed17 Dank
Crusades Parsecboy Dank Woody
Early Modern warfare Joe N Patar knight NativeForeigner
War of the Three Kingdoms EyeSerene TomStar81
American Revolutionary War Ian Rose Patar knight
Napoleonic era Joe N EyeSerene Ranger Steve
American Civil War Ian Rose Joe N Patar knight
World War I Parsecboy Joe N Eurocopter
World War II Joe N Ranger Steve MisterBee1966
Cold War Ian Rose MBK004 Eurocopter

Total task forces adopted

Coordinator Total
AustralianRupert 8
Dank 5
Eurocopter 6
EyeSerene 10
Ian Rose 10
Joe N 11
MisterBee1966 4
MBK004 7
NativeForeigner 14
Parsecboy 7
Patar knight 13
Ranger Steve 10
The ed17 6
TomStar81 10
Woody 14

Task force discussion

  • Just to note, if the other 2 slots for the WWI task force fill up and someone else really wants the spot I've signed up for, I'd be fine with switching. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Taken eight -- the Australian, Aviation and Biography are the obvious ones for my knowledge/interest, but most things are up for negotiation...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've signed up for 11, so obviously I will gladly relinquish my place in many of them. At least half, I'd say, aren't popular ones, however, so I'm not sure if anyone else will really want them. – Joe N 23:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't had much experience with MILHIST outside of ship articles. I'm spending a fair amount of time on reviewing and copyediting for ACR and FAC, plus admin and other work, and until I know how much time people want me to spend doing what I'm doing now, I'm thinking I'll get myself into trouble if I sign up for more than the maritime and WWII task forces. But if I'm expected to sign up for more, or if there's any other way I can be of service, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've signed up for seven. Also, it should be noted that Eurocopter has just gone on wikibreak, so we should probably leave a few for him, which TFs did he adopt the last time? -MBK004 02:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Added provisional ones (based on previous responsibilities) for Eurocopter, per MBK's suggestion, plus for MisterBee, who indicated interests in an earlier comment, some of those being popular ones. I daresay Eurocopter as a long-serving coord might be under pressure to give WWII away; similarly I'm quite prepared to trade my Aviation spot if a newbie coord wants it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added myself to a few and I'll add a few more soon. If anyone wanted to give away WWII I'd love a slot there... pretty please? Do Dank or Mister Bee mind if I bump them? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've picked 10 initially, but I'll be on wikibreak for a week or so from tomorrow so anyone please feel free to bump me/add me wherever you see fit. No preferences :) EyeSerenetalk 17:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If needed I opt to take on two more. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've picked the recommended amount of 12, but if anyone really wants one of the slots I took, feel free to take it. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Right, I'm down for ten now. Thanks to Dank and AustralianRupert for their slots on WWII and Brit History, but if anyone would like the Brit slot I'm happy to be bumped back down into the support slot. If the numbers need bolstering please feel free to tag me onto a few more task forces (although I really do know nothing about some of their subjects!). Ranger Steve (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the voting method

Now that most of the coordinators have picked up on task forces to oversee I want to bring up the two suggests made earlier concerning voting for the coordinators (discussion is provided in link above). The first involved the use of secure poll for the voting, the second involved adding an oppose section for voting. I do not think that either of these two things are really needed for a coordinator vote, but in the interest of fairness I am bringing the matter up here in case anyone feels that these are needed so that we can discuss the points while the election is still reasonably fresh on our memories. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur that neither is needed (right now). I am actually surprised by the relative small number of active contributors. So I don't see a need for this right now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter proposal

Latest comment: 14 years ago45 comments14 people in discussion

With the exception of the contest department and (possibly) some of Carcaroth's analysis of the WWI contest (see first section), the newsletter is mostly done. A proposal I'd like to put forth, though: I think we should flip the default delivery to full contents, rather than link-only. We list important stuff in each newsletter, and I'd hate to think that we have a lower number of participants simply because they didn't click the link. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could meet the full delvilery and the link only people in the middle by adopting the POST's strategy of leaving the major headlines in a delivery so that the most important news gets out. That way the size would stay down but the important info would still be seen. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That'll certainly elicit fewer complaints than suddenly changing everyone to the full-text version, I think. The only practical concern is that we don't necessarily have very useful "headlines" for most sections of the newsletter; we'd probably want to use brief (sentence-length) summaries of the items mentioned if we're going to go down that route. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
What we could do is simply leave the headlines in bold text and then provide a single link to the newsletter so that if our members are enticed by the headlines they can find the full article in the right header in the newsletter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, whether we link each headline, or provide a single link, is pretty arbitrary in my view; my point was more to the fact that many sections (e.g. project news) don't actually have any "headline". We're not going to get much if we leave members with something like:
  • Project news
  • Awards
  • Articles of note
What we want is something more like:
  • Discussion on disambiguation opens
  • Three members receive WikiCheverons with Oak Leaves
  • Seven new featured articles promoted
Which will probably increase readership, but will also require some additional effort on our part. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it'll be very much extra work to produce a potted synopsis compared to the potential benefit; it's a good idea. Re MrBee, I don't know if there'd be enough to maintain a regular feature and I'm not sure how providing free advertising would sit with some, but a writeup after having attended something like that might be good for the editorial? EyeSerenetalk 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I would completely oppose putting the full version as the default, the vast majority of users don't like getting spammed with huge lumps of text. A compromise version of a few headlines would be good I think but as Kirill says, it would require some extra work. Woody (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

good points regarding "huge lumps of text," etc. – I didn't think about that. I'd be in favor of headlines and would volunteer to do a few. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that headlines are probably the best idea. It doesn't seem too much trouble to come up with things like Kirill did, and that could increase interest in it without annoying people. – Joe N 23:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Quick thought: to link to these, we're going to use {{anchor}} links, right? If we were thinking of implementing separate pages for each section, that could get messy and not worth the effort. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If I may add AU$0.02? The newsletter's current size is fairly small (most issues are slightly larger than my screenlength, and all fit within two screenlengths), so linking to the individual sections wouldn't have much visible benefit. An alternative might be to do up the "headlines" in a box (maybe with a reduced-size Bugle logo), and have a single, obvious link out to the newsletter proper...a la Starship Troopers The Movie's "Would You Like To Know More?" -- saberwyn 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen the size of this months? Personally I don't like spam or huge lumps on my talkpage hence why I have the link-only newsletter. If we start changing the meaning of link-only to include lumps of colour and ever-increasing amount of text then I would be annoyed. You can see Dweller's section above that shows I don't think I would be alone in that. Woody (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Final check of March Newsletter

We will of course continue the above discussion, but I think it wise to apply that to the April newsletter since March is essentially over. On that note, with the exception of the contest department results and the extension of coordinator terms discussion, both of which have yet to be added to the newsletter, is there anything else we need to add to it before sending it on its way? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I still believe that a mountain is being made out of a molehill re. the extenstion of coordinator terms, under "From the coordinators". The proposal, which was well-supported, was simple: instead of 6-month terms, we have 12-month terms, starting from this September. There was nothing else to it and I believe the guff about "Much will need to be discussed, including the best time to hold the elections, the manner in which these elections should be held, and whether or not a longer term will result in limited executive authority for the coordinator tranche." is alarmist and unnecessary, and makes us look like slaves to the bureaucracy that this proposal was attempting to reduce. I strongly suggest we remove the sentence I've quoted, at the very least. End of rant... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, I get this message. I am giving up on holding any manner of discussion on the extension matter, that idea's been shot down twice and does not immediately appear to be all that popular with coordinators or with the project membership anyway - I seem to be the only one who was supporting the idea. The new plan is that we will just work out whatever problems arise as they hit us, and since we have a good collection of editors that should not be too hard to do. As to Ian's comment: I've removed everything below the idea passed and simply noted that it takes effect next September. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry Tom, I agree with Ian here. Further discussion will result in... 12-month terms. Nothing more. :-) However, I would still like to discuss the issue of how many coords we have—15 + 2 emeritus seems like too many and oozes a notion of too much bureaucracy (to me, at least). (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 00:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks Tom/Ed. Personally the number of coordinators hasn't bothered me so much because I haven't seen it directly causing more work for us, as the frequent elections did (as much the subsequent task force merry-go-round as the election prcoess itself) but I can see how the number of coordinators could give the impression of excessive bureaucracy at least, so by all means let's talk about as a separate item. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The newsletter looks good from my perspective. I wonder, though, if it would be possible to put an appeal on it for members to get involved in the peer, GA and A class reviews? We have a large number of editors listed as members, but only a limited number getting involved in this side of the project. Perhaps it could just be included as a headline link, something along the lines of "Do you want to get more involved?" or something like that. Sorry if this idea is a bit half baked, I haven't thought it through properly yet, so may be it is something for April. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Now might also be a good moment to dish out some more review medals/service awards to regulars, as this hasn't been done for some time. It's slightly tedious putting together the league tables of participants (from peer review and ACR) but it is well worth in terms of increased interest.  Roger Davies talk 06:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
We do issue awards to the highest reviewers on a periodic basis, but the absence of reviewers is a problem not only for our project but for Wikipedia as a whole. That was one of the reasons why I pushed to have our in house peer reviews equipped with the PR box since the box includes an automated review function. As to the membership list: I have spoken to Kirill about updating those, he is in the process of tweaking the automated scripts so we can get a more accurate picture of who is still with us since even I find it hard to believe we have 1,000+ active members (its probably more like 600-700). Keep working on the idea though, if you come up with something new that actually gets more participation in the review department I'll be the first to award you a barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
When did we last do? Every three months or so seems best (and then quarterly)? And it does produce a surge of interest.  Roger Davies talk 06:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If my math is right we are coming up on 9 months now, as I recall we had two cycles with as yet to be handed out awards, going back to just about the time I took over your role as lead, maybe a little more than that. EyeSerene and I were going to update the task, but it has not happened yet. There should be something about this in the last archive, if you want to check. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is 9 months now, and it was you and I (he admits shamefacedly) who volunteered, Tom, but if Eye wants to help, that'd be great... ;-) From memory, I was doing Jul-Sep 2009, you Tom were going to do Oct-Dec 2009, so if Eye or another could do Jan-Mar 2010, we'll be right! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to volunteer honest, but I'll be away for a week or so from tomorrow. Enjoy yourself though :) EyeSerenetalk 14:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I got my "Eye"'s and my "I"'s confused there :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Heh, no need apologise from my POV, to be confused with EyeSerene is quite an honour really... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
...incidentally, is there a way we could get a bot or script or something to report the number of reviewers in a particular namespace? The job is as you said tedious, and a quicker and easier way to handle that would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Last time I did it took three or four hours, which isn't too bad once a quarter. (You cut and paste the review master page into word, delete everything except sigs, then sort).  Roger Davies talk 06:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Right. I will keep that in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible addition to the newsletter

As per my above suggestion, I've written this short piece, which I think might go well in the newsletter (either for the current one or the next) to try to boost member involvement in some of the less visible areas of the project. Opinions?


— AustralianRupert (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, tks mate, just suggest a little bit of trimming:

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the latter version to the newsletter. Aside from the contest section results, this looks to be good to go. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Rupert has verified my entries for the March contest so I'll quickly tally and write the blurb for the newsletter and it can go out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian and Tom for helping with that. Regarding the contest entries, I wasn't sure what to do about the two Portal ones, sorry. Do they get scored in the contest? — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, contest blurb added; only alteration I made to the standard guff was to drop the "and its nth month under the new scoring system", which I think has served its purpose after 6 months. I won't have time right now to dish out awards or update the scoreboard, but the newsletter should be ready to go.
Yes, we still haven't determined what a portal is worth as a contest entry. Not having created one I have no idea what's really fair - won't affect the top places but we also had this situation last month so we need to resolve as quickly as possible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to quibble over something that isn't all that important, but there's an error on the contest scoreboard this month. It has Kaiser Friedrich III class battleship as Start -> Start, but it's been assessed as B-class. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It's B now, but it was assessed as such almost 24 hrs after the end the month; don't mean to be too inflexible on this but why not just make it your first entry for April? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I guess I hadn't paid attention to the time it was promoted. I'll follow your suggestion :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Feel free to send at will. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 03:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole newsletter looks good to me. Nice article by ed as well! One teeny suggestion - is it worth linking the names of the new co-ordinators? Every other username on the page is linked so it'll standardise the presentation. Also make it easy for those interested enough to check up on us newbie co-rdinators! Ranger Steve (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, should do -- why don't you do the honours...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Will do, thought I'd better check first : ) Ranger Steve (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment above Ranger, but you best thank Parsec too—it would have been impossible to write without him. :-) I think that it's ready to go out; Tom, have you poked Cbrown yet? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Congratulations - on two levels - to Parsecboy! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

German sub articles at GAN

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are four sub articles currently at GAN that need to be checked against Uboat.net for copyvio issues as mentioned by Malleus. It times out when I try to access them, but maybe one of y'all can check them out and see if there are any problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh) I'll see if I can look them over tomorrow. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 03:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Maoist attack in Dantewada and July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

These two articles just cropped up recently, I expect that both will see some POV and nationalistic editors as the info comes in. I'd ask everyone to keep an eye on the pages over the next couple of days so we can make sure that info that gets added to the article stays within wikipedia's established editing parameters. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 16:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm no longer a coord, but I've got quite a bit of free time over the next week or so (school workload is comparatively light in the leadup to IB Exams), so I'll watch them both and help deal with anything that crops up. Cam (Chat) 05:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yikes. The Maoist Attack isn't that bad but holy crap the Baghdad Airstrike Controversy article is ridiculous! Tom, Ed, MBK, & USA Co, I mean this in the nicest way possible: Your army guys and anti-army press really do know how to hijack wikipedia talk pages. It's moved from discussing the article to discussing whether or not an RPG and AKM were in the video; way past wikipedia's mandate and into the realm of OR. Both sides are guilty as charged on this one. If this continues to be this bad, I'll wire it over to ANI or another relevant subgroup. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It was with this exact issue in mind that I made an APB announcement: As charged as our politics have been over the war, I knew that the article was going to draw a lot of attention from US people who would debate the points down to the last detail. Its practical a national past time, and I had a feeling that it would reach this point in roughly 48-96 hours. Do take whatever means you need to in order to ensure that the article stays compliant, Cam, and thanks for the extra pairs of eyes. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on the controversy. As another crazed american, it is quite amazing the tension that is going on. However, apart from misguided talk page discussion the article has been fairly well maintained. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Generally speaking, articles on North American, Western Europe and Australasia topics rarely get too bad, presumably as the weight of numbers on both sides ensures that there are lots of eyes on the article. The real problem area is articles on topics which attract relatively less interest such as those on Eastern Europe, the Indian Sub-Continent and East Asia where individual POV-pushers can easily take over an article. This is hardly surprising given that this is the English language Wikipedia; I'd bet that, for instance, the neutrality of articles on Poland in the Polish-language Wikipedia is better than those here and am pretty sure that some of this Wikipedia's nationalist edit warriors are here only because they've been banned by their native language Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Disgruntled about the ACR process and proposing major changes

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We should all be aware and jump into this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Loss_of_faith_in_the_ACR_process. It appears that an editor has become disillusioned with our ACR process and is proposing reforms since his latest ACR was closed as no consensus after being open for 28 days. -MBK004 04:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding award nomination

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an outstanding nomination for the A-Class Medal languishing here that could use some additional coordinator input. -MBK004 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this has now been awarded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ACRs for closure (#?)

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

ACRs for closure (Kaga)

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

If this is still open by the end of Monday then I am going to insist that it be closed as no consensus. This is getting ridiculous. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to get a sense whether Tom's position is the consensus, if (to simplify the argument) we take what's been said in this thread at face value. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Just found out on Cla68's talk page that he's been on a semi-wikibreak that ended today; I've asked him and Sturm both for some resolution on the question of modern usage (or avoidance) of the term "Kate" for those aircraft. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Cla68 and Sweeney have both voted "support". There are no outstanding issues I'm aware of. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_29&oldid=1190135899"