Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Future of The Bugle

Hey folks, I've started a discussion at WT:MHNEWS#The future on where we can go from here to continue growing. I'd like some comments on it if you have an extra minute to spare. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How do I .....

How do I assess articles in WikiProject Military History as "List"? There are a number of them in the Category of "Unassessed military history articles". I tried to assess one of the articles, while previewing it, it came up as "Start". Adamdaley (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done them all now, Adam. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How do I report vandalism? Yiop1598 (talk · contribs) is making a mess of some articles MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For straightforward vandalism make a report at WP:AIV. Admins won't usually block if the user hasn't been warned (handy templates for that can be found at WP:WARNING). As the account you linked to hasn't edited since 5th November, you also wouldn't be likely to get it blocked there because it isn't currently a threat. There's always WP:ANI or this project has its fair share of admins who would probably be willing to cut the red tape and block a vandalism only account. Nev1 (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking for reedmalloy

I have written an article which is to be published about Paul Beck. My publisher will not accept Wikipedia as a source citation. A gentleman named "reedmalloy" is the author of the military aviation article in Wikipedia and I am trying to locate him so that I can ask him about two citations involving his article about Paul Beck and Benjamin Foulois--two early aviation pioneers.

Can you (anyone) help get me in touch with Reedmalloy? If so, ask him to contact me at ddemers901comcast.net

If you are unable to contact reedmalloy--anyone in Military Aviation section of Wikipedia can probably help. Time is of the essence.

Thanks

Dan Demers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandemers (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Link added to his user page.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall contact him, kind sir.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FAC update, Nov 8

New FACs:

• 07 Nov 2011 – HMS Courageous (50) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Sturmvogel 66 (t · c); see discussion
• 07 Nov 2011 – Kenneth R. Shadrick (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ed! (t · c); see discussion

Sturm's HMS Eagle (1918) and Ed!'s Chaplain–Medic massacre‎ were promoted on Sunday; blurbs will appear in next week's Signpost.

Would anyone be interested in seeing discussion of copyediting or of FAC requirements, or some elaboration of the WP:Checklist, in a Bugle article? - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, articles on any of those topics would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi all, I'm back from my travels and will start helping out with coordinator tasks. I enjoyed my trip, and it was great to meet HJ Mitchell and Roger Davis as well as Carcharoth in London last week. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back; where did you go again? --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Amsterdam, various places in Berlin, Paris, Normandy and London. All bookended by the 30+ hour flights Australians know and love ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I trust that you're planning on uploading your pictures from the various museums to Commons? I'm quite jealous of your trip to the German military history museum and am hoping to update some articles with photos.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sturm, yes I've already uploaded a few and have more to come. Visitors aren't meant to take photos in the museum in Dresden (I think - I got spoken crossly in German by one guard and I think he was telling me off!), so I only have a few photos of it. I've got heaps of RAF Museum London and the Dutch naval museum in Den Helder. :) Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed in the Germans, but I'll look forward to your photos from Den Helder. That's a bit off the beaten track and I hope that you were able to get some good photos of HNLMS Schorpioen to satisfy my ironclad fixation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

FAC update, Nov 13

New FACs this week: Warkworth Castle (Nev1) and RAF Uxbridge (Harrison49). Promotions (as I mentioned last week): Chaplain–Medic massacre (Ed!) and HMS Eagle (1918) (Sturmvogel 66). Since the Signpost tends to cover Sunday to Saturday, I think I'll start doing these updates regularly on Sunday and cover the same period.

Btw, I'm doing these updates over here at the coordinator's talk page rather than the general Milhist talk page because I don't think it's useful to parade what's going on at FAC in front of everyone. FAC can be really useful for people who are into it and for what it is, which is a place where people from different backgrounds can get together and argue things out and try to understand each others' points of view ... and hopefully produce something that looks good to everyone. I think it would be exhausting and counterproductive to try to put that much time into every article; it's enough to let what we learn there influence the rest of our work. And I've never been on board with the idea that all other articles are "less than" FAs, and I hope I'm not giving that impression by covering the "FAC beat" every week. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Copyright issues discussed

At my request Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) is working on two different pages for us, one for noobs and one for those who suspect copyright which will govern the steps to take. She's started only on the first, since she said that would be easier for her, but she did state that the latter would get done eventually. Thought I should let you guys know. On an unrelated note, some the content in the academy is out of date and could do with updating, and I could use of a copyedit for the newly added admin page to make sure the SP&G is all correct. I expect to be largely absent for the next two to three weeks, btw, as this semester winds down. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: I will be going back to school at least one more time in the Spring! Turns out I had three more credit hours to make use of before UTEP has to officially accept or decline me, so I am making use of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to get more Military Historian to participate at ACRs

Hello, I've just like to propose an idea that popped into my brain a few days ago. I had a couple of articles that I've tried to promote to MILHIST A-Class, but some of them (the most recent being only a few days ago) failed because not a lot of people cared to participate. It is quite astounding the ratio of MILHIST editors and the number that participate in ACRs, which I guess is about 1:30. We simply need to nudge people to have a go.

OK, back to my proposal, I'd like to see uninvolved MILHIST coordinators to post messages at editors who had signed themselves up at a particular Task Force, asking them to comment at an ACR article from that ACR (brain went to sleep!) Task Force. For example, if the article 1960 U-2 incident was at ACR, and after three weeks has had no comments, a coord might have to go to the signups of Cold War and Military Aircraft Task Forces to get a few names from each task force (probably five to ten), and send messages (using substution templates) to those people. I think my idea is sound, but it may be time consuming and ultimately no editors might turn up. What does everyone think? --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but I wonder if that responsibility can't be taken up by the nominator. There's no reason for them to not send messages like that as long as the message is neutral and the editors chosen are good (ie not ten people who will support no matter the quality). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea Phil. I think it would be best if coords (or other uninvolved parties) sent out the notifications to prevent concerns about canvassing. This would need to be done with care though as we don't want to badger people. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so fussed if a coord or the nominator does it as long as the wording is neutral and standardised -- would the usual ACR notice that we post on the MilHist talk page do the trick? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In theory this could be good, but it has the potential to spam people's talk pages, especially people who are members of multiple task forces. I'm OK having the nominator send a neutral-style message, but I'd suggest that it be limited in some way. Although nothing really occurs to me at the moment on how to do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A big problem with the lack of reviews at ACRs, I think, is that people are intimidated by and unfamiliar with the process. Once they have been invited, I think there shouldn't be any problems with whether we need to "spam" them again. However, if that is the case, then I think coords should ensure that the last ACR message posted on a particular user's page was at least a month old. --Sp33dyphil © • © 22:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

October Bugle, specifically Article News

Hi all, it's past mid-month and there's still a newsletter to get out. Nick has done a sterling job with his regular book reviews (three this time -- but then flights between Australia and Europe do afford you considerable time to read!) and a bonus military museum review. The monthly contest report is up and a start has been made on an op-ed. One area however where there's no significant work is Article News, where we include blurbs on new A- and FA-Class articles for the month.

Part of the deal when promoting an ACR is to add this blurb to the draft Bugle Article News page, not simply a placeholder with the article name, which it appears everyone has done this month. Convention dicates that those removing a successful MilHist FAC from the Open Tasks page also add the appropriate blurb to Article News; this also has not happened this month. If it's considered too much of an imposition to create these blurbs then I'm sure we could revisit the whole idea, but personally I think it's nice to highlight these things.

Assuming we do want to retain them, I'm happy to make a start on the FAC blurbs (this is usually an easier task than the ACRs, by the way, as one can reuse the Bugle blurb from its earlier ACR, assuming it had one and the article hasn't changed radically in the meantime) but could I ask all coords who have promoted ACRs this month to revisit those articles and add the appropriate blurbs themselves, and to do so in future?

For newbies, note that it's not generally a simple matter of copying the entire article lead, the goal is to get it all in one decent-sized paragraph, following rules similar to TFA. Check out previous issues of the Bugle to get the idea, but a few specific points:

• For biographies, just use years of birth/death, not the entire date
• Don't include any citations from the article lead
• Use an image if feasible, but only if it's free/PD

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, this would be really helpful. Just to note, my plan is to complete everything that isn't done in one week so we can get it out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Another thing guys, please check that you're adding the blurb in the right month. The October edition Article News had at least two placeholders for articles promoted in November, not October (Chaplain–Medic massacre and HMS Eagle (1918)) -- I've moved those from the October page to the November one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've generally been adding and subtracting FACs from the template that feeds into WP:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks and {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}. I'm sorry, I didn't know that more came with the job ... I would have asked someone to do it :) The blurbs from the Signpost have been pretty good ... are you looking for something longer, shorter, or different for the Bugle? - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm just going by the established format of these blurbs -- I wasn't actually involved in setting up any standards for it. The Signpost format generally seems shorter and more high level than what we do, and sometimes contains quotes from the nominator taken from the article's FAC. I have no problem with that style but I think it's probably simpler and quicker to do it the way we do, which is to just to summarise the article's lead (or use it verbatim if it's not too long). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Just jumping in to whack this idea around (I've got two GAN's to review for Piotrus, and a couple of online surveys to take taht oculd possibly net me a chance at a laptop, otherwise I'd be at the op-ed), why not cancel the December Bugle, that is, the one that's coming out in December, and just send a message to everyone stating that: "The December Bugle has been cancelled in order to allow for more time to prepare for the new-and-improved January edition, which can be seen here." Ed's proposals on the newsroom page seem too much to implement in just a month of time. Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be best to aim to get it out in order to maintain continuity. Plus, the Bugle is meant to be featured in the Signpost sometime soon (I think?), so it would be good to get an issue out to build on any extra interest that attracts. On the topic of the October edition, my review essay [I hope its title isn't too grandiose!] could easily substitute for the Op Ed if it's not ready in time, though if there is a separate op ed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2011/Header needs to be modified so there's a link to the essay - I can't figure out how to add it due to the use of templates. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just completed the article news page. We still don't have any project news yet. Could someone who was active in October please do this? ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Tks for finishing those off, Nick, and tks Nikki and Harrison for helping us out too. I'll check if we have any awards to add for October; re. From the Editors, well, let's give Ed a chance to do some work this issue first, eh...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much Nick, they look great. I'm adding two more, both promoted the first week in October: HMS Princess_Royal_(1911) and George_II_of_Great_Britain. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Better delte my op-ed. I won't have any mroe time to work on it, so your's, Nick, should be a good replacement. Buggie111 (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you intend to come back to your op-ed, it could be moved to your user space rather than outright deleted. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've posted Buggie's draft on their talk page and moved my article across. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge Proposal: 4th Battalion, Mercian Regiment

Article: 4th Battalion, Mercian Regiment.

The above article has been suggested to be merged into the Mercian Regiment. I would encourage other Coordinators and users of WikiProject Military History to have their say on the Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's probably best to just post this kind of thing at WT:MILHIST Adam, especially when the merger seems uncontroversial. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, forget about it. As it has been forgotten about since May 2010. Obviously this isn't the WikiProject Military History that's on the article talkpage. Sorry. Adamdaley (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood me. While it's a good idea to post this kind of notification on the project's main talk page (and a merger which seems sensible and has been unactioned for over a year is a good thing to highlight) you probably don't need to notify the coordinators separately as I imagine that we all keep an eye on WT:MILHIST :) Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to assess it, then saw the merger tag, so I decided to bring it here. To see what happens, if it was going to be seperate (like now), or merged. If merged, would have been pointless of me assessing it in it's current state. Adamdaley (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FAC update, Nov 20

No promotions this week. New FACs: Oswald Watt (Ian Rose), USS Arizona (BB-39) (Sturmvogel 66, The ed17), and Mark Satin (Babel41). (To see the reviews, click on the "leave comments" link at the top of the talk page of any article currently at FAC. You can also get pages to display assessments and links to FAC by clicking on "Display an assessment" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets in your user preferences.) Three of our FACs appear on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents (which appears at the top of WT:FAC and other pages): Battle of Kaiapit (Hawkeye7), Project A119 (Grapple X), and 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Coemgenus). When FACs appear on the "FAC urgents" list, it generally means that the delegate(s) aren't just waiting on more information or responses to the reviews that are already on the page; they're looking for more, or more thorough, reviews of some kind. If they don't get them, they may let the nomination sit around for a while and then promote it anyway if whatever problems they spotted aren't too serious, or one of them may offer feedback, or they may fail the nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugle

I finished off the "From the editors" bit, so I think it's ready to go out. Anyone see anything missing? A big thanks goes to Ian and anyone else who helped in putting this together... it's appreciated :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks really good! I have a trip scheduled to Dresden in early 2012. Please let me know if I should follow up on anything that was particulary interesting. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read that further exhibition areas are going to be opened up at the Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr (presumably on the upper floors, which did seem to have lots of odd empty spaces when I was there) so it will be fascinating to know what goes in them. Your views on the museum would be great as well, of course :) Re: Ed - I've just done a quick run through and it all looks fine. Thanks for finishing this off. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Also, Nick, the Bugle interview is going to run on Monday, so keep an eye out for it! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Very nice work all around!

On a tangentially related note, given that we seem to be holding a lot of Bugle-related discussions here now, would it be worthwhile to just redirect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom here? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Works for me, I don't think the Bugle discussions are particularly technical or specialized. I'm doing a little more editing than usual since we want to look nice for the Signpost, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it has use for extended discussions on the Bugle itself – I just bring the "are we ready" notices here for a quicker response. Either way is fine by me. Thanks for your edits to MHNEWS and the newsletter, Kirill and Dank! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether we expect there to be a significant amount of discussion about the Bugle outside of the "are we ready" notices (and associated responses). If you think we're likely to see that—and particularly if you have some specific plans in mind—then I don't think there's any issue with leaving the page separate. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems sensible to redirect it here (the fewer discussion pages to monitor the better!), but if this is done we should advertise the change on WT:MILHIST to emphasise that non-coordinators are still strongly encouraged to contribute to the Bugle. Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, we should probably emphasize that regardless of whether we merge the talk pages; getting more people to participate in preparing the Bugle would be a good thing in either case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FAC update, Nov 27

Promotions this week: HMS Courageous (50) (Sturmvogel 66), Jovan Vladimir (VVVladimir). New FAC: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias (Astynax and Lecen). Some of the FACs are getting so old they're turning gray ... we need more reviewers. I think it's unlikely to be considered canvassing if I leave invitations to review on user talk pages, as long as I'm not selecting the users just because I think they'll support ... for instance, I could solicit reviews just for the urgent FACs that passed A-class, and just from those who left comments (positive or negative) at A-class but not yet at FAC. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

American Civil War Articles

Concerning an undisclosed amount of articles relating to the American Civil War in the Unassessed B class section I've noticed that the bulk of the information (the setences/battles/etc) run into each other. These articles are no higher than "Start". Here is one article for an example: 1st Regiment Nebraska Volunteer Cavalry.

To the above article the only things I've done is updated the Infobox and put CNs in. Other than that, I am at a loss why this contributor has gone on for so long with the same way of writing that article. Adamdaley (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd guess that the bulk of the text—particularly the "Detailed services" section—comes unmodified from A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, which is listed as a source for the article. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kirill - do you understand how it is written? It doesn't have paragraphs or the order of battle. Adamdaley (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've contacted a user who has done some editing on one of the many American Civil War Articles. Honestly, I don't know how who ever this person is (not the one I contacted) could get away with so many articles that basically run into each other and doesn't make sense. I feel I was bad at writing articles. Unfortunately, this person in particular doesn't know how to make the sections they have put in into paragraphs and proper sentences. I know only a little bit about the American Civil War. I'm just trying to clean up the articles, but these sections are beyond cleaning up for me. Adamdaley (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Adam, this issue has been raised before at 16th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment. I've been led to understand that there was a discussion on the matter somewhere, but I've not managed to find it. A couple of other editors also raised the issue on Spacini's talk page. I'm not sure of the outcome. I'm sure that they have best of intentions WRT the encyclopedia, but might just be editting from a different perspective regarding style and format. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FAC update, Dec 4

No promotions this week, one new FAC: HMS New Zealand (1911) (Sturmvogel 66). There was some unpleasantness this week over a (non-Milhist) article that passed FAC but was turned down at WP:TFAR, the place for sorting out which featured articles show up on the main page. Please let us know if your featured article gets opposition over the quality of the article at TFAR. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies ... I used to copyedit everything at Milhist's A-class review, but now I've got my hands full covering FAC. Please check your article against the WP:Checklist before bringing it to FAC, or ask someone else to. Consider inviting people (other than me!) to co-nominate your FACs in exchange for their help with copyediting, research, or anything else you struggle with at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: I don't cover images, infoboxes, end sections, links, or hidden codes in edit screens when I copyedit, and some of our FACs are sitting around because no one has checked these things. There are a number of scripts available that automate some of this; for instance, User:Ucucha/duplinks.js will highlight duplicate links, and User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral.js fixes a number of spacing issues. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

One more one more thing: Sandy mentioned again today that the delegates are often waiting on at least one review from someone outside Milhist (and other projects are treated the same way). Just a suggestion: consider working together with co-nominators from outside our project, who will probably attract reviews from outside our project. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A-class stuff

This may be too difficult to follow all in one bite ... collapsing, I'll take it one question at a time

My understanding is that this talk page is where we're handling "strategic" questions now, so here goes: I want to start a discussion on increasing collaborations in and around our A-class process ... in particular, I want to recruit student copyeditors. There are problems with getting non-Wikipedians interested in copyediting Wikipedia, but the only point I've found so far that seems to be non-negotiable is: readers have to be able to easily get to the version of the page that was copyedited. No copyeditor wants to brag about copyediting an article that has obvious copyediting errors; we can't protect the page, obviously, so we'll have to settle for being able to click something somewhere in the article to get the last reviewed and copyedited version, perhaps some new template in the See also section (or perhaps the FA or GA icon at the top of the article, but that would require wide consensus, and wide consensus on any subject is tough these days.) The relevance to our A-class process is: if a Good Article passes A-class, we'd want readers who are clicking for the last reviewed version to see the A-class version, not the GA version ... this would probably increase A-class nominations over time, for better or worse. Agree? Disagree? - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC) To be honest, I don't fully comprehend your suggestion. What I believe to have understood is that you want to increase participation in the A-class review process, which I am supportive of. What I don't understand is how this links to errors made during copy editing, klicking an icon, etc. Sorry I must be having a really bad day. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC) From talking with non-Wikipedian students who are studying copyediting, I know that they're interested in theory in copyediting Wikipedia, and they'd be good at it, or good enough; they're looking to get their work noticed, they are happy to get informed feedback (from involved professsors and WPians), and there are professors who are "on board". The non-negotiable sticking point is that no non-Wikipedian wants to copyedit something that's going to look "wrong" the day after they copyedit it, because then they don't have anything to point to with pride ... and of course we can't protect the page to stop it from changing. The only thing I can think of to pull new copyeditors in is to make it easier for readers to find the last copyedited version of the page, which in practice is going to mean the last reviewed version of the page (certainly the version that passed FAC or A-class, and, if we want to get these student copyeditors working on GANs too ... I have no preference ... then include GANs in this). - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Okay I am slow, so the point is to establish some kind of version control mechanism that differentiated between content driven editing by true Wikipedians and copy-editing driven editing by students. And you believe the only way to achieve this is by linking this to our review procedure? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Well I happen to know that you're not slow, Mr.B, so apparently I'm doing a terrible job ... or maybe I need to take this one step at a time. Let's try that ... I'll collapse the above, ask one question at a time, and wait for feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you make me feel real stupid :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mr.B! You're being a great help ... we'll probably need to rework this several times. Let's try this:

Online work is often rewarding, but it's inherently emotionally disconnected, so noticing and commenting on what other Wikipedians are doing is important, especially during review processes. The bottleneck at all review processes is finding enough people able and willing to contribute. One untapped resource is non-Wikipedian copyeditors ... untapped because, in 11 years, we haven't been able to get non-Wikipedians interested in copyediting Wikipedia, for a variety of reasons. The one non-negotiable sticking point is that student copyeditors have nothing to point to with pride if their work is changed in random ways immediately after they copyedit ... and of course, we can't fix this problem on Wikipedia, since "anyone can edit". However, some students (who I believe will be very helpful, but we'll see) have told me that they're willing to give it a try if we can at least make it easier for readers to find the version of the article that they copyedited, so they won't be judged by the current (likely uncopyedited) version of the article. A template pointing to the last copyedited version in the See also section would be sufficient ... and since we don't want to be directing readers' attention to a copyedited, but otherwise awful, version of an article, we're talking about linking to the last reviewed (and copyedited) version of the article. Is this clearer? - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is very clear. Its implication is, what I meant with a version control system, A version control system that points to what you called "A see also" or a specialized template pointing to the repective version of the article edited by the student. I get that. Don't tell me now that I still haven't got it because then I resign and grow tulips MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No you've got it ... good thing too, growing tulips is a dangerous hobby. I want to add that copyeditors are not the only people interested in version control ... this is a timely subject for a lot of reasons ... but I don't want to get into all that, I'm really just interested in the copyediting problem, because that's really a black-and-white problem ... we don't have enough copyeditors, and as far as I can tell, this is the only way to recruit more. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good! I think I would support this. The question would be where to start. I personally would like a template looking a bit like a traffic light system, with one button for the GA version, Copy edited version, A-Class version and FAC version (for those versions applicable). I don't think we need to maintain this for the lower class versions. Can this be automated or would this require another manual step in the process? Anything relying on manual things could be prone to errors or omissions.MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you're saying that pointing to the GA version of an article on the article page, even if the article later passed FAC, would be useful ... for instance, it might motivate people to participate at GAN as nominators and reviewers. But my understanding is that articles are supposed to be optimized for readers, not for writers, and I can't see the advantage of pointing a reader to the GAN version of an FA. On the other question, I don't think the job of selecting a version to promote could be automated, because we can't get all the reviewers and writers to finish at the same moment. This wouldn't add an extra layer of bureaucracy ... you'd still have one person deciding whether to promote ... but their job would be a little harder, because they'd have to specify which version they're promoting. (But then, arguably, we should have been doing this all along.) You could probably get a bot to add a template that pointed to the version that existed when the article was promoted. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. It should only point to the respective highest official rating as well as the copy edited version MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think it would be the job of the person promoting to wait, and poke people if necessary, to make sure that the copyeditors and the other reviewers are happy with the same version. (Of course, I'm talking about less intrusive copyediting at A-class than is done at FAC ... how much is the "right amount" is another conversation.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) Okay, I have had a late night 'cos I've got the day off today, and am quite literally bleary-eyed, but don't the versions in article history at each review level (GA/A/FA) give you the sort of snapshots you want, Dank? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Guy #1: Hey look here, I copyedited this.

Guy #2 (friend, professor or prospective employer): What, this crap?

Guy #1: No, that's not my "version", it's right here, all you have to do is click on this tab called "discussion" ... oh wait no, they just had an RFC and changed it to "talk" ... okay, click on that tab, now find "Wikiproject Military History" somewhere in the top banner ... does it say "A-class"? Good, now click on "show", then find "Additional information...", then click "show" again, now find the link that says "passed" (that wasn't too hard to find, right?) Okay that pulls up the review page ... nevermind what that is, just look on that page where it says "promoted", and write down the time and date ... oh, except that wasn't the version I copyedited, so you better page down the screen and see if you can find my username and the last comment I made, that's probably about the right date and time for my copyedit. Okay now Alt-Backspace to get back to the talk page, then get back to article-space ... uh, it's the first tab up at the top ... and click on the "History" tab, go to the bottom of the page, keep hitting "older 50 edits", try to pay attention to that column with all the dates and times ... it's the fifth column on the page, you can't miss it ... until you get back to that day ... okay, my version will be one of those, I probably said something in the "edit summary" to tell you which one ... oh nevermind ... just keep clicking til you find it.

Guy #2: [drives off]. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, yes, eloquently put, but actually it's not that difficult to find the version from each review if you use Article History. You don't have to go through all those levels in the MilHist banner to get to the ACR snapshot. Anyway, if I wanted to show off my copyediting skills via WP, to isolate my work I reckon I'd just save the url of the version before my ce, and the url of the version when I finished, and email them both to the 'reviewer'. Again, pls let me know if and where I've missed the point... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the last review on the article I was just working on was very recent, October 24, so if I'm a non-Wikipedian, all I have to do is pull up the history and skim through 80 edit summaries, none of which I understand, til I hit one that says "+ GA tag", which I also don't understand. Now, suppose you're trying to impress someone with your contribution to, say, a book, by saying "Just look for the third chapter, 5th footnote, that points you to a section in the index ..." In the publishing world, if someone's contributions are buried this deep, it means they're not viewed as significant. Actually, I think it's a non-starter if it's "buried" at all; none of the four copyediting students I put the question to were interested in helping without some kind of mention or link to a "clean" version from article space; few readers look past article space. I can keep asking around, and ask for students to weigh in here, if anyone thinks the answer is going to change with a larger sample size. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Without making any changes to the underlying Wiki software, the best way to track the pre-and post copy edited versions would be for the copy editor to post the diff and/or URL from the article history to the article's talk page and/or their user space. If they've managed to navigate the Wiki-markup well enough to copy edit the article, this should be doable for them. Alternately, they could post on an appropriate noticeboard asking for help with this and I'm sure that someone will do it for them within minutes. Failing that, you could ask for suggestions at WP:VPT. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Helpful, but it doesn't deal with the problem that there would be no indication that anyone on Wikipedia values their work, or that the A-class process they participated in is viewed by anyone on Wikipedia as important, outside of the faithful on the review page. I don't see this as a technical problem. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To move this along: if there are objections (the style guideline WP:SELFREF, for instance), I think I could recruit copyeditors if we had a link to the links: for instance, a link to the talk page with "See the talk page for recent reviews of this page" might work. TLDR: It's so hard for the general reader to find our A-class review and the result of that review that it almost looks like we're ashamed of it, when we should be giving the opposite message. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good if ongoing GA, A class and FA nominations were tagged on relevant articles. However, that would require a Wikipedia-wide policy change. I've got no idea if this has been suggested before, but it seems sensible. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As Nick suggests, this would require a site-wide policy change; frankly, my opinion is that it's simply not going to happen for the foreseeable future (cf. the struggles with the FA/GA icons on articles), and that our energy would better be spent elsewhere.

More feasible, however, might be to get the metadata script (User:Pyrospirit/metadata) to link to the review process or to the reviewed version, and to have it enabled by default for all users. Since the script pulls the data from the talk page rather than requiring any modification to the article itself, changes to it don't conflict with SELFREF, and won't meet nearly the same level of opposition. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know if there's been any discussion on enabling that script for all users? - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

None that I can recall, although it's possible that there's something along those lines buried in the VPT archives or the like. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it puts me in an awkward position to be asking a copyeditor, "Theoretically, if Wikipedians cared enough about the review processes to bring them to the readers' attention, would you be interested in participating?" It would be better to get the change to the metadata script first, then I'll ask around and see if that's going to be good enough. If anyone wants to make the case at WP:VPT, I'll jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire and Vanguard ACRs

While these two ACRs are clearly due to be closed as not successful due to a lack of support, it might be best to leave them open for another week or so. Both articles appear to meet the A class criteria (disclaimer: I've reviewed and supported the nomination for HMS Vanguard), and the main problem seems to be disinterest rather than a lack of quality. I'll post notifications to see we can drum up some extra reviewers. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"stable version"

New templates (as of yesterday) are sprouting at the tops of article talk pages; please see User talk:Falconus#Stable_version. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he's just replied on my talk page, so see User talk:Dank#Stable version. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

They seem harmless enough, although I'm not sure why the feature is being implemented as a separate template rather than just being added to {{ArticleHistory}}. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, Kirill. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

FAC Update, Dec 11

Promotions at FAC this past week: Battle of Kaiapit (Hawkeye7) and USS Arizona (BB-39) (Sturmvogel_66, The_Ed17) ... just in time to make it on the main page on a day that will live in infamy. New at FAC this past week: Mark Hanna (Wehwalt), German battleship Tirpitz (Parsecboy), and Mathew Charles Lamb (Cliftonian). New today: Titchwell Marsh (Jimfbleak).

The prose standards at FAC are high these days, particularly for articles that are a bit technical or involved. Don't let that put you off going to FAC, it hasn't been a stopper ... it's just a little annoying that I have to come across as "fussy" sometimes to get things through FAC. Feel free to revert or complain if you don't like my work, we'll figure it out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

FAC update, Dec 18

Boom! Five FACs promoted this week: 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Coemgenus), RAF Uxbridge (Harrison49), 1689 Boston revolt (DCI2026), Warkworth Castle (Nev1), and Oswald Watt (Ian Rose). New at FAC this week: Titchwell Marsh (Jimfbleak), Jud Süß (1940 film) (Pseudo-Richard), HMS Temeraire (1798) (Benea) and 1907 Tiflis bank robbery (Remember). - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the Kenneth R. Shadrick FAC and figure out what's holding it up? It's possible that FAC standards on decorations are different than Milhist standards, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Third support was just added today, so my guess would be the delegates haven't gotten to it yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's it, thanks. Someone may want to ping Nev1 and Graham Colm as well and see if they're satisfied. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

November Bugle

Given the current state of the draft November edition of the Bugle, am I right in thinking that we're probably not going to get it done this month? Given that Christmas is almost upon us, I'd suggest holding it over for the re-launched January 2012 edition early next month. I've only got one book review ready BTW - I got caught up with reading 1Q84. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm about finished my brief essay on the El Alamein War Museum, so we'll have two reviews of some sort. I think we can get the issue out before long, it's just a busy time of year... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

FA blurbs done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I think we can get something out this month, but I'd like to be sure of good content for the re-launched January edition, and running this would take up our only editorial submission and review essay. Thoughts? Either way is fine with me. The timing wouldn't be off by much; this would probably go out on Christmas, while waiting for January would allow us to put it out early in the month. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, journalists think that skipping an issue sets a bad precedent. I kind of lean toward the journalists on this one. I'll help out if we need a little more for January. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've a book review-come-article almost finished. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Point taken Dank, and we might have an opportunity to gain a few readers as the Signpost is discussing skipping or delaying an issue to beef up a bumper New Year edition. I'm going to complete the 'from the editors' and awards tomorrow and we'll be pretty close to getting this month's edition out. Hchc, I stalked your contributions to find what you're talking about and really like where that is going. Please keep me informed on its progress; I'd love to run that in January! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You may want to note in this edition that nominations for the 2011 Military historian of the Year will open up in January and encourage the readers to start thinking about both who deserves a nomination and a vote for the award. Additionally, if I could trouble you guys to publish a call for editors to submit any ideas for academy pages that we are missing, I can start working to get the current material standardized and the missing material categorized for creation. If anything specialized comes up I figure we can consider outsourcing it, otherwise I intend to start working through the redlinks in the academy this year to see if we can not have it up and running effectively this time next year. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we used to do that in mid-to-late December? Whoops. Well, better late than never. Shall we say voting opens on January 1st and ends two weeks later? I can do that, but I'd need to know where you want the ideas and if there's a shortlist of the topics we already have (sorry, not up to date on the Academy!). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Respectively: 1) Can't remember when we used to do this, but if its archived we can go look for the usual dates. If we are late, so much the better, we can advertise and see if that doesn't help participation. 2) We could set up a section on the talk page or do like the signpost does and have a talk section for discuss on the matter and invite people to add to the section what they think we are still missing. Either option works for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That voting plan works for me, particularly if advertise it over the Yuletide period. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Task force coordination

Hi, I can't seem to find the table which has all the coords of each task force. It was filled out a week after this year's election. A helping hand in finding it would be sweet --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's here, but I believe we decided not to bother actually using it. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's my recollection as well; given that the task forces don't have separate talk pages at this point, I think most people didn't see the value in allocating particular coordinators to watch them. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FAC update, 25 Dec

1 FAC promoted: Kenneth R. Shadrick (Ed!). New at FAC this week: 1st Provisional Marine Brigade (Ed!), 1740 Batavia massacre (Crisco 1492), Nicky Barr (the indefatigable Ian Rose).

I looked in on our A-class reviews today, and everyone's doing such a great job. I'd prefer to stay away (but feel free to give me a shout if I can help). I need to be consistent in my recommendations, and FAC requires me to be a little fussier than I think is appropriate for A-class.

Best of the season to everyone! - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Unawarded A-Class medals

We have a few unawarded A-Class medals in limbo. If I only knew how I would think that it is time to make the presentations?! MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically you copy/paste a previous award (make sure it's the right one), change the articles and signature, tweak the wording to your liking, and hit 'save'. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just awarded all three. MisterBee, the templates to use when handing out the awards are also under the 'Boilerplate and templates' section of this page. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Buell

Can some one please start a bio of Thomas Buell who wrote beautiful books about Ray Spruance and Admiral King. His books describe WW 2 as well as Samuel Morison's!71.57.227.207 (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Hey everyone. Please take a look at User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help the National Archives ExtravaSCANza. My hope is that the success of this event will ensure that others will be organized in the future, even without Dominic as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, so we all benefit from the high-quality, formerly non-digitized media uploaded to the Commons. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I close Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920) correctly?

I've just closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920) as not being successful and informed the nominator. However, did I judge the consensus correctly here? The article had received two outright supports and one 'Supportive Comments on sourcing' (this review's comments were specifically limited to the sources). I think that this falls short of the three outright supports needed, but am very happy to reverse my closure if other coords disagree. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year, mate! Now, are you sure it had two outright supports? I walked through the page and only saw one, then searched for the word and still only found one. In that case nothing substantial has changed since I last looked at it and updated its status (above), so I think your call is perfectly correct. If it did have two outright supports plus the "Supportive Comments on sourcing" then there might've been reason for promotion (after all, I think we've promoted articles based on two full supports plus one of Dank's, which are really only on prose). As it appears to me now, however, there was no possibility of promotion under our guidelines. Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I was double counting AustralianRupert's support when I posted this. I got it right the first time :) Happy new year to you as well. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC update, Jan 1

No promotions this week. Two new FACs: Samuel Colt (Mike_Searson), Nyon Conference (Grandiose). - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ucucha (a FAC delegate) has just asked for an image check of Titchwell Marsh. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Implementing an assessment scheme for lists (Part 2)

To recap the current state of the list-specific assessment scheme implementation effort:

• We've added a list=yes parameter to {{WPMILHIST}}; this parameter allows us to switch between "article" and "list" assessment hierarchies. At the moment, it's only effective for two levels: FA-Class (which becomes FL-Class when the flag is set) and Start-Class (which becomes List-Class when the flag is set).
• The assessment scheme switching appears to be working correctly, although the sample size is a bit small at the moment. This morning, I went through the remaining featured lists; all of them should now have the list flag set, and the assessment statistics will hopefully match up to our showcase counts the next time the bot runs.
• I've also created Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles, which lists articles that are named "List..." but that do not have list=yes set. This obviously won't catch every list—there are a number of naming conventions for lists where the title does not take the form "List of X"—but it should allow us to collect a significant portion of the lists under our scope.

How should we move forward at this point? I would suggest that we do the following in the short term:

1. Enable list-specific assessments for the task forces. Currently, only the main project assessment results reflect the list flag; but this was intended as a temporary solution while we tested the implementation, not a permanent condition. Given that nobody has complained about the assessments being unexpectedly broken recently, I think it's safe to enable the flag across the board.
2. Create "CL-Class", "BL-Class", and "AL-Class" assessment levels and categories; these will be the result of assessing an article as C-Class, B-Class, and A-Class, respectively, when the list flag is set. The new levels will otherwise be functionally identical to their counterparts; for example, AL-Class will still require that the ACR parameters be set correctly, BL-Class will require that the B# checklist be completed, and so forth.
3. Begin developing variants of the B-Class and A-Class criteria that will be more suited to lists. This will probably take some time, but can be done independently of implementing the assessment levels themselves; the assessment mechanism will remain the same regardless of the specific criteria to be applied at each level.

Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with point 1, and tentatively with point 3, but am divided about point 2. While I recognize the desire to be able to classify lists, the usual wiki-wide classification system only allows for "list" and "Featured List". I'm not sure implementing new list-classes for only our articles would be the best way to proceed. Thoughts on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea of creating project-specific assessment levels isn't a new one; WikiProject Mathematics, for example, has used a unique "B+" rating for years. (Indeed, the original discussions about setting up the bot-assisted WP1.0 assessment scheme considered this very scenario, and purposely designed the scheme so that individual projects could add assessment classes as desired.) Further, many of the classes which are now considered standard (e.g. Future-Class, Current-Class, etc.) were original project-specific ratings that saw wider adoption over time; it's quite possible that, if we demonstrate the effectiveness of a split article/list assessment structure, other projects will begin to use it, and the classes will eventually be considered "standard" ones. I wouldn't be overly concerned, therefore, about creating unique assessment classes in and of itself.

The broader question of whether having dedicated classes would be useful for us is, of course, a valid one. Personally, I think that using them will make it easier to track the progress of lists through the assessment hierarchy and generate statistics on list quality; while this could, in principle, be done through a combination of the standard assessment levels and category intersection with a separate (non-assessment-level) list category, that method would add significant complexity and wouldn't be useable with the standard WP1.0 assessment tools. So long as we clearly document the presence and role of the new class tags, I don't think using them would add a significant amount of overhead to the assessment process (particularly given that almost all of the underlying logic will be automated based on the existing assessment parameters and the list flag). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I missed this topic having pushed for it! Yes, awaiting implementation of some form of AL/BL/CL rating standard to allow for a new scale as previously discussed, as well as assessment criteria. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I missed this too — but then, I'm not a coordinator. I thought there was consensus at WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 105#Proposal to add List-Class for rankings between List and FL. I did a bunch of work with User:Ling.Nut (who since has retired for the third time — I'm hoping there will be a fourth in the future) over the summer at List of American Civil War battles. But to get from List to FL seems like such a long hill to climb that it's really quite daunting. The incremental ratings and the guidance provided by the criteria would, I think, be really helpful since at this point I'm not sure what the next step for List of American Civil War battles might be. I'm sure there are other editors that are/have been in the same situation, and the easiest thing is just to move on to some other article — it's not like there's any shortage of stuff to edit around here — this just might keep some editors working on MILHIST related tasks instead of something else. Mojoworker (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quarterly awards

If anyone wants to find the people who reviewed articles this quarter, I'll go ahead and award htme when the time is right. Buggie111 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, this needs to get done, and I don't have time to do it. Anyone? Check the history of this page for examples, we've done it every quarter. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Working on it...Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We really need to find a way to allow you to delegate stuff, Nikki, you do so much. Maybe the WMF could hire you a couple of secretaries ... - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Username	PR Oct–Dec 2011	ACR Oct–Dec 2011	FAC Oct–Dec 2011	Total Oct–Dec 2011
User:Adamdaley	0	1	0	1
User:Anotherclown	0	16	0	16
User:AustralianRupert	2	16	5	23
User:Brianboulton	1	0	2	3
User:Buckshot06	0	1	0	1
User:Buggie111	1	1	0	2
User:Carcharoth	0	1	0	1
User:Cla68	0	1	0	1
User:Dana boomer	1	0	2	3
User:Dank	0	9	29	38
User:DCI2026	0	2	1	3
User:Demiurge1000	0	1	1	2
User:Ealdgyth	2	0	2	4
User:Ed!	0	4	2	6
User:Eisfbnore	2	5	0	7
User:Fifelfoo	0	15	6	21
User:Finetooth	1	0	0	1
User:Fnlayson	0	1	0	1
User:Grandiose	2	3	1	6
User:Grapple X	0	1	0	1
User:Hawkeye7	0	4	4	8
User:Hchc2009	3	12	3	18
User:HJ Mitchell	1	1	0	2
User:Ian Rose	0	8	8	16
User:Jappalang	1	0	1	2
User:Jim101	0	2	0	2
User:Jim Sweeney	1	1	0	2
User:Kirk	1	6	5	12
User:LauraHale	0	1	0	1
User:MisterBee1966	0	2	0	2
User:Mjroots	1	0	0	1
User:Nev1	1	0	2	3
User:Nick-D	0	7	3	10
User:Nikkimaria	2	13	28	43
User:Otto Tanaka	0	4	0	4
User:Parsecboy	0	5	0	5
User:Piotrus	0	3	0	3
User:SandyGeorgia	0	1	3	4
User:Sp33dyphil	0	3	2	5
User:Sturmvogel 66	1	6	5	12
User:The Bushranger	0	1	1	2

Okay, done, though feel free to check my math. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't do the awarding. Buggie, are you still up for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I'll get to it tomorrow. Buggie111 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

All done. Buggie111 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"cough" ...besides me. ;) Buggie111 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What is "ACR"? Adamdaley (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class Review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugle newsroom format and related issues

As we prepare for our new Bugle publication schedule, there are a few questions that I think might warrant some consideration:

1. Would it be useful to change our newsroom from the current layout (with directly transcluded newsletter sections, etc.) to something akin to the Signpost newsroom (with links to and status of sections and areas for discussing each section)?
2. On a related point to #1, I don't think we ever really finished our discussion on whether the newsroom needs a separate discussion page; this is probably something we should consider based on whether some of the discussion will take place on the newsroom page itself.
3. Do we want to adopt the Signpost's approach of transcluding per-article comments to the bottom of each article?

Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding point three, I think allowing for more visible comments gives the opportunity for greater reader interaction. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In order: yes, probably not if point one works out, and yes. I'm very much in favor of point three. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ed. In regards to point 1, can we re-use the coding the Signpost uses, or would this be too difficult to tweak/overkill? Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We'll need to play with the formatting a bit, but I think we can definitely use the core of the Signpost's code. I'll play around with it over the next week or so; hopefully, we can have all of this implemented for our January issue. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

FAC update, Jan 8

Yawn, another week, another four promotions: Nicky Barr (Ian Rose), Titchwell Marsh (Jimfbleak), German battleship Tirpitz (Parsecboy) and HMS New Zealand (1911) (Sturmvogel 66). New FACs: Franco-Mongol alliance (Elonka), Hector Waller (Ian Rose), Mark Satin (Babel41), German battleship Bismarck (Parsecboy), John Tyler (Designate), and South American dreadnought race (The Ed17). - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation

Hey guys, in case you all missed it in the mass of text over there: SandyGeorgia has resigned as FAC delegate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding me. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It's a complete and total mess over there right now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a big loss. I had gotten the impression that Sandy was tiring of the role though. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, saw that earlier. I'm surprised she stuck it out this long, frankly -- I totally understand her leaving, for all sorts of reasons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A shame, but understandable. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It came as a surprise to me. The practical effect is that it's going to be harder for all of us at FAC to keep up with the work for a little while, so I'll go offer my assistance to User:Ucucha, the other FAC delegate. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope that you're considering offering your services as a FAC delegate proper... :) Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether Dank wants the position or not, let's not start any rumors... cf. Wehwalt vs. Sandy on WT:FAC and ANI. :/ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC is a complex environment; I wouldn't recommend that anyone angle for any job there. (And the signal-to-noise ratio at WT:FAC is low at the moment, it's not recommended reading.) It's been true for a while now that, if you can get your article through A-class, you can have a reasonable expectation of getting it through FAC, if you've got some patience and flexibility to spare. It's way too early to know how FAC is going to change after Sandy's resignation, but it's likely that not much will change for Milhist ... we'll still be able to get our articles through. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As with quite a few areas of Wikipedia at the moment, the seemingly large amount of drama is actually being generated by a small number of editors, and I suspect that most FA nominators are oblivious to it. With no disrespect whatsoever intended to Sandy (who has done an excellent job throughout her term), it seemed to be that she'd been tiring of the job for the last year or so, which is fair enough given how long she'd been doing it. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. My views are at WT:Featured article candidates/archive55#Ucucha. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, it seems to me that some of the frequent reviewers at FAC are adopting a sharper tone than usual. If that's happening, I don't think this means anything, I just chalk it up to increased tensions and the current politicized climate at FAC. If it's still going on in a month, I'll raise the subject then. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the voting page just went up, although I don't know when the vote is coming: WP:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As much as I like the idea of having periodic elections for FA delegates, the 'debate' so far and the Byzantine processes which are going to be used to sort this out are the best argument for dictatorship I've seen in a long time... Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Input from uninvolved coords needed on a couple of things

There seem to be two tasks which need input from uninvolved coords at the moment:

• First, Parsecboy has been nominated for his 15th A class medal, and further votes and then someone to hand out the award are needed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Parsecboy (15)
• Secondly, the whole issue which is being discussed at WT:MILHIST#Continuing problems regarding Anzac/ANZAC/Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division would benefit greatly from a coordinator's attention. This debate over the names to use for units and battles of the Palestine Campaign of World War I has been continuing for months in various forums. I had a go at encouraging the editors towards a formal dispute resolution process late last year, but without effect, but I don't think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved to push this given that I've worked closely with all the editors on one side of the debate and not the editor(s?) on the other side. The 'hot issue' here from a coordinator viewpoint is that all the participants in the debate are excellent editors, and there's a risk that they'll get discouraged by this keeping coming up. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

closing A-Class reviews for Ray Farquharson and Bastille

Sorry for asking, but can these two articles be passed? If yes, please let me know and I will try to run the process MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there was a tweak I was supposed to do on the Bastille - I'll check. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Hc, while I was waiting for a response to my minor comments you garnered a third support, so technically Misterbee could promote now but be nice for completeness for you to check it once more. Re. Farquharson, that could be closed right now as Ed! has added his support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for appearing so dumb, I ran the process for Ray Farquharson. Can somebody please check and confirm that I got it right, partly right or made a mess of things? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, you can keep your job... ;-) Two minor things: 1) judging by the diff, you may not have updated the count on the A-Class articles showcase page; 2) on the Bugle articles page, in bios we tend to just use years in the life dates to save some space (like on TFA). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hermann Fegelein

I would like a second opinion from one of our coordinators on how I am handling the inclusion/exclusion of portrayal in films and potential other media. Please comment on the Fegelein's talk page if you can. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Would some please intevene here on my behalf Diannaa (talk · contribs) keeps deleting properly sourced information. Whether the content is subject to deletion is properly being discussed on the talk page. I am about to lose my temper on this because I find this uncivil behavior. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on whether this should be included, though the discussion (in which I commented) appears to be trending towards keeping it. Leaving the article as-is for a while until this is more settled won't do any damage though. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am staying away from this discussion from now on. I have a very big problem with the most recent statements made on the talk page. I would like to ask another coordinator for mediation, I am too involved and not objective anymore. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an uninvolved coord would be helpful here. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Push! Can somebody please have a look and drive this to resolution without taking position themselves? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ping MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Military historian of the year contest now open

I've just - slightly boldly - kicked this off (it had been scheduled to start on 1 January...) at WT:MILHIST#Nominations for military historian of the year for 2011 now open!. From memory, there was some unhappiness about voting being allowed at the same time as nominations last year, so I've taken the liberty of specifying a one week nomination period followed by a one week voting period. I hope that this is all OK! - feel free to jump in and fix things and/or trout me if I've missed anything. Am I right in thinking that we haven't used bot-driven notifications for this process in the past? Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, good call, guess we all dropped the ball and forgot about it. Your format works fine for me. I think we should probably send bot notices out, as the Bugle doesn't reach the Milhisters that unsubscribed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to arrange bot notifications - could you handle this? Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, what would you like the message to be? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How about something like: Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" award for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Nominations close at 23:59 (GMT) on 21 January and will be followed by a one week voting period. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sent out. Using "Military history coordinators" in the sig looked weird, so I went with "On behalf of the coordinators," with our sigs. Hope that's alright with you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, that looks great. As a question to everyone, how should the voting be conducted? Should we 1) allow people to vote for as many of the nominees as they'd like (which seems to have been the method used last year, or 2) ask people to only cast a set number of votes (for instance, three). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Bump* Does anyone have a preference for the voting system? I prefer option 2), but without anybody else supporting this, it might be best to stick with option 1) Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to allow people to vote as many times as they like—it worked quite well for the coords' election, and we should try to keep this as something fun (and a good way for project members to recognise the achievements of others) rather than get bogged down in procedures and who's voted how many times. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've gone with that option - thanks for your comment Harry. Voting is now open. Dank, Kirill or Roger, would you be able to close the election in a week's time and hand out the awards? Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, with pleasure,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done for setting this up, Nick. Sometimes someone has to be a little bold to make sure things actually get done—a very Wikipedian way of doing things! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) I've closed the vote and given out the Gold Silver and Bronze Wikis to AustralianRupert, Ian Rose and Nick-D respectively. I wasn't clear on what to award the runners up so perhaps one of the other coordinators could handle that, as well as the announcement for the Bugle. For ease of reference the tallies were:

• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 14 (Gold wiki - done)
• Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 13 (Silver wiki - done)
• Nick-D (talk · contribs) 11 (Bronze wiki - done)
• Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 8 (done)
• Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 8 (done)
• The ed17 (talk · contribs) 8 (done)
• Adamdaley (talk · contribs) 7 (done)
• Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 7 (done)
• Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) 7 (done, with a message for his family and friends)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) 7 (done)
• MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) 6 (done)
• Ed! (talk · contribs) 5 (done)
• MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 5 (done)
• The Bushranger (talk · contribs) 3 (done)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) 3 (done)
• Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 2 (done)
• Wild Wolf (talk · contribs) 2 (done)

The late Bahamut0013 is obviously a special case so perhaps we could put some extra thought into how we commemorate his work for the project. I'm sure that his family would likely appreciate that.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards#"Military historian of the Year" updated to include 2011 awards. Have created a new transcluded MHOTY sub-page to make it more manageable in future. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 01:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm handing out awards to the runners up right now. Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've just awarded the WikiChevrons to all the runners-up. I think that this was the best field for this award yet. It was noticeable that all the runners up had multiple barnstars and thank you notes on their talk page from other editors. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiChevrons

The WikiChevrons template still refers/links to peer reviews as part of MILHIST. Could someone change or remove the link as appropriate now? Ta, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to something other than {{WPMILHIST WikiChevrons}}, which doesn't include any citation text? I'm not aware of any other templates for the WikiChevrons, so it would be very helpful if you could point out the specific one you have in mind. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I meant the " Content Review Medal of Merit" template. It links its title to the WikiChevrons section and somehow I got confused. It mentions "Peer reviews" which are then linked to the deprecated page. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Russian and Soviet military history task force

The Russian and Soviet military history task force was renamed to the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force (per the results of the page move discussion) this morning. I've now gone through and cleaned up the various associated categories/templates/links/etc.; while I think I've caught everything, I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look and see if there's anything major that hasn't been appropriately moved or renamed. Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates to Bugle newsroom and article formats

As discussed above, I've made a number of updates to the Bugle newsroom and article formats:

• The newsroom now uses a task-tracking format similar to the one currently used by the Signpost. Each of the listed items has appropriate preload templates set up, to help with month-to-month page creation.
• Articles now have a footer section (example) which contains some of the general links from the front page as well as an integrated comment section.

Any comments regarding these changes or suggestions for further improvements would be appreciated—as would additional testing of the new features and reporting of any bugs! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We should, incidentally, start getting the January issue ready for publication; assuming that we want to have something beyond the bare-bones project/article news, we're still missing quite a bit of material. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, we've been working on it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing this as well as moving the taskforce Kirill Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work Kirill. I like the general layout, but I think it's a bit too big on the right. Maybe we can include a history section in the newsroom and link to it? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually put the history blurb there just to take up more space; otherwise, the right side looks really sparse if there are a few comments added on the left side. If you don't think that's an issue, I think we can just remove it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think we're in a bind in any case, as if there's more than three or so comments, it's going to look sparse. Also, I wonder if we shouldn't turn the watchlist and purge links to the normal shade of blue? Mostly because I don't think people will realize that they are links. I didn't say this yet, but thanks for doing this. I really appreciate it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, tks Kirill for all that stuff. I already addd a comment (for real!) to Nick's book review and that saved all right. One thing though, I then tried adding more to the same comment and it still only registers the original wording on the book review page. Is that a known limitation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just a caching issue; purging the article page seems to update it immediately. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Something else while we're here... Now we're publishing January's Bugle in January, we have to ensure that the Article News is for the previous month (December 2011 in this case) not the current month, as it is right now by default. We could do this by manually changing the Article News link in the current issue to the previous rather than the current month, or we could rename December's Article News page to January, January's to February, and modify the code in the A-Class Review Closure instructions to point to the next month rather than the current month, so things stay in sync from now on. I'm happy to to take care of that either way but I think my pref is the latter method so everything in the Bugle code is for the current month. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we make it simpler for everyone by just listing promoted articles in whatever the next issue might be, regardless of which month they were actually promoted in? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The new format looks really good. Re your last, will that give us a problem with automating the links from the various instruction pages? At the moment they use {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} to get to the right page. It's not a big issue I know, more a convenience. EyeSerene^talk 11:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought (moments after I'd clicked 'save'), but to address my previous point could we perhaps place all article summaries on a permanent holding page that's cleared by the newsletter editors when they compile the current issue of the Bugle? EyeSerene^talk 11:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, we'd need a NEXTMONTHNAME instruction, if there is one, and an if statement to roll over the year if current month is December, so it does get a bit complicated. I think keeping a subdivision of promotions in each month makes things easier, however. For now it might be best if we err on the side of pragmatism and just change the January issue background code to point to the December articles page (my first thought above) and consider a longer-term solution later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Keeping our former system would be my first preference. It ties in with the way we base the rest of the newsletter on the happenings during that month, and is the reason we kept two advance issues up in the newsroom. Is there any reason we can't go back to that and have not only the upcoming issue but the next as well on the newsroom page (retaining Kirill's new layout of course)? EyeSerene^talk 12:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't list multiple upcoming issues; I've gone ahead and added the dashboard code for the February issue.

As far as the article news are concerned, changing the links to point to the December page is somewhat impractical; much of the new layout code uses the month/year contained in the page title to automatically generate links, and all of that functionality will be broken on the December page. To address the immediate problem, I've copied the article summaries from the December page to the January one, and from the January one to the February one; that should line them up as far as promotion months are concerned.

In the long term, we could code up an equivalent to a NEXTMONTHNAME in template form; alternatively, we could have all summaries go to a holding area and only get placed on the actual monthly page as needed. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion as to which option would be preferred; that's more of a question for the people writing the summaries. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as there's a convenient link from the ACR closure instructions to the summary page I have no cast iron preference :) EyeSerene^talk 10:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC update, Jan 15

Promotions this week: 1st Provisional Marine Brigade (Ed!) and Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias (Lecen, Astynax). New articles at FAC: Relief of General Douglas MacArthur (Hawkeye7), George Andrew Davis, Jr. (Ed!), Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi (Sturmvogel 66, Cla68), Ray Farquharson (Nikkimaria), and William S. Clark (Historical Perspective). - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

World War I and Wikimedia UK

Hello coordinators! Now the fundraiser's over, I'm starting to make some progress with Wikimedia UK's World War I related outreach efforts. I'm keen to speak to you about it! What's the best way for me to fill you in? It's not all stuff I'm able to post on-wiki yet. I think many of you have my email address... The Land (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not I, though mine's available through my talkpage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to drop me an email via mine. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to send me an email too. We may be able to coordinate efforts with celebrations in Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed a few co-ordinators whose addresses I had in my inbox. Hopefully one or more of them can pass the message on (the email user feature gets a bit clunky with contacting lots of people). The Land (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We should create a coordinator Google Group so it's easier to mail all of us at once. Not that it'd get a lot of use, but it'd be helpful. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We could ask the Foundation to set us up a mailing list... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We could do that, I suppose. If everyone thinks that's the right approach, I can ask Philippe to create one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as the other coords think it's a good idea. It might be useful to have a single email address that reaches all of us, for occasions like this, though obviously it shouldn't replace on-wiki discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll go along with that but agree wholeheartedly with your caveat. EyeSerene^talk 10:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Off-Wiki scheming does tend to end badly. ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough that case came to my mind too. I can't imagine any coords would consider doing anything similar, but the appearance of propriety is often as important as the actuality of it. EyeSerene^talk 10:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Resignation (Hchc2009)

My apologies, but for various professional reasons I can't hold a coordination post on the project in the light of the recent Wikipedia SOPA initiative/announcement. Been great working with you guys however so far this year. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, though I hope that you reconsider. Holding a position as a coordinator of this project isn't any form of official position with the English-language Wikipedia itself, though I appreciate that this nuance might be lost on some employers. Thanks for your contributions in the role though. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - unfortunately the nature of the press release, especially Jimmy Wales' declaration, doesn't give me a lot of wiggle room professionally. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all understand your reasons, though I don't think any of us will be happy about it... ! Best of luck, and I hope we'll still see you around. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

hchc2009 ... I honestly don't know you that well, while I hope to see you on Wikipedia editing again once you feel upto doing some editing again whenever that maybe. We'll certainly miss your valuable contributions to WikiProject Military History even as a normal user. Adamdaley (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Hchc. I hope you'll consider still dropping by this page when you can though :) EyeSerene^talk 10:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The blackout isn't being done at the right time or done in the right way, but after comments by 1800(?) Wikipedians, I'm agreed that the worst case here would be if the Foundation (yet again) took no action after an apparent community-wide consensus. So, about all I can say in favor is that we're avoiding the very worst case. Hchc, your contributions have been huge ... let us know if we can support your work in any way. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You could make it a temporary "resignnation due to health concerns", then join the force post blackout :). Anyway, thanks Hchc for all you've done. Hope to see you back next term (if possible). Buggie111 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I can fully appreciate such concerns. If Wikipedia is suddenly going to become political I think there are many editors that will have to question whether they can continue to support it. I believe fairly strongly that the blackout was a significant error of judgement. It seems that Wikipedia (which was meant to be a global, apolitical effort) has now been co-opted to push a narrow agenda about a local issue in which many of us had no say. As someone who has donated a not inconsiderable amount of my own time (and some money) to the project I cannot help but feel aggrieved (or at least misrepresented). Anotherclown (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hey guys. Scholarship applications to attend Wikimania 2012 are now available. I'd like to see most of you there, so I hope y'all apply! In a related thought, is there any interest putting a presentation together? Perhaps on how/why our project is successful on-wiki and what others can adapt to their own projects? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You should post this on the main page as well Ed :) It would be interesting to know how big the pool of money is for the grants; Wikimedia seems to have lots of money for this sort of thing. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I'll do that now. This says $50,000, but I think that's just what the Wikimania planners are putting towards it and doesn't include WMF contributions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)