Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2011

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

Military history
WikiProject

Main project page	+ talk
News & open tasks
Academy

Core work areas

Assessment
Main page
→ A-Class FAQ
→ B-Class FAQ
→ A-Class review requests
→ Assessment requests
→ Current statistics
→ Review alert box

Contests
Main page
→ Contest entries
→ Scoring log archive
→ Scoreboard archive

Coordination
Main page	+ talk
→ Handbook
→ Bugle newsroom	talk
→ ACM eligibility tracking
→ Discussion alert box

Incubator
Main page
→ Current groups and initiatives

Special projects
Majestic Titan	talk

Member affairs

Membership
Full list	talk
→ Active / Inactive
→ Userboxes

Awards
Main page	talk
→A-Class medals
→A-Class crosses
→ WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves

Resources

Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style

Templates
Infoboxes
→ Command structure	doc · talk
→ Firearm cartridge	doc · talk
→ Military award	doc · talk
→ Military conflict	doc · talk
→ Military installation	doc · talk
→ Military memorial	doc · talk
→ Military person	doc · talk
→ Military unit	doc · talk
→ National military	doc · talk
→ Military operation	doc · talk
→ Service record	doc · talk
→ Militant organization	doc · talk
→ Weapon	doc · talk
Navigation boxes	doc · talk
→ Campaignboxes	doc · talk
Project banner	doc · talk
Announcement & task box
→ Discussion alert box
→ Review alert box
Template design style	doc · talk

Showcase
Featured articles	1509
Featured lists	149
Featured topics	32
Featured pictures	544
Featured sounds	69
Featured portals	5
A-Class articles	687
A-Class lists	40
Good articles	5,562

Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion

Task forces

General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry

Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history

Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War

Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships

edit · changes

**Tally**
edit
Candidate	Votes
Adamdaley	19
Buggie111	19
Dank	30
EyeSerene	29
Hawkeye7	24
Hchc2009	23
HJ Mitchell	26
Ian Rose	29
MisterBee1966	26
Nick-D	29
Nikkimaria	25
Sp33dyphil	22
Sturmvogel_66	25
The ed17	28

Overview

This election is to appoint the project coordinator team for one year, from 29 September 2011 to 28 September 2012. Coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.

The lead coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the other coordinators aid the lead coordinator and focus on specific areas requiring special attention.

Responsibilities

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators:

The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group.

The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.

Practical information on coordinating may be found here and here.

The current coordinators are:

Name	Position	Standing for re-election?
AustralianRupert	Coordinator	No (per this)
Cam	Coordinator	No
Dana Boomer	Coordinator	No, per this
Dank	Coordinator	Yes
EyeSerene	Coordinator	Yes
Ian Rose	Coordinator	Yes
Joe N	Coordinator	No
MBK004	Coordinator	No, presumably
Parsecboy	Lead Coordinator	No
Ranger Steve	Coordinator	No
Shimgray	Coordinator	No
Sturmvogel 66	Coordinator	Yes
The ed17	Coordinator	Yes
TomStar81	Coordinator	I'm on the fence (leaning toward no)
Woody	Coordinator	No

Election process

Nomination period: starts 00:01 (UTC) 3 September to 23:59 (UTC) 14 September.
Voting period: starts 00:01 (UTC) 15 September to 23:59 (UTC) 28 September.
Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Candidates" section below by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:

=== Name ===

{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...

==== Questions for Name ====

*''What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?''
**
*''What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?''
**

==== Votes in support of Name ====

#

The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the lead coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the remaining candidates with twenty or more endorsements will be appointed as coordinators to a maximum of fourteen appointments. The number of coordinators may be increased or reduced if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.

Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.

Candidates

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 01:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Adamdaley

Adamdaley (talk · contribs)

For myself to be a coordinator for Military History, it would be an honour. I've been interested mainly in World War II since the age of 15 or 16 while at school (now for 15 or 16 years ago now). I've been known to work with other coordinators prior to this and have formed a Wikipedia friendship with several people. However, I have been expanding my knowledge to other wars, conflicts, and have tried my very best to make sure the Discussion templates are done correctly and have made attempts to bring attention to articles that need attention. If elected, this will be my first term and first major role in Wikipedia.

Questions for Adamdaley

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- Helping to add information to articles and to help other users with information and formatting the article.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I like to try and get things right the first time. If not, I'd certainly correct myself or if anyone queries my edits or comments, I'd certainly make it more clear so they would understand and be helpful.
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of articles and inclusion of articles that pertain to WikiProject Military History should be considered if it is worthy to be merged before being deleted and included into a similar article. It also has to be fully references and have sources to back it up before being merged with another article. If it doesn't meet the requirements of the WikiProject Military History then an expansion of information (put on the Discussion page) by a user notifying other users. Adamdaley (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost would be the Infobox filled out properly which would include the birth date and death date which would calculate the age of the person. Secondly, there are at the moment alot of articles which need to be cleaned up or have been tagged and the person or people who created these article's should have done a better job of it prior to publishing it. Thirdly, the WikiProject Military History should have the assessment template done in order (from the Military Person infobox, or WikiProject Military History assessment template. Adamdaley (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I was able to get the most votes, I would take it on yes. If tied with another person, we could come to some agreement who would be the better "Lead Coordinator". Adamdaley (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would emphasize, every WikiProject Military History would have to have an Infobox, the right information entered for the attributes for the Infobox. Be well sourced, referenced, external links, Bibliography, Further reading. For Military History Biographies, birth and death dates must be found prior to doing the article. Fill in the attributes correctly, full name, alliegence with flag, place of birth, place of death, relatives, wife/husband/son's/daughter's. As for the Military Template for the discussion page. For example look at what I've done with the Military Biographies. I would be able to come to some agreement with other Coordinators, because I know I've rated Military Priorty as "Low". In my view that can be easily changed if another Coordinator thinks it should be a higher assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Adamdaley

Adam does a lot of unsung work tidying and assessing articles; as well as performing general coord duties I hope to see him involved in the ACR process as either reviewer or closing coord. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From his edit history and from the answers to the questions above, it seems clear that Adam's interests are geared towards article assessment and the technical aspects of maintaining Wikipedia. There's no shortage of this type of work available for an able and willing coordinator (especially in project maintenance) but often a shortage of people to do it, so I'm very happy to give Adam my support :) EyeSerene^talk 14:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adamdaley appears to be a meticulous editor which I believe would serve him well in his capacity of coordinator.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Adamdaley

Buggie111

Buggie111 (talk · contribs)

Well, here goes. I'm back again to the coord election. I've been a member of Milhist since December of '09, and have enjoyed my time as a member. Hopefully it will be that way as a coord. Buggie111 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Buggie111

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- Mainly the Austro-Hungarian BB topic, Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895), and other articles I've worked on at OMT
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- Wait, I have to work? That's strange :) . I intend to maintain the announcements page that is becoming more and more important, as well as posting, deleting notices from talk pages.
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have to say that I am leaning slightly towards inclusion. I'm all for adding articles to Wikipedia, provided that they wouldn't come back to harm Wikipedia in coming months (i.e. the fact that a hoax article survived x amount of months pops up somewhere visible in some tabloid or newspaper, followed by a flood of "Wikipedia is not reliable", or that some garage band's article stays on Wikipedia and gets cited by the unwitting journalist who alasy cites not notable Wikipedia articles). However, I don't really know how this gets tied into Milhist, at least for me. Nearly all of the articles that I have seen with a CSD template have been "famous" rock bands, so I think I should study up on WP:SOLDIER. Buggie111 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, hmmm. The first thing (in no particular order), would be the focus on post-Napoleonic articles, as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy. Another one is the lack of reviewers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review, which is mainly staffed by a few dedicated individuals. The last one would be,as with the rest of Wikipedia, a steady "downwards flow" of editors, which mans less people coming in while the same amount comes out. Two of these are rather easy to deal with, and I believe Milhist can turn those two problems around. but the third....... Buggie111 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, cuz that would meen I'd actually have to work. Actually, in reality, I wouldn't accept the position, because I see the position of Lead Coord just like Dank does, somthing that is just an added hat. Plus, in my current position in the voting, that would not be possible to obtain :).Buggie111 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See above.

Comments for Buggie111

Buggie has been around a long time and knows how things operate round here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buggie's edits span a wide range from quality article work to patrolling and he's contributed a lot to the project (and OMT in particular) during his time with us. With an extra year's commitment and experience under his belt since the last elections I think he'll make a fine coord. EyeSerene^talk 14:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy to see Buggie's growth as a WP contributor, and I'm equally happy to support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Buggie111

Dank

Dank (talk · contribs)

I've enjoyed my time as a coord of this project for 1.5 years and as a Wikipedian for almost 4 years now, and I've been pretty busy for most of that time; feel free to browse my userspace for details, and if you're really interested in my activities and opinions, search the archives of the coordinator's talk page and the main project talk page for my name. Most of my wiki-energy is expended on copyediting and reviewing; I believe I've covered over 95% of our articles at peer review, A-class and FAC over the last year ... usually the whole articles, sometimes half of each article. (Copyediting is a technical skill, but it has its uses.) I'll be happy to answer questions on any subject. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Dank

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- Helping shepherd articles through the review processes.

What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- Although I try to keep an eye on everything, I'm going to keep focusing on copyediting issues. - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I rarely have time for WP:AFD these days. I used to be very active in deletion as an admin, and I don't recall any pattern of complaints by deletionists or inclusionists; you're welcome to check my talk archives (this would be from 2009, mostly) and see if you disagree. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Compared with other parts of Wikipedia, more Milhist people are focused on day-to-day work and fewer are distracted by issues. But if you're asking what isn't getting done, I just thought of something. I wonder if some of the easier jobs in A-class and FAC reviews wouldn't be sitting around undone for weeks if we posted what needs doing some place, maybe at the coordinators' talk page. There are a lot of people who don't normally pull up reviews looking for something to do, but they might be willing to help out if we kept a list of specific requests made by the reviewers. I'll suggest this at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that coordinator responsibilities do/will restrict your other contributions (e.g. copyediting)? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, it's been the other way around; I don't close A-class reviews because I do some copyediting on almost all of them. Did that answer the question? - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First thought: I don't like the question, because for the last several years, lead coordinator has been seen as a byproduct of the election for coordinators, not what the election was about ... this sounds like you're asking for campaign statements. On second thought: what a brilliant question. Yes, if elected as lead coordinator, I'll accept, and unless someone can point out some value of the position (in the next few days) that I'm not aware of, then I'll resign as lead coord (meaning, I think, that we wouldn't have a lead coord for a year), and propose that we abolish the position for good. (This isn't to say the position wasn't useful before ... it probably was in the early days, I wasn't here.) Coord elections are, and ought to be, focused on the new guys ... electing a "lead" coordinator as the guy who's been marginally more useful than the others detracts from that focus. We don't need an overall leader; if we want to give someone the title of "GLAM outreach coordinator", on the theory that the title will make it easier for them to get a foot in the door when they're doing outreach, then we can just create that position and elect someone as needed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: I just got an email suggesting that this is something that ought to be decided by consensus, not an "an attempt to force the issue". I'll discuss below at #Abolishing the lead coordinator position. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry for the flip-flop; I thought it necessary because of the discussion below at #Abolishing the lead coordinator position. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Dank

Dank is the most dedicated reviewer we have and always has something useful to contribute to discussions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Ian said. Dan almost single-handedly keeps ACR and MilHist FACs running. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dan should (although I know he won't) take a lot of credit for the tireless copyediting assistance he supplies during milhist featured and A-Class article reviews. For that and the thoughtful, enthusiastic contributions he makes elsewhere he's a great asset to the project. EyeSerene^talk 14:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seconding this statement. I personally know how hard it is to get him to take credit for his copyediting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An inspirational editor and reviewer, as I've said before – without doubt one of the strongest nominations here. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 16:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed my vote, as I'm concerned about the time which would be spent on process wonkery if you won the lead coordinator job and carried out your stated intentions. I retain the highest respect for your contributions as an editor, however. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem, but see #Abolishing the lead coordinator position and above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Dank

EyeSerene

EyeSerene (talk · contribs)

I'm offering myself up for a fourth (or fifth, depending how you count them) term as a coordinator. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now, mostly in areas of article improvement rather than article creation, and regard myself as a generalist in that I tend to stick my nose into anything that interests me. I try to maintain an informative userpage so anyone who wants more detail is welcome to check that out or ask questions below or on my talk :) EyeSerene^talk 11:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for EyeSerene

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- I hate this question because, as always, I can't think of anything to write. So much of what we do is a team effort or built on foundations laid by others that I can't rightly claim any achievements as my own. However, I believe that I have made useful contributions towards maintaining Milhist as Wikipedia's premiere project^{[citation needed]} by undertaking routine maintenance, contributing to project discussions and initiatives, and generally trying to sustain our reputation as a good place to be.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I'm very familiar with the technical and functional aspects of project maintenance, having done most project tasks at one time or another over the last few years. I'm also an experienced copyeditor and reviewer and enjoy doing both, though with significant but sporadic RL commitments I've had to learn to prioritise. I tend to concentrate on areas where a small or technically demanding contribution can make a significant difference—closing A-Class reviews, merging task forces, making awards etc—thereby freeing up other coords for the more time-consuming stuff. I am however anticipating having more time available this year than last, so hopefully I can also work towards getting WP:OPNORMANDY back on track...
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?
- To be honest I view that debate as an historical idealogical struggle that took place mostly outside my orbit; it's more something I'm aware of than something I've given much thought to. We operate with an inclusion criterion based on notability, which itself is defined in terms of a requirement for non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. For me that decides what gets deleted and what stays; I find deletionism or inclusionism as a personal philosophy to be largely irrelevant when we have a defined criterion to measure articles against. However, I think there is a related debate to be found in the issues raised by editors during our recent self assessment for the WMF, where Wikipedia's apparent growing bias against pop culture subjects is causing concern for some. I guess this is not so much about deletion and inclusion on notability grounds as about what's encyclopedic and what's not, and here I think there are issues we might face as a project. It was pointed out that we perhaps get away with our 'crufty' articles (detailed treatments of minor battles, weapon systems that were never produced, and the like) whereas in other areas (video games for example) equivalent articles might be looked at more critically. To borrow a phrase from the Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia page, there is an important distinction between what can be written about, and what should be written about. I believe this is an issue we've not really considered as yet.
In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with other respondents that member recruiting/retention is the single most significant ongoing challenge facing the project, and I'd add addressing systemic bias and dealing with POV-pushing as the second and third issues. All three of those go much wider than Milhist, but as a project we've historically been good at initiating and spreading good practice from our small corner of WP. I hope that as we get to grips with these issues we might provide some ideas that the wider community can adopt.
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. EyeSerene^talk 12:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The short answer is: whatever our members decide is good for the project. However, although I believe it's very useful to have a warm body in the lead role for various reasons, such as to provide a point of contact for the project and to keep tabs on overall administrative functions, I think with a competent coord team and active, knowledgeable membership it would be a mistake to have a lead who views it as a presidency and a chance to stamp their personality on the project. At best they'll be ignored; at worst they'll bring the project into disrepute. Milhist is pretty good at deciding for itself what needs emphasising; the lead coord is just the person who happened to get the most votes and in my view has no mandate beyond the usual coord role. EyeSerene^talk 12:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for EyeSerene

Eye continues to be a great person to have on the team, a nice guy (but no walkover!), a hard worker, and an insightful contributor to discussion (which could be taken as another way of saying we agree a lot, but what the hell)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Eye is a fore-father coord, and probably worthy of Lead Coord. Eye-eye-cap'n! Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 16:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to find people that deserve more respect that ES. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of EyeSerene

Hawkeye7

Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs)

I've been an editor on Wikipedia since 2007. I have been involved with the Military History task force since then. I have a masters degree in military history, writing about the Australian Army in World War I. After that I wrote my doctoral thesis on World War II. I am also a card-carrying member of Wikimedia Foundation Australia. I write mainly about the American and Australian Armies in World War I and World War II, but can occasionally be found doing some work on other countries. Lately I have been doing some work with the Manhattan Project articles.

Questions for Hawkeye7

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- Bringing 14 articles up to featured article status.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- Considerable in-depth knowledge of military history.
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to be an inclusionist by nature, but have nominated articles for deletion. What I would like to see is our WP:SOLDIER included in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines, thereby giving our project the same standing as WP:PORNO.
In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Managing the terminal decline of the Wikipedia. With decreasing numbers of volunteer editors, we have to find ways to continue to maintain and improve the articles. A major challenge is to see if we can find a way of marshalling the resources of the task force as a whole. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I sincerely believe that there are other candidates who would be better suited to the role of lead coordinator. Demands of my work limit my time and occasionally call me away. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to develop the task force's ties with GLAMs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Hawkeye7

Hawkeye is someone I encouraged to run as he's a knowledgeable and indeed courageous editor, taking on subjects many would shy away from, and will I'm sure make a fine coord. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to see Hawkeye standing for election. His article work alone puts most of us to shame, but he's also very experienced in many other areas as well including dealing with milhist article assessment requests. Very happy to support :) EyeSerene^talk 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking a different tack here. I think having an experienced military historian is a positive for the views they can bring to the table. A lot of us are doing this simply as a hobby, or at least started that way before writing here spurred them into becoming a historian (Parsecboy comes to mind); having a professional on the team will give us an academic perspective on topics that the hobbyists might have missed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Hawkeye7

Buggie111 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009 (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LeonidasSpartan (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC
Carcharoth (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 10:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mojoworker (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009

Hchc2009 (talk · contribs)

I've been an editor on Wikipedia since 2009, so I'm still a relative newbie compared to many. A lot of my work has been on the medieval period, in particular castles, but I'll happily stray up into the early modern period. I've done some reviewing at ACR, primarily on topics I feel confident on in terms of content, and I review regularly at GA on an "oldest nomination first" basis. This will be my first nomination in a coordinator election.

Questions for Hchc2009

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- Unsurprisingly I'm proud of some of the articles I've helped create, including Castles in Great Britain and Ireland and the Royal Artillery Memorial. I've also particularly enjoyed working with some of our South American specialists (in particular on various Brazilian and regional articles, and the linguistic challenges involved in translation), and with the Somerset Wikiproject on Somerset castles over the last few months. I'm also proud of the help I've given one or two new editors, which I hoped has helped them improve their own articles, particularly in terms of encouraging good referencing and citation. I've tried, with varying amounts of success, to help out when editors have asked for facilitation on disputes via the project talk page.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I'm a good researcher and can usually assist in some way with most aspects of the medieval and early modern periods. While not in the same league as our best copy-editors, I can add some value on this, particularly at GA and ACR. Regardless of any success at election, I'd like to examine whether there is any low-hanging fruit in terms of "real world" collaboration within the UK on military history. I'd also like to continue to pursue areas of cross-project collaboration, similar to what's already been done recently on Somerset.
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I tend towards the inclusionist end of the spectrum in terms of retaining articles, but I think we could take a harder stance on unreferenced material within articles. In terms of how this applies to the MILHIST project, while we need to ensure that biographical articles etc. are indeed notable, I'm probably more interested in whether the material in the articles are cited, and I think we could be bolder in removing material within those that aren't adequately supported.

In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining high quality standards while still being welcoming and supportive to newer editors (less and less easy in practice as standards improve over time); recognising, managing and growing certain key skills, such as copy-editing, where we rely very heavily on quite a small number of editors; and - perhaps less pressing but certainly important as the project matures - improving some of the most widely-read core articles on major conflicts or themes, which in some cases lag in quality terms behind the more specialist articles on individual units, battles or sub-themes.

Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First go around, I'd decline - I think it would make most sense for an experienced coordinator to take up that position. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Hchc2009

HC has done very good work as editor and reviewer, and I think has just the mindset for a coord role as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've found Hchc's work on castles particularly impressive; it's good to see that aspect of milhist's coverage getting such careful and high-quality attention. Coupled with his consistent commitment to our review processes and a collaborative and collegial approach to editing, Hchc is another very strong candidate who'll do a great job for the project as a milhist coord. EyeSerene^talk 15:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been lucky enough to work with Hchc2009 in castle articles and since the start have been impressed by the high standard of work. I can't decide which is my favourite, Windsor Castle or castles in Great Britain and Ireland which both raised the bar in that area. A co-ordinator as clued up about article writing as Hchc2009 is is surely a boon. Moreover, I have observed that in discussions they have always been helpful and thoughtful. Nev1 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Hchc2009

HJ Mitchell

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Most of you probably know me, but for those who don't, I'm Harry. Within Milhist, most of my activity has been at A-class reviews—I love ACR; I think it's a great way to get more serious feedback than a PR but without the high pressure of FAC, so I do my best to make it work. I try to review every biography listed on {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}, which I transclude on my talk page for convenience, and I've been known to review the odd aircraft article. I also like to offer opinions or comments in discussions on the project talk page and the strategy talk page, and of course, I write articles—predominantly post-WWII British Army generals, but I'll take on anything that piques my interest.

More broadly, I'm an administrator (and would be happy to help with anything that needed admin tools, like moving pages over redirects with a history) and OTRS agent (which mostly entails dealing with sensitive issues, like complaints from the subjects of BLPs). I also do a bit of copy-editing, reviewing and writing outside the scope of Milhist (I've written five GAs and an FL outside of Milhist) and I'm active around the Main Page (particularly ITN). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for HJ Mitchell

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- My article work, without a doubt. I've written three FAs (Mike Jackson, Richard Dannatt and Iranian Embassy siege), and I don't think I would ever have had the confidence to take the first two to FAC had it not been for the feedback I got from Milhist, which is why I like ACR so much. I've also written two articles (Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham and Tim Cross) which passed ACR but don't have some of the detail one would expect in an FA, and two other GAs (Sir Jim Dutton and Richard Barrons) for which I don't have any immediate plans.
  I'm also very proud of my reviewing, mainly at ACR but with the occasional venture over to FAC and PR. I like to think that my efforts have helped bring about improvements in already excellent articles, and maybe even given them the last shove they needed to get to FA status.

What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I'm a bit of an all-rounder, so I'm able to comment on a wide range of subjects. I can offer advice on writing, copy-editing, and the MoS. I can offer third opinions in minor disagreements, like those that come up in FACs and ACRs from time to time and I've got to know the project well enough to help with the behind-the-scenes maintenance. The main area of coordination I'm interested in, though, is closing ACRs. I review most biographies, so I probably wouldn't close many biography ACRs, but others (on battles, ships, aircraft, units, etc), I would seek to close once a consensus has been reached, especially where the nominator intends to take the article to FAC.

What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'm in the middle, with slight sympathies towards the deletionist side. I find the mindset that everything should be kept and that even if we turn it into something completely different and totally beyond recognition that is somehow better than deleting it bizarre. But I find the opposite view, that everything some people don't deem to be "important" (Pokemon characters is the classic example!) should be deleted. On the broader issue of notability, it puzzles me that some of the people opposing the promotion of the project's notability guideline believed that an officer with thirty years' service who has attained general officer rank isn't notable, and yet we have a guideline that makes anybody who has played a sport professionally for thirty minutes (likely using both his brain cells to do so!) is automatically entitled to an article.
  I think the moderate deletionist attitude has become more prevalent over the last couple of years in most areas, including perhaps on military topics, meaning articles (and notability guidelines) generally have a slightly higher bar to jump at AfD than perhaps they did in the past.

In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Milhst is struggling to keep its head above water at the minute, but obviously no project is ever going to be perfect. I think we have less (or less serious) issues than most wikiprojects, but among our issues, I would say that we're a bit too internal sometimes—for example, it's sometimes mentioned that Milhist members aren't very good at reviewing FACs other than those within the project's scope, which can create resentment towards the project. An issue that was raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Self-assessment is that we're not ever so good at keeping up-to-date with changes in Wikipedia—this is particularly relevant to our A-class reviews, which are supposed to be holding articles to a standard very close to FA, but major changes at FAC don't always trickle down (like the greater emphasis on close paraphrasing). Finally, I don't think we're as good as we could be at welcoming newbies, which could have a serious effect on participation in the longer term—as a project, I think we're great at supporting editors, but I don't know how we can make newer editors of military history articles aware that that support exists, and get them participating in the project.

Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this will be my first term if I'm elected, I would prefer the role of lead coord to go to somebody with previous experience as a coordinator. Certainly for the first few months, I'd still be learning the ropes, and I think the lead coord should be someone to whom the other coords can turn for advice, so I don't think I'd be the best person for the job.
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I answered no, but Ill answer the question anyway! I would use the position to try and raise the profile of our A-class review system, both within the project and more broadly, in the hope of attracting nominations and reviews from editors who aren't normally active within the project but who have an interest in military history related articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for HJ Mitchell

Having come to know HJ's work and even-handed approach through the ACR and FAC reviewing processes, I've no hesitation in saying I think he'd make a great MilHist coord. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see an experienced administrator coming in to the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ's level-headed and sensible approach to editing has impressed me in the many areas I've seen him at work - he'll make a fine coordinator. Thanks for giving in to the nagging and throwing your hat in the ring :) EyeSerene^talk 15:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see we didn't have to resort to threats to get you to run. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of HJ Mitchell

Ian Rose

Ian Rose (talk · contribs)

I've been involved at Wikipedia for about six years now, began contributing to military history articles four years ago, and have been elected a MilHist coordinator for four consecutive terms. Article-wise, my prime focus has been Australian military flying biography, though my edits have ranged across many related areas. I spend a fair amount of time reverting vandalism and fixing formatting issues, do a good deal of reviewing, assessing and copyediting of articles at all levels, perform housekeeping tasks like announcing/closing reviews, updating open tasks, and helping administer the monthly article-writing contest, and try to offer helpful advice wherever possible. This project is a great place to "work", we just need to always remember it's only as good as the people we attract, and retain.

Questions for Ian Rose

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- Having largely written 24 FA-Class pages, over 30 GAs, and 10 or so A-Class pages is a source of pride. I'm honoured to have been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in 2009, and to have been a project coordinator for the past 2½ years. Consistently being among the top group of article reviewers is also important to me. On the coord side, I'm pleased to have taken a large chunk of the responsibility for administering the monthly writing contest, and to have helped push through a referendum to increase coordinator terms to one year to cut back on the admin overhead of 6-monthly elections. If I've helped encourage a few more editors to throw their hat in the ring to become coordinators, at a time when we're feeling the effects of losing some old hands, that'd be great too... ;-)
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I don't think I can improve on what I've said in the past at this point, namely experience, evenhandedness, and enthusiasm, plus being prepared to perform housekeeping that's part-and-parcel of this role, sound knowledge of the review/assessment process, and willingness/ability to contribute to project policy and discussion. RL of course intrudes sometimes on the amount of time one can spend on both writing and administrative tasks, but I think I've been pretty constant in the effort I put in and can continue to be.
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty neutral I think, I try to judge each case on its merits. I certainly don't think MilHist, or WP as a whole, should be a grab-bag of trivial information or vanity articles, but I don't go round looking for things to delete either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At this moment I think we're feeling the effects of fewer active coordinators to take care of housekeeping tasks, however knowing the elections were coming up I just tried to marshal a few potential new ones rather than call for co-opting people, as we've occasionally done in the past. As I indicated above, this is a great project but we need to guard against complacency by a) continuing to encourage new members, b) reviewing, reviewing, reviewing, and c) taking a wider view than our own backyard, well kept though it is. One example is keeping an eye on the evolving, tougher standards in FAC, and applying them to a reasonable extent in our A-Class Reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can honestly say it's not a position I've really coveted, but if I happened to receive sufficient votes I wouldn't knock it back. I totally get where Dank is coming from when he questions how necessary the position is, particularly given it has no additional powers beyond the (very limited) ones other coordinators have, and I hope no-one is giving him a hard time for having the temerity to suggest dispensing with it. That said, I think the position has value if it pushes the incumbant to do that little bit more for the project than they might otherwise, as an example, a mentor, and a fount of ideas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Points a), b) and c) a couple of paragraphs above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Ian Rose

Of the people running, Ian has the most experience closing A-class reviews and the most consistent FAC output. I can't remember a time when he didn't know what he was doing or how to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dedicated, hard working and knowledgeable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The epitome of humor, kindness, work, knowledge, cooperation.... I can go on and on. Plus, he's an Aussie. Ian is an awesome contributor. Buggie111 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well he keeps me busy reviewing his RAAF biographies, but they are excellent, and Ian has a dedication to the inner workings of MilHist perhaps matched only by Kirill, who is a coordiantor emeritus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with all the above. Ian's an experienced editor, dedicated coordinator and thoroughly decent bloke. 'Nuff said :) EyeSerene^talk 15:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What more can be said? There is none better than Ian. Dedicated, reliable, ever helpful and an excellent writer to boot. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grudgingly supporting Ian despite my apprehension over a possible Australian takeover of the project... ;-) More seriously, Ian is completely dedicated to the project, never grumpy, and always has something interesting or helpful to contribute in discussions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

Votes in support of Ian Rose

LeonidasSpartan

LeonidasSpartan (talk · contribs)

My name is Andrew Ryan Dunbar; on Wikipedia I go by the handle LeonidasSpartan. I have been a contributor on Wikipedia since 2007 and a member in the Military History Project since April 16, 2010. As a contributor to Wikipedia I have made enough edits to reach Journeyman Editor status. I have acted in a few different capacities as a member of the Military History Project; my contributions range from clearing backlogs of unassessed articles to the contribution of new articles to some copyediting and even to participating in talkpage discussions. I believe I can assist in facilitating the continued smooth operation of this project and I believe that I can help improve the project as a whole.

Brief Explanation of My Late Entry to the Election: After due consideration, I had intended to nominate myself as a candidate in the Coordinator election on September 14th when I came home at the end of the day, however a faulty alternator in my engine, coupled with a broken engine mount, had a decidedly different plan for my short-term future that night. I will spare you blow-by-blow details of the tragic ordeal, but in short I was preoccupied. I hope the delay in adding my candidacy will not have negatively influenced your vote.

Proposal to help improve the project

The following proposal is an example of the sort of ideas, I have which may benefit the Military History project. I hope this conveys some of my enthusiasm for the project as a whole. If I am not elected, I will introduce these ideas into the discussion at the Strategy Department after a brief, intense period of crying myself to sleep at night while listening to Simon and Garfunkel albums.

Rewarding Editor Recruitment: I would like to introduce an award to the project to be given to project members who recruit a new editor to the project. I would like to model this award in some regards after the recruiter badges of the American military. This recruiting award would consist of a barnstar like award which can be added to an editor's talkpage coupled with an additional icon which can be added to an editor's userpage to recognize the user's recruiting efforts while simultaneously increasing the project's visibility. This icon might be something akin to this:

. The particulars of this award, such as criteria and appearance can be worked out in further detail in the Strategy Department at a later date. I feel this has sufficiently illustrated the general concept for rewarding recruiting efforts of members.

Questions for LeonidasSpartan

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- I have made several different contributions of which I am proud during my time in project. I have done a good bit of work on the History of the French Foreign Legion in the past from which I learned a great deal about editing. However the contributions to the Military History Project of which I am most proud, two efforts stand out above the rest: an editorial in the June 2010 issue of The Bugle, entitled "Frustration and Disappointment", and my role in the creation of the Strategy Department.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- One of the attributes which I already do contribute as a member of the Military History Project is great enthusiasm for the WikiProject itself. I would not hesitate to say that this would be of as much or more value as a project coordinator. I find the process in which the project operates to be very intriguing and I find the prospect of improving this WikiProject to be an equally stimulating topic.
- If elected, I would strive to the utmost to be impartial as possible whilst facillitating discussion and debate and when needed I would voice my honest opinion when it would be productive in the discussion. I believe it is essential to create a welcoming discussion forum for the project's members to retain and increase participation in the project.
- If elected I will endeavor to identify and implement innovative solutions to issues confronting our project in cooperation with my fellow coordinators. I believe innovation when properly utilized and introduced is important to the project's growth and vitality. On the other side of the coin, I feel reckless use of the coordinator position –even careless editing while not in a capacity as a coordinator– is not congruent with the project's smooth and continued operation. As such I will exercise forethought in the discharge my Coordinator duties while attempting to be a dynamic and innovative force.
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not accept the position of Lead Coordinator in the event that it might be offered to me. I feel that there are a number of candidates who have more experience as both editors and coordinators, and considering the fact that I have never before served as a coordinator, I feel that the office of Lead Coordinator would be not be an appropriate role for me within this project. However I do not feel that my lack of suitability for Lead Coordinator at this time precludes myself from a position as a Coordinator.
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for LeonidasSpartan

Andrew is a responsible and thoughtful contributor who has demonstrated his keen interest in furthering MilHist's success. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like LS's enthusiasm and the way he's answered the questions; we've historically been an innovative project and a regular infusion of new blood and ideas is a great way to prevent our arteies from hardening. Plus, of course, I'd hate to be responsible for inflicting Simon and Garfunkel on anyone... ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though the candidacy has been withdrawn, I want to say here that the answers and the ideas concerning recruitment were enough for me to be considering a support here. At the least, the ideas should be discussed further. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you very much for that comment. After a brief a respite, I will be introducing some of my ideas into debate in the Strategy Department. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of LeonidasSpartan

Withdrawal

I hereby withdraw my candidacy from the September 2011 coordinator elections in light of my poor performance in the polling results. I would like to take this opportunity to all those who cast their votes in support of my candidacy; my thanks go out especially to EyeSerene and IanRose who made such kind comments in support of my candidacy. I would also like to thank those who provided me with advice during this election; the advice was greatly appreciated. I would further like to take this opportunity to state that while it seems that I have served the WikiProject enough to secure election as Project Coordinator, I am not terribly disheartened by this result. Instead, I feel I must simply steel myself against the result and redouble my efforts, so that next year my candidacy will be successful. So this is not so much a farewell as a until next time. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't jump the gun - there's still a whole day to go before voting ends, you know - some people may be holding back their votes to the last minute. Bear in mind also, that many of these other candidates have 10,000+ edits, whereas you have ~3,000, and it may simply a matter of appearing "too inexperienced" rather than anything against the quality of your actual contribs. That's, admittedly, my reason for not giving you my vote, but it is also the same reason why I didn't stand as a candidate - lack of experience, and I wouldn't have expected votes either, being relatively new, despite my reasonable level of self-confidence. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 06:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry LeonidasSpartan, I didn't vote for you because I didn't know you before this event. You seem to do a lot of talk page cleanup tasks, but you don't seem to engage in dialogues with others, which makes it hard to judge your abilities. I really hope you don't feel discouraged, and that you will put your hand up next year. Take care Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the candor of your responses, Marcus and Sp33dyPhil. It is quite true that I am relatively less experienced than some of the other candidates and I understand why that may have impacted some project members' votes. I am not terribly discouraged and I intend to redouble my participation within the project. I hope that my withdrawal is not seen simply as an under performing candidate withdrawing after somewhat disappointing results in the election. After some some consideration, I have realized that there is still quite a bit I can still learn about Wikipedia without position in the WikiProject. In fact I believe proceeding forward at this point in time as independent editor will better enable me to more effectively improve my editing skills and eventually serve as an able coordinator at a later date. I may be somewhat down, but by no means am I out of the game: so to quote the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger: "I'll be back."LeonidasSpartan (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone in that optimistic and forward-thinking motion. We look forward to seeing you around the project more; I have a funny feeling it's going to be a busy year – 2012 – with plenty to do, even for regular active members (non-coords). :) Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 08:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's worked out this way, LS, but glad you had a go. In retrospect I don't recall seeing you round lately as much as last year but I remembered your name and your efforts, which is why I was happy to support your candidacy. However newer members of the project aren't so familiar with you, and this is perhaps reflected in the fact that pretty well all your votes came from 'old hands' like me... ;-) So put your plans into effect to get out there more as editor, reviewer and discussion participant and I'm sure next time you'll garner plenty of support from all round! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leo, I"m sorry I didn't vote for you, I just kept on putting it off. You are a wonderful contributor. Kepp it up. Buggie111 (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966

MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

I have been an active member of the project for over four years now and a military coordinator a few terms ago. My main interest lies in the history of World War II. Most of my wiki-time goes into maintaining the biographies of German Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross recipients. Since I am not a native English speaker I try to concentrate my reviews on the content of articles I feel reasonably knowledgeable about.

Questions for MisterBee1966

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- I think the best work I’ve done is the work on Werner Mölders
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I believe I have a solid understanding of the procedures involved in progressing articles through the quality chain. I also have a relatively large library on World War II topics and I am always glad to assist.
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision has to be case by case. However, if it eases the breakdown of information and structure of the article I tend to think more is better, thus you could consider me an inclusionist. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor retention and increasing participation! I am truly surprised how relative small the active community is. Another issue from my point of view is the reviews. My perception, I may be wrong here, is that the majority of the reviews conducted seem to focus on the technical elements and linguistics of the article. They are important but very rarely do I see the informational content of an article challenged or improved through the review process. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never asked myself this question because I thought the lead is implicitly selected by the voting community. Having said that I would accept the position if selected. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lead is selected by the community, however the person selected must be willing to accept the position; if the person with the votes declines, then we offer the guys in second place, etc. In asking this question I'm interested just in whether or not you'd accept the position if it turned out that you were elected to it. FWIW, I think you would be a good lead coordinator. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would accept the position of lead coordinator. Wiki is a hobby to all of us, we should all have fun and enjoy what we are doing here, be friendly and have a good laugh once in a while. Most of us come from different countries with different roots, age, cultural background and we speak different languages. I think this is a challenge but also the biggest opportunity Wiki has. I think I would like to see us foster this asset more. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for MisterBee1966

Great to see MisterBee back -- an excellent editor with sound knowledge of MilHist procedures. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He writes excellent articles (I especially liked Ernst Lindemann) and he knows the inner working of the project well enough that I'm sure he's be a real asset. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only echo Ian that it's good to see MisterBee running for coord again. His article output is phenomenal and he's a real asset to the project. EyeSerene^talk 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of MisterBee1966

Nick-D

Nick-D (talk · contribs)

Hi everyone, I served as a coordinator from September 2008 until March 2010, and would like to volunteer for another term. I've been a member of this project since (from memory) early 2006 and have helped out with reviewing articles, responding to queries and contributing to the development of guidelines/essays. I've also written and contributed to a large number of articles on military history topics. I've been awarded a number of the project's 'official' awards, including the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves as well as the WikiChevrons, A-Class medal, and content review medal on multiple occasions.

I see the key tasks for the next tranche of coordinators as being:

Encouraging greater participation in reviews
Supporting and encouraging new editors
Helping keep established editors engaged with Wikipedia
Liaison with GLAM projects

I should note that I'm going to be travelling for almost all of October and early November, but after that I'll be on deck to help out as a coordinator if I am elected. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Nick-D

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- I'm proud of the articles I've developed to GA and higher standard (my present tally is 17 FAs, 4 A class and 9 GAs) as well as the many B class articles I've developed. I think that I did a good job during my previous stints as a coordinator, and have made a useful contribution to the project's review processes.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I'm highly experienced in both this project and Wikipedia more generally, and am familiar with the responsibilities of coordinators. From having worked on a large number of articles I think that I'm well positioned to provide other editors with advice. While it is not a requirement of coordinators, I am also an administrator and can help out with tasks which require the admin tools.
What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it's a bit of a dead issue these days, and particularly in relation to this project. I'm not as active in AfDs as I used to be, but there now seems to be a broad agreement in how to apply the various notability policies and articles of types that were once the subject of heated discussions are now either being left alone (eg articles on schools) or being merged and speedy deleted without objection (eg, articles on non-professional sports teams). In terms of this project, I had a limited degree of involvement in the development of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide and it seems to reflect the consensus of members of this project, though the recent attempt to upgrade it to a policy was unsuccessful. I participate in many of the AfDs on military history topics which are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military and almost always agree with the outcomes of these discussions. More generally, I take a pretty broad view of whether topics are 'article worthy', and unless something is outright silly looking err on the side of keeping it - I wrote an article with my views on this for the July 2010 edition of the Bugle which is available here. Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first three in my list above :) Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mention GLAM projects. What experience have you had with GLAMs? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very little. I attended a talk given by Liam Wyatt/User:Wittylama in February in which he discussed the state of play with GLAMs at the time and his experiences with the British Musuem, and have helped out with minor tasks such as categorising some of the images uploaded to WikiCommons from the Queensland State Library and US NARA. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The position isn't 'offered' - it's allocated to the candidate who receives the most votes, and if they turn it down it's allocated to the next most popular candidate. I'm a few votes off the lead at the moment, but if I somehow surged ahead I probably would accept it. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, but it was nearly 3:30 here when I added these two questions and my mind is still processing Chicano history for a 5300 class I have on the subject so its been slow to articulate wikipedia related material. That said, I should have selected a better word than 'offered'. Kudos to you for pointing that out. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressing the four things on my list above Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Nick-D

Another it's great to see here again -- dedicated editor/reviewer and intelligent contributor to discussion, with stacks of past coord experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he was a coord until I looked at the list before the election. That should tell you all you need to know about my opinion of Nick, but I'll add that his book reviews for the Bugle are superb! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another accomplished Antipodean article author and astute administrator. Good to see you back Nick :) EyeSerene^talk 16:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome Wikipedian, unquestionably dedicated to the project, and great friend. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Nick-D

Nikkimaria

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

Well, after some endorsements on my talk page and some reflection on the topic, I've decided to nominate myself to be a Milhist coordinator. I'm a somewhat unconventional candidate in that I only recently added myself to the member list, but I've been reviewing at ACR, GAN, PR and especially FAC for a while. In addition to reviewing, I enjoy writing content - my favourite Milhist piece so far is If Day (just because of the quirk factor), but I've written three FAs and a number of GAs and DYKs. I'm also an administrator, an Online Ambassador, and an FAR delegate.

Questions for Nikkimaria

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- Though If Day was the most fun, I'm probably most proud of my work reviewing articles. Some time ago I did a GA review for World War II, which after a considerable hold period passed, and the process really demonstrated to me how much improvement can take place through the combined efforts of nominator and reviewer(s). More recently, I've reviewed pretty much every Milhist article that's come through FAC.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- My experience with content review, both as a reviewer and a delegate should come in handy at ACR. I have experience with historical research, and can assist contributors with developing articles (though my personal library pales in comparison to those of some project members!).
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though the voting totals seem to be rendering this question moot, I don't think I would accept the position if it were offered to me. I see the role as one suited to an experienced coordinator, someone who knows how things are done, but beyond that someone who can offer advice and mentorship of a sorts to new editors and new coordinators alike, based on their experience. Though I hope to be that person someday, I recognize that right now, that's not me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Nikkimaria

Another I encouraged to run, with vast experience in the FAC process, Nikki is making her presence felt in MilHist reviews, and will I'm sure make an excellent coord. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know Nikki was interested in MilHist, but will be a great asset to the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This support is probably the easiest of the lot, and that's saying something given the excellent candidate pool. Having the benefit of Nikki's experience as a writer, a reviewer, and an FAR delegate (and the many other things she finds time for!) among the coords would be invaluable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for standing Nikki. We can only benefit from having new perspectives on what we do and how we do it, and of course you're no slouch when it comes to the core areas of article quality, development and reviewing either :) You'll be a great asset to the coord team. EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An outside perspective, especially from someone of Nikki's caliber, is a very good thing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Nikkimaria

Buggie111 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing for coordinator Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LeonidasSpartan (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 03:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 10:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mojoworker (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sp33dyphil

Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs)

Greetings everybody, I'd like to nominate myself for the position of coordinator on MilHist WikiProject so I can immerse myself in the everyday workings of this special close-knit group of WikiProject. I have joined MilHist a few months before, and since then, I had and am familiarising myself with it through talk page discussions and A-class reviews (although admittedly, I think I can do better). It wouldn't bother me if I don't get the position, because what's more important to me is the general reception of this community. Happy voting.

Questions for Sp33dyphil

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- I've written a number of aviation-related, particular aircraft, articles. I'm most proud of having helped promote at least 10 of these articles to GA status. I'm yet to successfully promote an article to FA class, however, and that is an ambition of mind.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I'm willing to do anything to help out with the Project. In particularly, I'd like to work behind-the-scene in the areas of assessment and articles for deletion. I will try my best to engage other editors through talk-page discussions and article reviews, offering advice for whatever they may want. At the same time I'll continue with writing articles (see my master plan).

Do you feel that your (apparent) focus on aviation articles is an assest or a detriment to working in MILHIST as a whole, and why or why not? How have/will you broadened your focus to other ares of MILHIST? - BilCat (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am working actively on aviation articles, it is not a detriment to working in the Project as a whole. I have interests in other military history areas such as submarines (particularly those designed during the Cold War), various major conflicts including the Cold War, and weapons in general, and it will not concern me if somebody calls me up to ask for my comments. However, I will always remain true to my passion, that is, aviation, as I will expand and revamp several articles in the near future. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your view on the deletionist versus inclusionist debate and how does it pertain the MILHIST Project in your view?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am a deletionist, but when I engage with others at AFD, I do not let by bias to impede on my judgment, as I always do a thorough research before giving my stance. I think that if the notability of an article is questioned by even one editor, the article should seriously be considered for deletion because I hate seeing people collaborating on articles that don't have as much significance compared to everyday topics, which should be the core of activity on Wikipedia. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your personal view, what are the three most pressing issues confronting the MILHIST project at this moment?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Membership expansion – I'm not the best person to ask, but I think the number of new editors is not living up to expectations. Whenever I look at talk pages, I always see the oldies pop up now and then; rarely do I see a new signature. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I will not, mainly because I don't believe I can lead a WikiProject as big as MilHist.
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Sp33dyphil

Phil is one of the most enthusiastic new editors around, balancing this with a good appreciation of MilHist and general WP process -- I think he'd be an asset to the coord team. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ian - I think Sp33dyphil can bring enthusiasm and a good work ethic to the coordination team. He's gaining a lot of experience in many areas of Wikipedia and his article work has been impressive. EyeSerene^talk 16:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Sp33dyphil

Sturmvogel_66

Sturmvogel_66 (talk · contribs)

I've been a coordinator twice before and I've been actively editing on Wiki for the last four years. My primary focus is writing articles, with a minor in assessing/reviewing other people's articles.

Questions for Sturmvogel_66

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- To continue with the theme established by the other coordinators, I'm most proud of the large number of articles that I've brought to Good Article or higher status. The precise numbers are available on my userpage if anyone's curious. I've also administered our own mini-Good Article Nomination Review contest when our section of the WP:GAN gets a little too big, as its appears to be doing now.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I'm experienced in the duties of a coordinator and, if elected, I expect to continue to do pretty much what I've been doing on the reviewing/assessing side of things.
Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think that I'll have the time available after the start of the new semester in January.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Sturmvogel_66

Storm is an absolute machine with the articles and is well versed in our procedures. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What can one say? With more than twice as many articles as anyone else in our monthly article writing contest, winner of last year's Military historian of the Year, and a sound knowledge of how milhist operates behind the scenes to boot, Sturm is one of the cornerstones of the project. EyeSerene^talk 17:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what ES said. Easy support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Sturmvogel_66

The ed17

The ed17 (talk · contribs)

Hello everyone. My username is The ed17, but most call me Ed. I've been an active editor of Wikipedia since March 2008. I was one of the three co-opted coordinators in November 2008, and was elected in my own right in March 2009. Other significant points in my wiki-history include my first FA in October 2008, becoming an administrator in September 2009, and getting involved with the Wikipedia Ambassadors initiative in August 2010. The majority of my time on this site has been spent writing content; I have authored or co-authored nineteen featured articles and twelve A-class or good articles in the last three years.

If you have any further questions, concerns, or comments, please leave them below, leave a message on my talk page, or email me. I'll be happy to answer just about anything! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for The ed17

What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
- This seems to be a common theme, but I'm most proud of the articles I've written. I've been working on the South American dreadnoughts for quite awhile now, and I finished the initial draft of the main article in that series (South American dreadnought race) back in May. I'm also proud of this work in the context of Operation Majestic Titan, a collegial group of similarly-interested editors working to get all battleship- and battlecruiser-related articles to FA. Separate from these, I'm very happy with the changes we've made to The Bugle since I've become one of the two editors of the newsletter.

What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
- I've been a coordinator for a few years now, so I can bring institutional memory and a working knowledge of the project. If elected for this term, I would continue my normal activities, which normally means randomly roaming around the project along with commenting at the coordinator's talk page.

Would you accept the position of Lead Coordinator if it was offered to you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what would you attempt to emphasize during your time in office? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for The ed17

Ed has done a fine job co-editing The Bugle and has great depth of experience as an editor, reviewer, and coordinator. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed's a genuine pleasure to work with and his dedication to the quality of our articles and future of this project is unquestionable. He seems to be able to turn his hand to just about anything and has proven a highly effective coordinator - long may it continue :) EyeSerene^talk 17:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of The ed17

General comments, questions, etc.

I know its only been six days but with only ten victims (or candidates if you prefer), is it worth holding a vote? Can I propose that unless the number rises to above 15 we just endorse them as MILHIST coordinators. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the format is that people have up til Wednesday night to declare, then that's the format. It would be nice if the six holdouts among the current coords would commit, but maybe they don't want to answer all the early questions, maybe they haven't decided, or maybe they prefer to be international men and women of mystery. - Dank (push to talk) 10:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm happy to go through the process as it is now. This is my first time going for a Co-Ordinator of any WikiProject on Wikipedia. Adamdaley (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more thinking more along the lines of having a minimum number of votes to be elected. For example, we could average the lowest number of votes needed to be elected in the past few elections and use that as the baseline. I think there might be an issue whereby anyone could nominate themselves at the last minute and be elected by proxy even if some people would have significant reservations about them being a coordinator. Woody (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be a good idea. Also note that I will be going for reelection when I get around to putting my name up... which won't be now, because I'm running out the door. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's taken around 20 votes in past elections to get elected, and not just because that was set arbitrarily as the minimum. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; if I recall correctly, that's why we settled on that number as a minimum. Beyond that, I agree with Woody that we shouldn't automatically make people coordinators just because there are fewer candidates than (potential) seats; otherwise, we risk losing the essential idea that the coordinators enjoy the confidence of the project's members, which is key to allowing the coordinator tranche to operate with some degree of autonomy. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We can always fall back on cooption if we find ourselves short as the term progresses. EyeSerene^talk 07:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other point thus far left unmentioned concerning the election: regardless of the number we have running, an election would still need to take place to determine the lead from the group of candidates. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :) EyeSerene^talk 07:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I must've missed something; haven't we always offered the lead coord possie to the one with the most votes, and let 'em decide between themselves in a tie? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original question was that if we've only a few candidates, why not just endorse them all as coords and forego the election entirely. EyeSerene^talk 10:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought we'd already well and truly put that one to bed -- best leave well enough alone, eh... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to have a discussion (probably elsewhere, like the talk page or WT:MHC) on how many coords we need. The role is only explicitly written into a small number of processes, otherwise they're explicitly responsible for a few tasks that can be performed by anyone. Redundancy is good, but if there are few willing volunteers, we can manage with only a few. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting late

I'm going to get my votes in late in the process. These elections have tended to be something of a celebration ... nothing wrong with that, and I want to join the party ... just not so early that it comes across as having made up my mind about who's going to make a great coord. Truth is, I don't know, and I'd rather give newer people a chance to determine the course of the election. (And if anyone else wants to withhold votes from me until I get my votes in, that's totally cool.) Best of luck, everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make it seem like I'm jumping on a bandwagon, but I'll be doing the same thing. I agree with Dank's logic here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, each to their own. Personally I think this is a strong field and I expect I'll be voting reasonably early. It may even be that everyone gets my vote but, if so, that won't be through lack of choice but because I think they really will make good coords. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the best-ever field. It's a shame that the number of nominees are down, but I suspect that there'd be no problem if anyone wanted to nominate themselves while voting is underway. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, now you tell me, I just added "No" to Cam above, I thought yesterday was a hard deadline. Well, he can always remove it when and if he gets back. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the disadvantage is missing out on early votes, but I certainly have no issue with latecomers taking the plunge. To be honest I'm more concerned about the gradual Aussie takeover of this corner of the 'pedia. Still, as long as I don't have to drink fourex during project discussions... EyeSerene^talk 17:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like Ian could be our new lead coordinator, so I wouldn't give him any ideas! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General question (special projects)

Parallel thread started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Special projects.

The question I have might not be related to the role co-ordinators play, but I've been looking at the four 'special projects' listed under this WikiProject (Brothers at War, Majestic Titan, Operation Normandy, and Great War Centennial), and I wanted to know what views the candidates have on how successful these projects have been so far and what they, as co-ordinators, could do to help these special projects. In other words, what can be done to help them become more active (for the ones that are not very active), and what can be done to help them achieve their current stated goals (or establish more attainable ones)? Also, what lessons can be learned from how the special projects have worked out so far, and what approach would the current candidates take regarding any future special projects that get proposed? Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Majestic Titan has been very successful by any measure and Operation Normandy has made some progress that I'm aware of. I'm not familiar with Operation Brothers at War, though many of the articles in its scope are in good shape. The Great War project hasn't worked out. The lesson from this seems to be that having a clearly defined scope for a special project is helpful - OMT is about battleships and nothing else and Normandy is about a discrete set of battles in the northern summer of 1944 but the other two projects have much broader scopes which make it difficult for there to be a concentration of effort. Coordinators' ability to 'drive' projects is fairly limited as at the end of the day it's the availability of interested editors which decides whether a project does or doesn't work. One idea for a way in which coordinators could help out is by encouraging the editors involved in the larger projects to take things one step at a time - eg, for the Great War project it might be beneficial to start off by working on articles about events in 1914, and then working through each year of the war. Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick that a clearly defined scope is a good place to start—battleships is quite a broad scope, but with a little over 500 articles in the first phase, is not totally overwhelming; similarly the Operation Normandy's aims are achievable in the medium-ish term, while broader scopes (such as every article related to a multi-year conflict) can leave editors overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the project. Driving the projects is something that can be done by any small group of dedicated editors (and is probably something needed to keep the projects going) who may be coords, but certainly aren't required to be to do the job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm slightly partial, I believe OMT has done the best in terms of progress. Normandy has the lowest scope (about 20 so articles), but it has fewer editors than OMT. It to has made good progress. Brothers at War didn't have enough editors join it in the begining (pity), and Great War has an extremly large scope. Buggie111 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to remember is that OMT articles from any given phase can be subsequently broken down into smaller fragments as well. Ships for example can be split to battleships and battlecruisers, those can be split into time periods or nations, then from this point further split into classes, etc. Eventually, if you follow this line of thought, you'll end up with a handful of articles to work on at any given time, which makes the work load much easier. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. Hopefully other candidates will weigh in with their thoughts as well. I agree about the scope comments, though something that should be mentioned regarding the Great War project is the Henry Allingham World War I International Contest. Although only intended "as a small step in the preparation of the World War I centenary drive", it was something I thought worked well and I was surprised it wasn't repeated or built upon. Maybe being aware of things like that and making suggestions, is something project co-ords could do? Whoever gets elected as co-ordinators, I'd hope they would all at least try and help chivvy things long, or help publicise some areas and reach out to new editors. i.e. Long-term strategy and not just keeping active areas going (though that is a vital role, of course). Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having a manageable scope seems to be the major factor. However I'd also add that the departure, change of focus, and/or reduced activity of a few key editors can really put the brakes on things, which is what's happened at Op Normandy. I suppose that's inevitable eventually with any collaboration but I'd be very interested in any ideas for revitalising Normandy - not just because I'm a participant, but because I agree with those above who've said that it's small enough in scope to be achievable. I have my doubts about the continued viability of GWC and WWI, though as Carcharoth suggests a contest or two might go some way to renewing interest. Perhaps combining that with a strictly limited set of articles per Nick's post would be the way to go. EyeSerene^talk 11:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving this thread, so others not involved in the co-ord elections can get involved.Jim Sweeney (talk)

I will start a parallel thread over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military_history, leaving this one open in case any of the candidates wish to comment here (if they think it is relevant to the elections) or over there if not. If parallel doesn't work, someone can fully move everything over, as long as a link is left going from here to there. Please see here for the newly started parallel thread. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A thought occurs: We currently do not assign coordinators to the special projects (not that we need to, most are involved in a few special projects and thus handle the paperwork), but since these special projects usually evolve as a result of an organized effort by the given project's special interest group I wonder how now how the issue of tenure will relate to the members. I know I've been a milhist coordinator for what feels like forever, but in my time in office the contributing members have shifted, and for this last year our outgoing lead coordinator was the highest ranked person in the group. It isn't going to effect OMT that much (or rather, I know enough people involved at OMT that we all share a common goal, and most of us are still active to a greater or less extent as evidence by OMT being the best run of the four SP's we got), but looking down the road I wonder if appointing the founding member(s) of a special project ought to receive to some kind of honorary position within their given project, or write a detailed page outlining what the scope and goals will be for a given special project, or something along those lines that will help the special projects by ensuring that they continue to function as originally planned. Without at least some oversight the risk increase that the given project will stray somewhat from whatever goal it set itself upon originally, and that could derail of even sink a special project for reasons like a shift in membership over a redefining of scope. Not something that I had considered before, but definitely food for thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think overly focusing on the founding members risks stagnation. Detailed pages should exist already, and be edited by the general membership at the time according to consensus (within reason). The key is editor recruitment and retention, and a tightly defined scope. Honorary positions don't really help with that. You can have all the honorary positions you want, but you need editors first and foremost. What I think project co-ords and newsletter editors should do is help with publicising and generating interest in projects, helping to establish/regenerate that core of editors that is needed for any project to function. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Election-related topic

Subsection title added. Carcharoth (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Within the last 2 hours or so, I've received some feedback (on my Discussion page) concerning my edits by Kumioko. This is the second time in nine months (since December 2010) that Kumioko has found faults. I had a quiet talk to AustralianRupert about the December situation. Therefore I am considering to pull out of contention to be a Coordinator of the WikiProject Military History since he is a oridinary member of not only WikiProject Military History but WikiProject Biography, which I do enjoy editing and coming across new knowledge that I previously didn't know before. If anyone here has reason's why I should stay please reply, because I have enjoyed this voting process very much and I thank everyone who has voted for me. It shows you have faith in being a Coordinator of the WikiProject Military History if elected as one. Adamdaley (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't have to withdraw because of what anyone says, and I was happy to support you ... on the other hand, I want to encourage you to go with your gut feeling. If you think you'll be uncomfortable with criticism like that, if you think that you'll be happier with a lower profile, then you're probably right. There is almost no difference between being and not being a coordinator (that is, it's not the role itself that's important, it's what you make of it), and just running has brought your good work to a lot of people's attention. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you not to withdraw, Adam, but Dan's advice is good—you're a volunteer, so if you think you'd be happier just doing what you do without formally being a coordinator, you shouldn't feel obliged to do something you think would make you less happy. As Dan says, follow your gut, and do what will make you happiest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't want to "pull out" and not be a Coordinator for WikiProject Military History, because "war" or "military" is part of my family and possibly countless others on WikiProject Military History. I like WikiProject Military History because of my Grandfather's ... Of course only one saw action with the 6th Division and I am proud to have his medal's, which includes his "Z Special Unit" tie, his signal sheet since he was a signaller, only an average signaller by his records. Unfortunately, he past away 20 years ago, so I have respect for those who serve in war. Adamdaley (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to stay and still run for Coordinator of the WikiProject Military History. Adamdaley (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. It's worth noting that as coordinators are volunteers, there's no expectation that they'll be active in the role at all times, and you can opt out of any parts of it you feel uncomfortable with for whatever reason. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abolishing the lead coordinator position

I made an argument in favor of abolishing the lead coordinator position in response to Tom's questions, and got an emailed response (not from Tom) that this seemed authoritarian on my part ... that it's up to the project to decide whether we have a lead coordinator, not me. That's certainly true ... although, it's more than a week before the end of the election, so if people disagree with my position, it's easy enough not to vote for me, so I don't see myself as taking away anyone's rights here. I wasn't going to say anything ... it's not a big deal, and Parsecboy and TomStar have been good about not making it a big deal during their tenures ... but when we get questions focusing our attention on it during the election, I'm concerned that the horse-race will start to get in the way of what we're really doing here, which is evaluating new coordinators. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this was discussed before when Kirill stepped down from the position and the prevailing consensus at the time was to keep the lead coordinator position as it was, with the person with the votes appointed to the position. I am only asking the question on account of the fact that I like to see how people react to the idea of being the head honcho: some people let it get to their heads, some people assume that the position is authoritarian and what the lead says must therefore automatically go, some shy away from the position either because they have no desire to accept the lead or because they feel that in expert opinion they are not ready to lead, and some see the the position of lead as no big deal and thus treat the position of the lead the same way they treat the position of coordinator, changing little if anything in their routine. You can learn alot about a candidate in they way they choose to answer, and in what they choose to say or not say. So far I have been more or less impressed by how the candidates have reacted to the questions, most have given well thought out answers to the two questions, and in asking everyone the same questions I can gauge the new candidates insight to the matter, which in turn can prove enlightening. I support, and will continue to support, the position of the lead coordinator; IMO, it is not a promotion, nor an authoritative role, its more of a ceremonial position (much like Emperor today) and if we use the position correctly then it can be an incentive to the new people to run in the coordinator elections which in turn will help MILHIST by giving the new coordinators and the new lead sway over what the project does and what it chooses not to do. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A feature of Wikipedia is that we don't have any sacred cows, so it's good to discuss this. I personally think that having a lead coordinator is worthwhile as they perform an important role in reminding the other coordinators of what needs to be done (through leading by example and more direct prodding when necessary). They also act as a primary point of contact for people seeking advice from the coordinators. The lead coordinator doesn't have any special powers (much less the ability to direct the other coordinators), and is very much the first among equals. That said, if the position ceased to exist things would still function well, just a bit less efficiently. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great responses everyone. I'm still going to take the position if I get it and then resign, so that we'll be without a lead coord for a year ... instead, I would like to see informal positions, voted on as needed, (such as "director of outreach" for whatever) ... but you've convinced me that some of you have good ideas for what a lead coord could be. I have no problem with people flaunting their talents :) - Dank (push to talk) 11:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of getting into process-wonkery, if you resigned the position it would go to whoever got the next highest number of votes. Alternately, if you chose to accept the position but not actually do anything in the role you'd risk annoying the other coordinators, as well as the editors who approached you for advice, and would probably be sacked from the role and replaced by someone else. The best, and least dramatic, option would be to just turn the position down and start a discussion on whether it's still needed. I think that the editorial time which would be spent on dealing with some kind of constitutional crisis would be much better spent on improving articles. As I've noted above, I've removed my vote for you for this reason. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While there is little enough precedent for a situation like this, that which is available would certainly lean towards having the position pass to the next coordinator in line rather than leaving it empty merely because you wished to leave it (consider, for example, a scenario where you resigned it due to illness or lack of time). For that matter, to be really pedantic, there is no precedent for resigning only the "lead" part of the position in any case; the only resignations we've ever had have been from the coordinator role as a whole.

I would echo Nick's suggestion that you start a direct discussion about deprecating the position if you think that doing so would be a good idea; but I would be very disappointed if anyone tried to use a procedural trick to cause it to be unfilled, despite there being no indication that the project's members want to be rid of it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, thanks for making my point so much better than I did. If we were focusing on vetting and encouraging the new coords like we should be, rather than seeing this as a race for lead coord, then no one would be accusing anyone of "tricks". After talking with Kirill off-wiki, I think I understand where he's coming from now, it's all good. On the substantive question ... I have no idea, that's why I've been asking. If I were to resign as lead coord, would the position stay empty, or would someone else be appointed to the role? Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, we don't have any specific precedent for this particular scenario; no lead coordinator has ever resigned. Based on what we've done in similar circumstances, however (cf. the co-option of additional coordinators in 2008–09), I expect the coordinators would discuss the matter and come to a consensus on how to proceed; and I expect that said consensus, at least in the short term, will be to pass the position to the next person in line.

Were you to resign six months from now, of course, the answer might be different; but I'm having trouble seeing how a procedural acceptance followed by immediate resignation could really be viewed as anything other than turning down the position, albeit in an unnecessarily roundabout way. The question being asked is not whether you want to be anointed with the title, after all; it's whether you're willing to carry out the responsibilities of the role (which you are clearly not, by virtue of believing that the role shouldn't exist). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this sounds more like an attempt to grapple with the problem, thanks. Everyone, I apologize for the flip-flop, but I value Kirill's intuition and input, and if I keep resisting him, then this election is going to start to be about me, which won't do anyone any good. So: nevermind, and I'd like to ask that we not have protracted discussions about this til after the election. If I'm selected as lead coord, I will serve as lead coord ... but I will immediately open a discussion on whether we still want a lead coord, and if so, what the nature of that service should be, let other people decide, and comply with the decision. I apologize for my role in the drama, and I think this shows that it's important to have a discussion and try to put these issues behind us sooner rather than later. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; as far as election-based drama is concerned, I think we're still far below the Wikipedia average. ;-)

As regards the lead coordinator role, it's probably a discussion worth having regardless of who winds up being the lead this time around; it's been a long time since we last considered this particular question, and it's certainly not unreasonable to suggest that re-examining the current structure might be worthwhile, given both the various changes to the role of the coordinators as a body and the different approaches of the individual lead coordinators who've served in the intervening years. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick public apology to Kirill ... I put you in an awkward position, I know you didn't want to discuss the lead coord matter on-wiki, but you felt you had to when I didn't get what you were saying. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No apology is necessary; it was a simple misunderstanding, and as much my own fault as yours. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]