Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45


We're not alone out there!

Hey folks. What do y'all think of this change to the main project page? They are also linked in the sidebar, but I thought giving them more visibility couldn't be the worst idea we've had, especially when more of them already sport the majority of the links (eg fr:Discussion_Portail:Histoire_militaire, right below the TOC). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The change looks reasonable enough in principle. I've cleaned up the alignment a bit, so the lines shouldn't break in unexpected places now.
One other idea to consider: rather than having it at the bottom of the page (where I suspect few people would see it), would it make more sense to add a new section to the navigation template to list these other projects? Kirill [talk] 22:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
That could also work and would probably be more visible than the current setup... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the list of projects in other languages into {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}; comments would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] 23:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete "B-class" asessments Backlog

As some of you may remember, I brought attention to the huge amount of articles and their incomplete "B-class" assessments. This was brought up when the Coordinators started their term was only a few weeks old. Since then, "we" (whoever has contributed) ... We've been able to get the assessment of almost 4,000 articles completed ... through completing the "B-class" assessment. It's been a good effort on everyone who has been able to contribute, unfortunately, I know for a fact it will take time and much longer to get down to an acceptable level maybe a few hundred and keep it down. I am proud of who has helped with the effort in the backlog of so many articles. Adamdaley (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and help out with this now and then. BTW this was posted on another page to keep track of this:
Click on [show] for progress bar

Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Goal: 0 articles
Current: 2 articles
Initial: 24,689 articles
(Refresh)

Anotherclown (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Marcd30319 and Carrier Strike Group Seven

Dear all, for over two years I have been attempting to modify articles written by User:Marcd30319, specifically now on carrier strike groups, U.S. Navy formations. I consider that the material is presented in a very obtruse and inaccessible style, laden with overcomplicated acronyms, has numerous official PR statements reproduced wholesale, and suffers severely from US Navy POV. I have tried rewritting then in a variety of ways, currently by rewritting one extensively, and submitting it for Peer Review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Carrier Strike Group Seven/archive1). Marcd30319 appears to believe that he alone should change his originated articles, as will be evident from the talkpage discussion linked above - he's written a note on the PR requesting it be stopped. However I believe WP is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, that this important material about a worldwide influential force can be presented more accessibly and with less POV, and I frankly am very annoyed at his WP:OWN attitude. I have tried to rewrite this one article linked above so that others can comment on a rewritten version, but he persists in reverting so that all his articles are consistent. I do not wish to get involved in any more reverting than has already taken place, so I would very much appreciate several third party opinions. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I commented on the peer review, and so am not totally uninvolved, but this does seem to be a case of WP:OWN. Marc; anyone can edit what you write and you don't have a right of veto over changes to content you added - as it says at the bottom of the editing window "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". It's not good practice to edit war with people who change articles you work on without also trying to discuss their concerns/changes. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard your call, and in the interest of comity, I have undertaken an extensive re-write of the article in question. I have eliminated such feature involving change of command, training and maintenance details, and minimized the use of jargon. Regarding the of U.S. Navy sources, given the contemporaneous nature of current carrier strike group operations, there is few little alternatives, and I have employed these news releases strictly for specific historical facts and operational details. I will undertake to rewrite the other carrier strike group article to conform to the Carrier Strike Group Seven. This new paradigm will be easier to maintain, less labor intensive, and very likely can be contained in a single article. Thank you for your input and my apologies for any misunderstandings. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS — Rename.

I am proposing the 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS be renamed to the following: 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (Dirlewanger Brigade). Adamdaley (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Or even renamed to: 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (Dirlewanger Division). Adamdaley (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies/Medal Ribbons RfC

Hey all. Apologies for my recent lack of activity; as often happens, RL priorities intrude. I anticipate at least another month of the same, but will try to chip in where I can.

On another topic, I see the medal ribbon RfC has been archived without closure. While it's obviously too late to do much about that, the original intention was to use it as a basis for developing project guidelines for handling that type of content. Do we feel there's enough input now to put something together? If so, where should we develop the guideline? My feeling is that we could do the same as before and rough it out here before putting it to the project, but there's no reason why we can't do it on the project talk page either. Thoughts? EyeSerenetalk 12:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I was sorry to see that archived, I'd like to see some resolution on it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
If I'd been able to be more attentive I would have requested a neutral admin to close it, but never mind :) It was only ever supposed to be stage one of the process anyway. EyeSerenetalk 13:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry mate, I was planning to put together a distillation of the main points that might lead to a guideline before the archive occurred but never got round to it. I'm not too fussed whether we put something together here as coords and then present it to the project on the main talk page, or do it all there -- perhaps leaning slightly to the former... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It might make sense to put together something closer to a finished proposal here before bringing it out for general discussion; otherwise, we're likely to wind up just repeating the prior debate without really moving closer to a resolution. Kirill [talk] 03:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Was this as long ago as May :( I do apologise again for my inactivity, but it hasn't been forgotten... EyeSerenetalk 09:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bugle op-ed(s)

Hi guys, we were a good deal later getting The Bugle out last month than we'd like to be -- what generally holds us up is the op-ed, as we've never gone without one since they started and don't want to set a precedent there. What would be great is to get a small backlog of draft op-eds so we don't get stymied in that department. While I'd be keen to get one from anyone in the project, I thought I'd start here to encourage production of one or two in the next week or so -- as coords we should all be pretty good at talking up a worthwhile subject... ;-) Tks in advance for your assistance! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got a two-thirds completed editorial at User:Nick-D/reviews which I can reactivate and contribute for the next edition (I started working on this in February but put it on hold when someone starting using it for trolling purposes). Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've got a piece almost done on war memorials and remembrance. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, I look forward to them -- first in, best-dressed for this month's edition... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Did we know that the Wikimedia Foundation was looking for a full time liaison between the community and Harvard academics on international security issues?

In regards to my post at WT:MILHIST#Interesting Wikimedia Foundation job ad, had the Foundation been in touch with any of the coordinators or other members of the project? It seems like something of an oversight if they haven't given that we'd be well placed to advise them on what the job could involve and members of this project are the most likely to be interested in applying for it. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So you'd think. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. I'll drop Mdennis (WMF) (talk · contribs) a note. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Maggie has followed up on this with the WMF, and her response is at User talk:Mdennis (WMF)#Discussion... Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemia

Any thoughts on the discussion at WT:FAC#Moving forward about soliciting help from so-called subject-matter experts (SMEs), at least on articles that people want to bring to FAC at some point? I'm calling this thread "Wikidemia" to show my slant: I think any collaboration between academics and Wikipedians has to involve as much learning about their world as about our world, and needs to reflect the best values of both if we're going to have any reasonable expectation of capturing the attention and goodwill of academics. FWIW, I agree with the general sense of caution in the WT:FAC threads ... most academics (in the broad sense, including academic wannabes) have values and goals that are sufficiently different from ours that collaboration is going to be a net negative for us, but "most" isn't "all", and I think we all have a general sense of what to watch out for. There was a recent story that the British government intends to require much wider availability and transparency of all research from publicly funded schools (effectively, all schools) within two years, and just today I see a story in the New York Times that they've asked Jimmy Wales to help. I think the timing is right to try to do a better job at getting some academics (not most) involved with some Wikipedia articles (not most). - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I fully support the idea of inviting academics to review selected articles, at least on a trial basis; in broad terms, I can't see any real downsides to such an arrangement—even when an academic's goals turn out to be in conflict with our own, they're quite unlikely to be able to cause any lasting harm—while the potential benefits are considerable, particularly in such a "traditionally academic" field as military history.
Having said that, I think that creating a separate WikiProject for this, as has been proposed at WT:FAC, would be a mistake—and possibly more damaging if it succeeds despite various the practical difficulties than it might have been had it failed. The last thing we want to do when bringing academics into Wikipedia is to corral them away from the rest of the editing community; such an arrangement will breed mistrust and resentment on both sides, and lead to academics bemoaning the lack of respect and support from the community while non-academics attack the entire program as some sort of elitist club (cf. the FAC sub-culture of the past few years).
A far better arrangement, in my view, would be to work with existing subject-area WikiProjects to slowly integrate academics into the editing community. In this model, there will be far less emphasis of divide between academics and non-academics, minimizing any systemic atmosphere of conflict; further, academics will be more easily welcomed into subject-specific groups (and, ideally, projects will look after "their" academics and ensure that they're kept reasonably happy). Kirill [talk] 00:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Beautiful. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
In theory I agree with just about every word of that. Many of our editors are academics anyway; we hardly need another layer of bureaucracy to get in the way. In practice though it might be easier for some projects to achieve than for others. EyeSerenetalk 07:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate article/list assessment scales

I've finally found the time to rewrite the description of our assessment system to reflect our decision (circa six months ago) to introduce parallel rating scales for prose articles and lists; the result can be seen at WP:MHA#Overview. As always, any comments on the rewritten material would be very appreciated; much of the text is new, and having more eyes check it over would be beneficial.

In addition to the text itself, I have a few more practical questions about the next steps we should take in implementing this system and about the assessment department in general:

  1. Assuming that the new descriptive material is to everyone's liking, should we go ahead with rolling out the CL/BL/AL ratings to {{WPMILHIST}}? Under the current plan, these ratings will simply replace the C/B/A ratings when |list=yes is set in the template; the conversion will therefore be mostly automated, and will require changes only on the template itself, not on any individual articles.
  2. Currently, the distinction between Start-/List- and Stub-Class is very vague. Would there be any value in defining a specific list of criteria for these classes? My suggestion would be to define the criteria such that an article that meets any of them is assessed as Start-Class, while an article that meets none of them is assessed as Stub-Class. The criteria could be relatively simple (e.g. having citations, having images, having sections, etc.); all we really need is something more defined than "a stub is very short".
  3. Does anyone use the transcluded task force assessment tables at the bottom of the assessment department page, or think that having them transcluded is beneficial? Their combined size increases the page loading time dramatically, and I suspect that anyone interested in those statistics is accessing them through the individual task force pages rather than through the central listing. I would suggest either removing the tables entirely, or at least changing the transclusions to links to reduce the impact on page size.

Any other comments or suggestions would, of course, also be very welcome! Kirill [talk] 19:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There are unresolved questions about what is and isn't considered a featurable list. For instance, an FLC delegate, User:The Rambling Man, made the argument at WP:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Greece/archive1 and its talk page that, as a reviewer, he's generally looking for at least 10 items in a featured list, an argument that doesn't get much support at Milhist. (But it looks like he just retired, so maybe this isn't the issue it used to be? I don't know, I don't do much at FLC.) Here, and everywhere on Wikipedia, I want to be watchful that nothing I do inadvertantly promotes battleground mentality, so I'd like to have a better idea what everyone else's standards are before I push my own standards of "listiness". - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that incidents like the one you mention are, while regrettable, likely an unavoidable effect of the arms-length relationship between our project and the external assessment processes (FAC, FLC, etc.) to which we submit our articles. While we do have some insight into (and, perhaps, influence over) the standards used by those processes, they are ultimately independent of our project; in practice, we can't (and, as a matter of principle, probably shouldn't) realign our internal assessment standards according to their whims.
Having said that, I think we have two significant advantages in this regard that may not be available to most other projects:
  • Our A-Class review process is active and generally well-regarded. If we focus on creating a consistent and reasonable set of standards for A-Class (whether for articles or lists), we can to some degree promote the acceptance of those standards elsewhere—or, if that fails, provide an alternative stamp of quality for articles/lists/etc. that are ineligible for a featuring process.
  • We have traditionally been very successful in exporting our assessment standards to other projects and eventually having them adopted across Wikipedia; consider, for example, our role in pioneering the use of the B-Class criteria, which eventually became the standard metric for that assessment. List assessments, in particular, are a viable avenue for this approach; because there are currently so few standards available, people will most likely borrow heavily from ours if we adopt one.
However, the idea of writing list-specific assessment criteria is perhaps a broader one than I was focusing on in my original questions. Personally, I think it makes sense to continue using the existing criteria for each level in the short term and simply relabeling the classes themselves; this minimizes the need for any immediate reassessment—since, after all, these are the criteria currently being used to generate the assessments in question—and gives us time to consider our plan for distinct criteria at our leisure, without the pressure of having to apply them immediately. Kirill [talk] 23:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see any need to specify the difference between start and stub. For me, a start-class article at least makes a pretense of covering its subject, however many gaps it leaves. Plenty of stubs have reasonably complete infoboxes and refs, but are sorely lacking in coverage of their subject. And I'm fine with assessing those as stubs even though they'd meet B4, B5 and maybe even B1 if they're fully cited.
I'm a little more bold than Dank, who is probably more experienced at this sort of Wikiconflict that I, and I want the FLC people to spell out their criteria, whatever it may be. I can't stand not knowing what the standards are. If there's a minimum length or whatever needed to qualify for FLC, I want to know so I won't waste anybody's time submitting something. So I plan on submitting List of battlecruisers of the United States once it passes ACR and forcing them to quantify their criteria. I suppose that I could maybe do an RFC or something similar, but I like this way better. (My life lacks a proper level of frustration and anger at the moment!)
I'm OK with letting the actual, detailed list criteria simmer for a while longer while implementing the template change. I'm also OK with changing the assessment tables from transclusions to links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll support however you want to handle it, Sturm, you know what you're doing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
In terms of the difference between Start and Stub, I agree with your point regarding coverage; as you say, an article that makes no attempt to fully cover the subject is unlikely to be anything more than a stub, regardless of whether it has pictures, infoboxes, and so forth.
My original question, however, was more oriented towards having a cleaner set of criteria for Start-Class (regardless of whether those boil down to "makes a pretense of covering its subject"). In my view, the current criteria don't really capture how the rating works in practice:

The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:

  • A particularly useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
Perhaps we could rewrite this to be something very simple, such as:
S1. The article contains a meaningful amount of content, consisting primarily of prose text.
S2. The article makes a reasonable attempt to cover the key elements of its topic.
S3. The article contains some structural and supporting elements, such as section headings, links, images, or templates.
Eventually, I think that we'll want to have slightly different criteria for List-Class—at the very least, a List-Class article would need to have a recognizable "list" structure—but that's probably a point for a later discussion. Kirill [talk] 02:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed under "AL" Detailed criteria it says "the article" instead of "the list". Also, more generally, can the detailed criteria sections for the various list classes be tailored a bit more towards lists? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Developing tailored criteria for lists is the long-term plan; but that will take some time, so we'll have to continue using the existing prose article criteria for the time being. Kirill [talk] 02:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand, I know you guys have a lot on your plates. These things take time and I'll try to be patient. But, is there any estimate of a time–frame when we can begin asking for peer review under these criteria? There's an editor asking the following question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Assessment criteria for lists - examples: "Would it be possible to give examples that are lists and not articles?" I directed him here, but it is a good question. Would it be possible to assess one list in each category so the examples could be correct? For example, where would List of American Civil War battles fit in the spectrum? I collaborated with User Ling.Nut last summer improving that list and he recently suggested I put it through peer review and then up for featured list. I replied that I'm waiting for this MILHIST initiative in order to get some guidance, and to try out the new process. So, I'd be happy for that list to be a 'Guinea Pig' in the process if it makes sense. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've updated {{WPMILHIST}} to automatically generate AL/BL/CL assessment ratings for the main project assessment using the scheme described above, and the assessment bot appears to be processing them correctly (see table at right). Please let me know if you spot any errors with the new functionality; once we've confirmed that it works correctly, we can roll it out for the task force assessments as well. I'll also update the criteria tables with new examples once the categories populate.

I think the next step will be to come up with tailored AL/BL/CL criteria for lists based on the current A/B/C criteria for articles. If there are no objections, I can open a discussion on the main project page to do some initial brainstorming; we can use the results of that to decide how to move forward.

As always, any comments would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] 07:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've opened up two brainstorming discussions on the main talk page to try and come up with an approach for the new assessment criteria. One discussion will cover adapting the A-Class and B-Class criteria for lists (WT:MILHIST#Assessment criteria for A/B/C-Class lists); the other will cover the criteria for Start-Class and List-Class (WT:MILHIST#Assessment criteria for Start- and List-Class). As always, any input there would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] 19:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

April Contest

I've updated the scoreboard and awarded the second place barnstar to Australian Rupert. Thanks to Ian for doing the bulk of the verification of the entries. I'd be obliged if someone else could award the winner his trinket.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I was benignly stalking you while you verified my entry and did the scoring and awarding of second place, so tks for that and you'll find the trinket waiting for you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian; your timing is impeccable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves nomination

I probably should have posted this at the time, but I've nominated Anotherclown (talk · contribs) for the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. The nomination is at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Nominations for the Oak Leaves and comments/votes from other coordinators would be great. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A call to arms

... or better yet, disarmament. I'd really appreciate any feedback Milhisters want to give, sooner rather than later since the deadline is Tuesday, on the mess at WP:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012. If you'd rather email me via my talk page, that works too. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific section or comment of yours you want feedback on? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we're close to the RFC's deadline, I don't want to encourage people to comment there, since most voters won't have a chance to respond. What I'm doing is soliciting reactions to the RFC and opinions on how you guys would close it, given the votes and discussion so far ... on your honor that you either don't have a position on PC or think the process is more important than which way the call goes. The four closing admins may or may not pay any attention to anything we say here, of course, and it's not generally encouraged to "help" close contentious discussions. But this RFC is exceptional: the discussion has sucked up an enormous amount of time over the last seven years or so, and IMO the current state of voting indicates to me that good faith has broken down completely ... only a tiny fraction of the comments on either side attempt to rebut, or even address, the main points of the other side. That's going to make the discussion very hard to close. Any thoughts about which points have support and which don't? - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Dan, I usually find you to be a pretty level headed guy, but this time you've got me wondering. I can't be the only one who fails to see the connection between the pending changes RFC and the coordination of articles related to military history. This RFC has already been widely advertised all over the site, what is the point of asking this particular group to second guess what the closing admins will do? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Our strategy-and-planning page was merged with this one; this is where we discuss broader issues. Guys, Beeblebrox has worked with the PC RFCs for years, and is very helpful and knowledgeable. I didn't ask people to second-guess the closing admins, and I don't think it's a crime to ask people I trust for their help and opinions on big issues. After I had a chance to read through the RFC, I started regretting that we didn't talk about it over here sooner. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
We're a pretty close-knit group, Beeblebrox, so we occasionally discuss wider issues between us, albeit not always on this page. I personally think pending changes would be a useful tool in moderation, but the reality is that both sides are based in sound reasoning... I'll probably have a closer look tomorrow, when it's closed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll put my cards on the table: unless something dramatic changes in the next day, it seems to me that neither side was able to make their case, since neither side dealt with the quite reasonable objections of the other. That is, I don't see a 65-35 vote here; I see an overwhelming vote, among the people who were willing to consider points made by the Option 2 voters, that Option1 (no action) will result in harm to Wikipedia, and another overwhelming vote by people who considered Option 1 rationales that Option 2 will result in harm to Wikipedia. (The voters could be right or wrong of course, but that's what the vote looks like to me.) For whatever reasons, very few of the voters were willing to use Option 3 to negotiate or explore alternatives. That is, I think the voters are saying that this was the wrong RFC. However, there were a lot of very intelligent things said on both sides, and I'm not entirely pessimistic that some progress will eventually be made. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole pending changes fiasco is the best case for a benevolent Wiki dictator I've ever seen. As I understand it, there was consensus to trial pending changes, consensus that this feature worked well and was worth keeping, and then it's never been implemented as there isn't consensus on how do to so! If Jimbo or some other godlike figure (my preference is Great A'Tuin) were to just implement one of the options there'd be a week's worth of whinging from a few editors, and then everyone would just get on with it. Ironically, the many edit filters, which are basically automated censorship targeted heavily towards new and unregistered editors, are entirely uncontroversial... Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nick ... I'm going to continue to be involved, so I don't want to say much, other than: the discussion at WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 this past week was helpful, and the close will probably come in a couple of days. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

For purposes of suggesting options in the PC debate, does anyone know if the Mediawiki software has an option to protect a page to allow editing only by registered users? (Semi-protection currently requires that the user has 10 edits over at least 4 days, or has special permission ... I'm looking for page protection that would let any non-IP edit.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is something that's configured globally on the MediaWiki back end; I don't think there's currently a way to set it on a page-by-page basis (or, indeed, set it at all without having access to the PHP configuration files). Kirill [talk] 22:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm back!

Just want to jump in and say hi, hope to be back on the list in September. Term has ended nicely, actually improved my GPA. Buggie111 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear; I'm sure we all look forward to working with you again! Kirill [talk] 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
^seconded. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Our featured picture showcase appears to be significantly out of date, and I suspect that a large part of the problem is that FP promotions aren't tracked in our assessment system, since {{WPMILHIST}} doesn't generate a real assessment rating when used on image talk pages.

A number of other projects have implemented the (relatively new) "FM-Class" rating to track "featured media" directly. Would it perhaps make sense for us to do the same? That would allow us to keep our showcase more up-to-date, if nothing else.

Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] 07:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

...I was actually wondering if these were being updated the other day. That's a great idea Kirill. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A class medal awards

There are three nominations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards in which the medals are ready to be handed out (disclaimer: including one for me). Could an uninvolved coordinator please do the honours? (and as a gentle reminder, these nominations only need three coordinators to verify that they're good to go, so if you're the fourth coordinator to come along, it's better to award the medal than to post your support for it! ;) ) Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

And thanks to Dank for handling this :) On a different topic, I should note that I'm going to be away all of next week on a trip to New Zealand. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A-Class lists in the showcase

Since we're now tracking A-Class lists through a separate AL-Class assessment category, would anyone object if we split the A-Class showcase into separate A and AL listings, similar to how we split the FA and FL showcases? Kirill [talk] 19:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems to make sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've split out the A-Class lists to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/AL, and updated all of the links and transclusions in the showcase. I assume we need to include the link somewhere in the ACR closure instructions as well; if someone more familiar with those could add it to the right place, I'd be very grateful. Kirill [talk] 14:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

May contest

If some kind person could verify my entries in the May contest log here, I'll update the scoreboard and put the results into the next issue of The Bugle. I may also need help handing out the awards if I've pipped Rupert for second place... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I've verified Ian's entries. I'm not a co-ord anymore, but I hope no one minds. I can confirm that Ian has pipped me for second (83 to my 81). Neither of us could get near Parsecboy with 100, though. Congrats to you both. Could an uninvolved co-ord finish the honours? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Tks mate, I still think of you an honorary coord anyway... ;-) For others' benefit, I'll do all the rest except hand myself the Writer's Barnstar... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I need some feedback

For reasons that escape me Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming an Administrator was not actually deleted back when it was judged to be off topic for the academy. In a review of deleted material I've been involved in it the incorrectly created academy page popped up which lead me to the aforementioned admin course page. I reviewed what I had written in the admin course with fresh eyes and determined that even if the page in its entirety is unneeded parts of it could theoretically be spun out as stand alone academy article(s). I've taken an initial stab at spinning off material from the admin article to create an academy page for page protection, and wanted to know if this material could be considered useful at the academy. If so, then I may try spinning off other sections and seeing if the content can not be added to other pages we have in the academy or used to start new academy page. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, at least as a short-term approach. We can always re-evaluate things later as the academy evolves. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I added some of the deletion material to the already existing deletion page, and at the same time tidied up the header lines on said page. I could use an extra set of eyes to look over what got added for sp&g issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Grammar checking software

I'd like to add something short to the academy on this; any objections? Moore's Law marches on, and grammar checkers, both on the web and on laptops, keep getting better. I'm not ready to suggest any particular piece of software yet ... it's a lot of work to select and learn a package ... but that day is coming soon, so I do think it's time for me to start helping writers of A-class ands featured articles to identify patterns that will let us personalize a grammar checker for your own writing style and for the requirements of reviewers. What I need is a short page at our academy that I can link to from a review page so that I don't have to explain the relevance of grammar checkers every time this comes up. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Dank

Edits and discussion are encouraged. Strongly. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Standard canvassing disclaimer: I'm not looking for agreement, I'm looking for participation. Wikipedia is in trouble; it's not just that admins numbers are dropping sharply, it's also that we don't have as many admins doing the vital, boring tasks, and more and more Wikipedians are focusing on new, shiny things and forgetting about what got us here. RFA is part of the problem, but that's a part we can fix ... if we can get people to show up and talk about it (aside from holding an RFC, which has never worked for RFA). Another page with a lot of discussion is Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Problems/RfC consensus difficulties, but feel free to wander. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I submitted my own proposal. I doubt it will go far, but like you said, participation in these things is appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the real problem at RFA is that a small minority of the regular participants are behaving like bullies (including several with well known 'attitudes' towards most admins), and this has poisoned the water. The actual structure of RFAs is OK, and if you banned about a dozen editors from participating you'd end up with a much better atmosphere. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The next step, I think, is to advertise that a bunch of us are going to experiment and make an honest effort to make the RFA culture more receptive to a wide range of views. Right now, a lot of Wikipedians, as individuals and as groups, stay away from RFA, and they blame RFA for that, and that degrades the effectiveness not just of RFA, but also of admins and non-admins who perform admin-related tasks ... that is, it degrades the effectiveness of exactly the people we can least afford to degrade. My questions are: where do we advertise, and how do we convince people that this time is different, that participation on their part will be rewarded by at least a set of recommendations that is more likely to reflect their preferences than what we've got now? - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Bing and Qwiki

Yikes, here's something else coming from outside Milhist that could have a big impact on Milhist. Bing (www.bing.com) is now showing an extra link below Wikipedia entries that says "watch the qwiki" ... you may want to have a look, it's too awful to adequately describe :) The Bing search engine has about half as much traffic as Google, but it powers 3 of the world's top 5 websites. Since the qwiki's are geeky and pseudo-encyclopedic and associated on Bing with Wikipedia, and even contain the word "wiki", readers are likely to assume there's a connection, which of course there isn't. Qwiki has said in the past that they're open to adopting content from anyone who can give them good content; if they're serious about that, perhaps we could get them to replace the crap they're currently hosting with the lead sections of our military history articles. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The one I just did read the Wikipedia article's lead to me, but without credit to the source... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay well that's the first thing we can offer them, reduced liability :) - Dank (push to talk) 07:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Self-reporting

Just as an FYI, your Bugle newsletter will have an errant section title this week thanks to me. See also User talk:The ed17#Uh oh. Minnow slaps may be acceptable. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As my watchlist is full of deliveries of the 'GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive', you get a trout for that. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Well at least Ed got the thing out while I was having a night off -- it coulda been me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2012/Promoted

Is this page becoming a little too big? Having so many successful ACRs that the archive takes a while to load is a nice problem to have, but perhaps we should think about splitting it up somehow, or perhaps linking (rather than trascluding) reviews? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that we archive and start the list again every six months, meaning the problem goes away in a few days -- or am I confused...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if that's what's supposed to happen, but it's not what is happening—we just transclude every successful ACR from 2012 on there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, the archives have always been done on a twelve-month basis, not a six-month one, although we may have discussed using a six-month scheme at some point.
Looking at the situation in more general terms, I wonder how useful the transcluded archive really is. We automatically generate categories for successful and unsuccessful ACRs as a byproduct of the {{WPMILHIST}} code for those tags; do we gain anything by also having a transcluded list of the nominations? Kirill [talk] 03:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So, any other thoughts on what we should do here? Kirill [talk] 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was 12 months too. As to whether we need to archive the reviews, since they're linked anyway from the cats then realistically speaking probably not. Does anyone ever use the page other than to archive a review? EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Does having a bunch of ACRs in one long page help the people totalling content review stats for the quarterly awards? I seem to remember it made life easier last time I did it, but perhaps there are smarter ways... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of which, it's that time again. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Doing...Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Quarterly reviewing totals

Username PR
Apr–Jun 2012		 ACR
Apr–Jun 2012		 FAC
Apr–Jun 2012		 Total
Apr–Jun 2012
User:Acdixon 1 0 1 2
User:Allens 2 0 0 2
User:Anotherclown 0 11 2 13
User:AustralianRupert 1 22 4 27
User:Bomzibar 1 0 2 3
User:Brianboulton 4 0 4 8
User:Buckshot06 1 2 0 3
User:Crisco 1492 0 1 5 6
User:Cuprum17 0 1 0 1
User:Dank 1 15 23 39!
User:DCI2026 0 1 0 1
User:DemonicInfluence 0 1 1 2
User:Ealdgyth 1 1 1 3
User:Ed! 0 4 0 4
User:Fnlayson 0 1 0 1
User:Grandiose 0 7 0 7
User:Green-eyed girl 1 0 0 1
User:Hawkeye7 0 3 1 4
User:Hchc2009 0 14 0 14
User:Ian Rose 0 10 5 15
User:Johnboddie 0 1 0 1
User:Kirk 0 1 2 3
User:Mark Arsten 0 1 8 9
User:Malleus Fatuorum 1 0 0 1
User:MisterBee1966 0 1 1 2
User:Nick-D 1 12 6 19
User:Nikkimaria 1 1 23 25
User:Parsecboy 0 2 0 2
User:Petebutt 0 1 0 1
User:Ruhrfisch 1 0 0 1
User:Simon Harley 1 1 0 2
User:Sturmvogel 66 0 5 2 7
User:SynergyStar 0 1 0 1
User:The Bushranger 0 1 0 1
User:TheLongTone 0 1 0 1
User:The Rambling Man 1 0 0 1
User:Thurgate 0 1 0 1
User:Tim riley 2 0 4 6
User:Zawed 0 2 0 2

Someone with better math skills than I can check the totals, and someone with awarding skills can please distribute the necessary awards. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Done (I hope the skills were optional.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Big thanks to you both for looking after this... BTW, all, I've awarded Dan's since he couldn't very well do it himself. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

June contest

Hi all, if someone could just verify my entries for the month, I'll do the scoring, update the Bugle, and hand out the top bauble (guess I'm in the running for the no. 2 spot, so may not be able to hand that one out)... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Validated your entries and updated the table. Congrats on second place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Many tks mate -- just edged you out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A-Class assessment partners

Hi guys, can anyone remind me of when/where we held our last discussion that involved establishing, with evidence, exactly which projects officially accept our ACR results for their assessment scale? Ships has always done so and Aviation started doing so a few years ago, I think Biography does and a few of us felt various country projects did, but not sure we found clear evidence of it. Unless we're simply assuming all projects accept our A-Class (whether or not they have their own ACR system or not) I think it'd be worth re-establishing just who does and listing them in ACR closure guidelines, so we're all on (literally) the same page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recall we decided (as you've noted) that we had partnerships with SHIPS, AVIATION and AUSTRALIA, but beyond that I don't think anything definitive was agreed. EyeSerenetalk 09:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are the only ones I can remember as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Tks guys. Now can anyone remind me of whether article alerts automatically send notification to those projects that an article under their banner is up for ACR? Just to let you know where I'm coming from, after I promoted Pavle Đurišić, the nominators initiated discussion about the various Balkans wikiprojects accepting MilHist's A-Class assessment -- which I've encouraged, pointing to examples like Ships and Aviation. The corollary of accepting MilHist's assessment would be getting involved in the ACRs relevant to one's partner project, hence the point about partner project notification when a relevant ACR comes up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that there's an automatic process. I've posted notifications on the pages of relevant Wikiprojects when I've nominated articles for A class status (for instance, the Singapore project for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) and the Japanese project for the articles on the air raids on that country), but this hasn't attracted any new participants in the reviews (though it also didn't cause anyone to turn up and point out major flaws in the article based on their local knowledge, which is the main reason I posted the notifications!). Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Interns

Please see my proposal in response to a question at FAC. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk)

That's a good idea - how do you think that it should work? That discussion also raises the significant issue of people who are developing articles to FA level, but not nominating them - I can think of quite a few A class articles that are at, or near to, FA level but have never been nominated for this. Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
To talk about the big picture for a minute, this is a golden age for FAC; the reviewers are knowledgeable and helpful and friendly. This would be a great time to train more people how to write A- and FA-class articles; the odds are higher now that the training will pay off, and not just create more frustrated editors. But I've also been seeing a threat (I'm waiting on the videos of sessions from Wikimania; I've heard that one presentation took a harsh view of FAC). Running featured content every week in the Signpost, when many Wikipedians feel that FAC effectively excludes them, has always generated some push-back. If we want Wikipedians to have a positive rather than a negative reaction to Milhist's featured content, we need to at least show that we're part of the solution (offering help to anyone who is willing to put in some effort) rather than part of the problem (keeping what we know to ourselves). I got an email saying that it seemed counterproductive to create an "internship" position; why not just let people come and go as they please? I think the answer is that, as a group, we're unlikely to do more than we're already doing if we don't see other people, particularly non-Milhisters, doing more than they're already doing. And "more" is exactly what's needed. - Dank (push to talk) 11:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
And ... this needs to be said. I'm not speaking for Ian, Graham or Raul, or probing for information from them; it's just my personal observation that when other projects are getting FACs promoted at a steady rate, then we get FACs promoted at a steady rate, too. It would be very awkward for every week's Signpost to have as many featured articles from Milhist as from all other projects combined. Answering your question, Nick, I'm sure we could nominate a big pile of A-class articles at FAC ... but until other wikiprojects get as good at this as we are, I think it would be unwise to do so. That's why I think internship is a win/win/win (and I'm going to propose it to other wikiprojects as well): we make make a useful connection with someone we might not have otherwise worked with, we get more varied, and more, high-quality articles from the collaboration, and then they go back to their own wikiproject knowing more about how to write FACs (and being seen by their wikiproject as a successful FAC writer). If we're lucky, their project will then develop a functioning A-class process (solo or in collaboration with other projects), which will create more reviewers at FAC and more non-Milhist FACs ... which is a good enough result by itself, but for people who are annoyed that their Milhist FACs are taking so long, I think that's going to boost the throughput of Milhist FACs as well. (On the question of what kinds of articles I'm talking about: the idea that military history is just battles and ships and things that go "boom" is about 40 years out of date. Modern military historians are expected to know much more; some knowledge of archeology or architecture or horses and cavalry or any historical period in any part of the world ... or copyediting! ... is going to make a school or job application much more attractive. These collaborations can provide benefits individually as well as to the project. So, I'm proposing that we consider reviewing articles at our A-class that have been identified by other wikiprojects as having relevance to the history of war and conflict. We can work out the details as we go.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to confess to still not being entirely clear about what it is you're proposing here Dank, though a method to encourage more projects to use A class reviews sounds excellent. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For your consideration: if a member of Milhist notices that a non-member seems to be a strong, collaborative editor with reviewing and writing experience, and the member sees the non-member working on articles in [specific areas that tend to have relevance to military history; we'll put a list together], and the member suspects that an internship arrangement would benefit the intern (maybe the intern would like assistance and training with pushing some articles through A-class or FAC or both, or maybe the intern would like to learn something about military history and about us, or maybe they want to teach us something, which would be great but not required), then the member is encouraged to approach the intern prospect and ask them to pick a time period for the internship and a set of articles to work on, and make a list of personal goals for the internship. If the member believes the goals were largely met after the self-selected period of internship, then the member is generally expected to award a barnstar to that effect. One goal we will encourage, when it makes sense, is that the intern will be learning things they can take back to their own wikiproject to help their wikiproject come up with its own version of an A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion at User talk:Dank#Internship proposal that may be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_41&oldid=1232551901"