Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45


A class reviews need to be closed

Hi, could someone please close the three ACRs listed above? I'm involved in all three (though, if no-one complains, I could close the first as my vote wasn't crucial to making up the numbers). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Absence

Just a note that I'll be travelling to the US during September and the first half of October, and will likely be checking in only occasionally. I should be able to do my part on this month's Bugle, and October's, while Nick has kindly offered to assist Ed with the September issue during my absence that month. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Lucky you! If you're going anywhere near Washington, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center is amazing. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What a great opportunity, Ian. If you're going to be available for a meetup or something, please let us know. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Tks guys, will do re. both suggestions as feasible -- major dates all in place, still finetuning plans in between... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Today's Featured Article

There's been some unpleasantness recently around TFA. The part that is most likely to be relevant to Milhist is that some are claiming that the reviewers there operate semi-autonomously, setting different standards and making different requests than are generally made during FAC. I can only speak concerning prose, myself, and I haven't noticed any prose requests that seem like a problem. Have requests concerning references, infoboxes, WP:ACCESS, or anything else been a problem for military history articles at TFA? - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Have dropped you an email. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
TFA isn't a review process. WP:TFAR is a process for requesting a Main Page slot for a particular article (usually because the author wants it to run on a specific date, like an anniversary), but still isn't really a review process. Outside of that, Raul645 or Dabomb87 schedule articles that haven't been requested for a special date. The recent controversy has been a dispute between two editors as a result of scheduling problems. Nothing to do with article quality as far as I'm aware. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Requests for changes to the article are regularly being made over there, and edits are made directly to the articles, too. I'll discuss over at WT:TFAR#Arbcom case (but feel free to discuss here if you prefer). - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That's to be expected—some FAs go on the Main Page years after the FAC, so they might need a little TLC to get them up to scratch. It's nothing like the kind of review an article gets at FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

More reviewers

Any suggestions on ways to get articles through all the review processes faster? Reviews are sporadic, and we're losing editors, or at least losing their attention. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If MILHIST is having another Coordinators election in a month, then perhaps it might be worth waiting to see what the new year of candidates brings. Being one of the biggest WikiProjects, elections are bound to attract new candidates, perhaps encouraging editors to get reinvolved in the project, even for a short burst. I don't think there is just a lack of attention from editors, but coordinators too.. although the situation is not limited to MilHist.. most of Wiki seemed fairly lacking in enthusiasm this past year. I don't like to name people, or point fingers, but I feel this years efforts have been fairly weak and uninspiring, but I believe the root of this was the loss of a number of long-term coords last election. There seems to have been a downhill loss of input across the board in many areas of the project. I don't think there is a way to speed up the review process per se, it's more a matter of nominated articles sitting idle causing reviews to drag on, either because the nominee does not show much interest in the review, possibly expecting a simple "stamp of approval" without fuss, or reviewers don't keep checking that their comments for improvement are being addressed to allow support for closure. It might be worth looking into the A-Class review process, following the next election, and reforming it based on its strengths and weaknesses, in order to optimise assessment performance, rather than maintain the same methods year in, year out, that obviously result in backlogs. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we've had an issue this past year with ACRs languishing through coordinators not promoting/archiving them rather than simply people not reviewing/supporting, however recently we've had people jumping in to help there so if that trend continues I think we'll stay on track. The backlog at ACR at the moment is certainly manageable compared to occasions in the past. I'm always open to suggestions on improving the process but have to admit nothing much has leapt out at me. It may be that we should enforce our 28-day time limit for open ACRs a little more rigorously, to encourage nominators to respond more quickly to comments... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
A few general thoughts. Historically, although the A class review has wide participation in absolute terms, with lots of people contributing a review occasionally - perhaps on an article they particularly know something about - 6-7 contributors typically write most of the reviews. It doesn't require much of a dip amongst that grouping to have a significant impact on the process.
In terms of encouraging more reviewing from the MilHist community, I'd echo the comments above about time-scales: a tight deadline does encourage action on all counts, even it feels artificial. I also miss the announcements on the main talk page; I often fail to notice new ones in the articles for review box.
There might be something more we can do to attract reviewing. Compare, for example, the current calling notice for USS Lexington (which is pretty minimal) with a mocked up equivalent with a picture:
  • USS Lexington (CV-2). Lexington was the first American aircraft carrier lost during World War II. She had a short, but adventurous, career during the war and a much longer one before the war as she and her sister Saratoga worked to develop carrier tactics and procedures, including several practice attacks on Pearl Harbor. Help improve the article by joining the review process here.
I reckon more might be tempted to review the latter than the former. Dank's beaten me to it while I've been typing, but alerting a reader to the A class review from the article page itself (rather than the reader happening to go to the talk page, click on the MilHist box etc.) would probably help. Even if not at the top of the page, then a link from the "Rate this Page" box at the bottom would seem a sensible option. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What page does the blurb go on? - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not sure that we necessarily need the full summary blurb, Hchc2009 makes a good point about the list of open reviews being buried quite deeply. I think this dovetails neatly with the point Erik made at Wikimania—moving to the task-centric design he proposed would, among other things, help alleviate the problem of reviews not being prominently advertised. I'll put together a mockup of the new page design tomorrow, and we can start playing with that as part of this discussion. Kirill [talk] 00:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that but should have; you're talking about the output from the "Display an assessment" box in the Preferences/Gadgets tab, and I was talking about a little A-class symbol visible to everyone where the GA and FA symbols currently sit. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I meant to say! The A-class symbol sounds like a good idea as well too. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Great minds think alike, and so do we. I can see GAN folks pushing back against this; viewed through one lens, it might look like a demotion of the GA symbol from a silver medal to a bronze medal ... and if people feel that way, I disagree but I respect that. I hope FAC people won't be against this; vigorous A-class processes are only good for the health of the FAC process, in every way, not least because A-class is almost the only place in WP other than FAC that actively promotes a range of FAC standards. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, I wonder if we should just start using the A-class symbol on our articles andsee if anyone notices. ;-) More realistically, why don't we have a section on WT:MILHIST similar to Wikipedia:AN#Requests_for_closure, but for A-class reviews? The other ideas above look good as well; I'm just skeptical that we can count on the upcoming coordinator election to spur participation in ACRs. More radical maneuvers may be needed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just about to make an argument about how cool our A-class process is and how much we deserve this recognition ... but all that will do is guarantee that other wikiprojects vote it down. I think what's going to be easier to sell is: an A-class process is available to any wikiproject, and it doesn't need any much vetting if we require that A-class articles have to pass GAN; then the article is already entitled to a symbol in userspace, and non-Wikipedians aren't going to know or care about the difference between an A-in-a-circle or a cross-in-a-circle. Hopefully, there's enough goodwill among Wikipedians to allow each wikiproject to follow their own path without getting blasted for lowering standards. Our A-class process is a tremendous help at FAC, in so many ways; other A-class processes might not be quite as much help, but FAC reviewers and delegates are perfectly capable of figuring out for themselves what they can and can't count on, and any little bit helps. I think this idea fits in very well with the ideas presented at Wikimania on empowering and focusing on wikiprojects. Btw, to clarify, the Preference/Gadgets tool already displays A-class ratings; we're just talking about also having it display that there's an ongoing A-class review (and why shouldn't it?), and ... if we can get it ... a symbol viewable to non-logged-in readers, where the GA and FA symbols currently are. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect the main objection to this will be the fact that we are one of only a handful of projects with a functioning ACR system; in most projects, A-Class is assigned arbitrarily (or not at all). Unless we were to do something like restricting this icon to "certified" ACRs—and it's not clear how such a certification might take place, or even whether the concept would be acceptable to the community in principle—we're likely to encounter a lot of opposition from people who (quite legitimately) don't want every five-editor project from putting icons on articles at will. Kirill [talk] 00:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We could try mandating a quid-pro-quo review, like DYK does. The risk is that it increases the quantity but not the quality of reviews, and it's possible that most nominators at ACR are already making an effort to review another article, but it might work. Alternatively (or additionally), we could open our ACR process up to wikiprojects focused on similar subjects (like, for example, history, ships, law enforcement) and request that they provide a review for one of our ACRs in return. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support. Quid-pro-quo doesn't work at FAC, but I bet it would work for our A-class review, especially if we're only asking for one review and not three ... actually, just for any task the reviewer is comfortable with, such as spot-checks, image reviews, reading for flow, or whatever. And ... this may be a very bad time to bring this up :) ... but if we're going to ask nominators to help out, shouldn't we be asking coords to help out with the reviewing task of their choice, too? We used to ask coords to sign up for task force duties, but not lately. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1) Have to admit I'm not sure about QPQ, and I'm not wearing my FAC delegate hat when I say that. I honestly don't resent people who put up lots of ACRs without doing quite as much reviewing there because they may well be doing lot s elsewhere, say in DYK reviews or B-Class assessments. I would always encourage, but prefer not to force, nominators to review. As I think I've said earlier, my personal aim is three reviews for every one of my noms, and I haven't always been reaching that lately, but hopefully FAC delegate work makes up for it... ;-) Better notice of new noms might well help. 2) I have no particular issue with requiring ACRs to have passed through GAN successfully first, I do it as a matter of course anyway. 3) Re. 'badging' A-Class articles like GAs and FAs, as has been pointed out, the diff is that GA/FA are WP-wide. You know you have something in Preferences to display the class of an article at the top, yep? It's quite smart, if the article is A and GA, it displays "An A-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Also a good article." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
A problem with requiring QPQ reviews is that it will be a disincentive for first-time nominees. That said, it's certainly good form. I've more or less stopped reviewing nominations by editors who have a history of nominating articles for A class status but never posting any reviews themselves. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
On your first point, Nick, I think DYK stopped requiring QPQ for first-time nominees, but not sure how they police it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. For non-first-timers, I'm having trouble seeing the downside to asking them to participate in some way; people are going to be more objective when thinking about other people's work, so they learn things they wouldn't learn if they only focus on what they're writing, and ... at least in our project ... project members are generally going to react appropriately and positively to new reviewers ... and maybe the new reviewers won't be expecting that based on their experiences on and off Wikipedia, and maybe it's something they need to see for themselves. And what I'd be in favor of asking for (any coherent reviewing subtask for any one article at any article reviewing process: A-class, FAC, PR, GAN, even B-class) is really tiny in comparison to what they're getting ... three extensive reviews including copyediting, and a greater or lesser degree of image, source and spot-checks. Community, of all sorts, doesn't just magically build itself; you have to nudge it ... that is, if people see the same few reviewers over and over, they're less likely to think of A-class as one face of an extensive, self-sustaining community, and more likely to think of it as a few guys who think they know everything. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
"We few, we happy few..." -- are you saying we don't know everything?! Well I never, I think I'll just take me bat home now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Dank, My comment was motivated by my experience in (rather belatedly!) starting to nominate articles for GA status last year. As I was initially unclear about how the GA process worked, I didn't start reviewing GANs until I'd had two or three articles pass through the process. I imagine that editors new to the A class process might also be in the same boat that I was in. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that it's not going to work if people think they're required to do something they don't even know how to do. If we do this, we'll want to give people careful instructions and a wide range of possible tasks, and the tasks should be stuff they would probably want to learn how to do anyway, to help with their own articles. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's unfair to say that there are people who only want to create articles and don't feel inclined to review, and people who prefer to review articles and not really into creating them. I also don't think it's unfair to say that it takes more time and effort for one person to research, write, develop, copy-edit, structure to MOS, nominate, develop further than it does for one editor to read through that one article and present a list of comments.. so I am sympathetic towards editors who don't want to go through all the creation process and then be expected to give a review in order to be reviewed, on top of the fact that that also wrote an A-Class article (this is reference to those who actually write articles from scratch, or develop stubs, not those who search out good articles, and nominate them having never written it). Given that a review can take perhaps 30–60 mins, and only needs 1 or 2 callbacks to see if support should be offered or not, I wonder why we still have a backlog. Hence my reassertion that steps be taken to streamline the review process, to make it easier to coordinate and process reviews without sacrificing the final quality-standards expected of MilHist articles. I've got a couple of ideas in mind, which I think I'll keep to myself and see if coordinators want to discuss such ideas following elections. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 13:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with waiting after elections to continue this ... we generally tend to put off big discussions in September ... and to be fair, I think there are 3 good reasons not to ask people to help with reviewing (including part of what you said). I just wanted people to know where I stand, for now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ACM nominations

Hi folks, I know I've got a nerve coming here and moaning about a backlog considering I've just returned from a spell of minimal activity on WP, but the A-Class Medal nominations could do with the attention of a few coords. One is ready to be awarded and another three are in need of votes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And, incidentally, please remember to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM when awarding ACMs. :-) Kirill [talk] 00:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for catching and fixing that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

All the medals have now been awarded. As a friendly reminder, each nomination only needs three coordinators to verify that it's good to go, so if you're the fourth coordinator to come along, please award the medal rather than add another support ;) (as far as I'm aware, nominators can also award the medals once the nomination has been verified). Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

July contest

Ian and I have finally tallied up the points, updated the scoreboard, and I've awarded the second-place finisher his barnstar, but I'd be obliged if someone could give the winner his trinket.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Good grief, I can't believe I didn't do that after totalling scores and updating the Bugle -- anyway, done. Now that you mention it, I don't think anyone ever handed out my trinket for second place in the May contest... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Timetable for upcoming coordinator election

Since we're getting close to that time of year again: what's our election timetable for this year? We've bounced between three-week (one week for nominations and two for voting, or two for nominations and one for voting) and four-week (two weeks for nominations and two for voting) arrangements, and I can't recall what the consensus regarding the most effective arrangement was the last time around. Kirill [talk] 00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless there was feedback against what we did last time (can't recall any but may have forgotten) then I'd just do same as last year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember why, but the nomination period ran from 00:01 (UTC) 3 September to 23:59 14 September, followed by a two-week voting period. Coord terms are supposed to run through Sept. 28. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of elections, I've struggled with when to vote and what to say in all the coord elections. Since we don't generally vote for ourselves, if I hold off voting till the end, that has the effect of artificially raising my vote total by one during most of the election, and doesn't offer the early support that might be reassuring for new candidates. If I vote early but don't say anything about what I think or feel about the candidates, that could easily come across as cold; I've worked with some of you for years. But if project leaders all vote early and speak candidly, all that mutual (and deserved) admiration could have the unintended consequence of intimidating outsiders, which would be a problem, since we could really use more help. What I'm going to try this year is giving out barnstars to all my long-time friends and coworkers who sign up, and then when voting starts, I'll just offer "support", and leave it at that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we had this conversation last election... ;-) I have no issue with anyone's preferred voting method or timeline. Myself, as I did last time, I'll vote when it's convenient for me to pretty well do it all in one go -- which may well be early on -- and will offer my brief thoughts on the merits of those I'm supporting. I'm pretty sure I voted for everyone last time, not to avoid offending anyone, but because I genuinely felt they all had something to offer and it wasn't an overwhelmingly large field of candidates. It may or may not be the same situation this year, we'll see. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a reminder that I'll be travelling (starting in a few hours!) during the election process but I will stand again, and I expect I'll find a few moments to respond to the normal candidate questions, and of course vote -- if I'm under particular time pressure I'll most likely let someone know via email. Good luck all! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I have been wondering (the last few days) when the elections were being held. Because I know the current Coordinators' time is almost up. Is it possibly for it to be at least 2 weeks to 20 days while on the 21st day the nominations are known? Two weeks allowing people who do not have time to be on everyday have time to get on every few days to ask questions and to read the people who are running (their comments to answers). Adamdaley (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Am also curious as to when this starts. Looking at the two examples in Kirill's OP, I think a four-week 2–2 period would be best, giving time for less active members to prepare, consider and submit their nominations and votes. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm putting the page up now as a copy of last year's page, with one tweak so far: I removed "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." The idea that the other coordinators exist to "aid" me (or Parsecboy or TomStar81, the previous two lead coords) is grin-worthy :) I think more accurate is this, I inserted the "lead coord" bit: "All of the coordinators, and especially the lead coordinator, serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and focus on specific areas requiring special attention." Feel free to revert or re-word, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Great. When is it going live? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 13:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It's live at WP:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2012. Anyone can nominate themselves; voting starts on Saturday the 15th. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah no, I meant there's been no mention of it on the main project talk page, no message sent to all members talk pages by bot, etc.. only readers of this coords page knows about it, so I meant "when is it live to everyone?" Should it not be announced that elections are started.. I recall getting a talk page message last year asking for nominees, can't recall if there was a second when voting opened, but we should be doing the same this year, should we not? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 13:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Notification at WT:MIL is now up. I don't have a preference on whether we do bot notifications (but I'd prefer we not do them twice). - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
We notified people in the Bugle, so let's do it when voting starts. Worst case someone can nominate themselves during the voting, because there's no real downside to that (except, of course, that they will have less votes). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as an observation, I had asked some months back if Parsecboy had interest in being named a Coordinator Emeritus, and he said he was open to the idea. If anyone on the current tranche feels that we could use another Coordinator Emeritus than we can add a motion to that effect during this election. I'm indifferent to the idea, I just wanted that to be made known here ahead of the actual election in case anyone wanted to run with it. On an unrelated note, should we delegate coordinators to the Special Projects like we do with the Task Forces? OMT is by far the busiest of the four we currently have running, but since the special projects do cover a large swath of articles I thought it might be worth raising the idea here to test the waters for it. Finally, you guys may want to ping users who you think would be good coordinators and encourage them to run, seeing as how Wikiactivity has been down across the board for the last few years (or so it surely feels like). TomStar81 (Talk) 01:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware we no longer assign coordinators to the task forces. I'd be all for Parsecboy becoming our third coordinator emeritus, and don't see any reason why this would be controversial. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"Emeritus" will mean whatever we make it mean; if we hand it out like a coord barnstar, then it will be like a barnstar. If someone runs for emeritus, and explains that they can't keep running for coord because continued elections might be awkward with their current responsibilities (which IMO applies to Kirill and Roger with their Arbcom jobs), then that's what "emeritus" will mean. I'm a big fan of Parsecboy and his work, but it might be a little awkward for me to get involved in this discussion so I won't. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Those are good points Dank. I've always interpreted an "emeritus" coordinator as a highly experienced coordinator who no longer intends to regularly participate in this role, but is very willing to help out and provide advice when needed. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, I have doubts regarding Ed17's faith in the Bugle. Given that these stats show only 117 views of the Bugle main page, as there was no mention of the elections in the maildrop itself, and given that currently coords are hardly jumping at the chance to indicate their position regarding standing again, I don't see us getting 14 coords this term.. which could mean another weak year in terms of activity and overall advancement of the project. I think this thing needs to be sent out sooner, and not rely on late entries.. worst case does have a downside - less votes means the resulting Lead Coord had an unfair advantage and that does not inspire confidence in a team effort. I personally don't like the way this election is being coordinated this year, it's not transparent, and too cloak and dagger by only being hinted at on a couple of internal pages. I'd like to see more public effort so that we can reach a wider range of potential candidates and voters.. nothing against this terms coords, but overall, it has been a fairly uninspiring year, a couple of coords dropped out, most coords have drifted away from regular input.. fresh blood is required. What with so much focus on OMT, I often feel the rest of MilHist is neglected.. most special projects and task-forces are quite literally dead - their pages and portals are rarely updated. We need to attract members covering a wider areas of topics. I honestly don't think just having the same coords will result in that any time soon. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be all for bot-powered notifications to get the word out. Marcus, do you have some suggested wording for the notification? Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought we received one last year, but I can't seem to find it in my talkpage history... so I'd suggest something like...
Wikiproject Military history is now holding its 2012 coordinator elections, in order to select a new team of editors to organise the project for the next year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please enter your nomination at the 2012 elections page before 14 September. Voting will commence from 15 September. Please be sure to pose any questions that you may have for candidates, and submit your votes by 28 September. Regards, MilHist Team.
Something along those lines? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyediting slightly, on the assumption that we'll have another announcement when voting starts:
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process. We will be selecting a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year; if you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September.
This is fairly close in form to the announcements we've used in the past. Kirill [talk] 13:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Cloak and dagger? My only request is (and was) that we not do bot notifications twice in quick succession; that looks spammy to a lot of Wikipedians. I totally support expanding the membership and the pool of coord candidates ... I have been reaching out all year. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, my opinions aren't against anyone in particular.. I'm sure other WikiProjects have had similar experiences in terms of lower membership, and therefore less input/output. Seems to be a Wikipedia thing at the moment, and I don't know why.. people always need information in life, Wiki is THE main place most people come to first. I think it's a result of the something for nothing society we have these days.. people expect everything for free, nothing in return.. contribs seem weak across the board, except in controversial areas.
Don't need 2 notifications, just one.. makes sense to me to have one at the very start when candidates are needed, not half way in, to get votes where no one has had chance to nominate themselves. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think sending two notifications would be a big deal, actually; we've done it often enough in past elections.
In any case, I've set up a banner display advertising the election, which should get some more attention to the page. Kirill [talk] 13:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Kirill's suggested wording looks good to me, and I don't see any real problems with sending out two notifications; a small number of people might be annoyed (and one or two may complain), but a larger number will appreciate it. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who knows how to arrange a bot notification run please post this? (or point out how to arrange it!). Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Done, with a few tweaks, like adding <small> text to avoid another Olive Leaf debacle, and making sure there is an avenue in case someone has questions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Ed. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Anytime, and yes, I did use preview this time to avoid an error. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I was sort-of hoping that you hadn't so that I could mock you again :p Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for input on notifications for an RfC

Just a pointer to a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Monthly contest

G'day, as Ian is travelling at the moment, he might be too busy to finalise this month's contest. I've made a start by initialising the table for this month, and verified a few entries. Is anyone able to finish the job? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Rupert. I'll finish it off later today or tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Sturm. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I've tallied everything up and awarded the second-place finisher his barnstar, but I'd be obliged if someone could award the winner his trinket.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing that off. I'd better leave the awarding to a co-ord to make it nice and official. Just another quick reminder on a slightly related topic: I think someone needs to award Dank a Wikiproject Barnstar for his work as a co-ord. I believe he's covered off on the other co-ords... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've done both of these tasks now. If anyone has concerns about a non co-ord performing these actions, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

Hello all, just a friendly reminder, one of the co-ord responsibilities is to welcome new members of the project. This important to try to get members actively involved in all aspects of the project. While it is difficult to have oversight of who considers themselves a part of Milhist and who doesn't, in the past co-ords have formally welcomed members shortly after the member signs up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active. This has been done by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}} to the newly signed up member's talk page. In the past, I had the Active member's page on my watchlist and I would add the welcome when a new member signed up. I think that there have been a number of new project members recently who may have missed this welcome. I know this sounds rich coming from me as I took a break from co-ord duties last year. As pennance, I've welcomed some of the recent additions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny.. not long before you posted this I had put it on a list of points I want to raise next coord term. I'm hoping Kirill can be encouraged to complete the table-format members list he was devising earlier in the year, and perhaps a bot could be setup to automatically post a "welcome" to anyone who adds their name to the list, freeing up the coord responsibility and making sure it gets done every time. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 08:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day, that certainly seems like a good idea to explore, although I worry a little that the bot might be a little impersonal. I watch list the talk pages I post the welcome on, in case there is a response or follow up question posted there. Nevertheless, as you say the bot would serve as a good way to make sure we always get a welcome message out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Recent research by the Foundation suggests that either impersonal or complicated welcome messages never help, and sometimes hurt. What helps is a short message letting them know that you're available, and even better is to say something relevant to what the new member is actually working on ... it can be anything, just enough to make it clear that you're actually noticing what they're doing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome couldn't be updated. Looking through the history, it looks much the same now as 6 years ago, bar a few minor tweaks.. making it quite old. Perhaps the use of a wiki variable to include the member's username after the "hello", a few more beneficial links, scrap some not so useful links, etc, and it would be better suited for the job, and people would not be concerned that it came from a bot because the instructions as to where to post questions, etc would be clearer. E.g. I'm not sure why the first link is to our navigation box.. it's a template atop all project pages, not really something anyone might watch or bookmark, except for placing on a sub-page. I think the {{LGBT Welcome}} template, for example, is more focused on getting members to the core of the project without listing too many advanced options as ours does, which may be intimidating to newer editors. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The research was convincing for me; I'll grab the link the next time I'm watching Wikimania video. My vote would be to give them two links: WT:MIL, so they can get a general sense of what we talk about and what the community is like, and WP:MIL, to give them all the links they need. But I'd add that they don't have to hunt around for links; I'll tell them where stuff is if they ask. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thinking back over your comment, saying "just enough to make it clear that you're actually noticing what they're doing", I think when it comes to saying "welcome" generically, you may never really know how involved a member intends to be. In some cases, a history of articles they've written/edited shows their obvious interest, for others it might be that they're simply padding out their "interests" for the sake of a new userbox, or they are wikignomes who just happen to tag/copyedit a lot of articles which cover a lot of WikiProjects.. sometimes indicating that you're a member prevents backlash from more dedicated editors, following such copyedits. Though we AGF, in most cases, sometimes those tweaks, adding dashes to ISBNs, fixing a dmy order, don't seem like valuable edits. I think the need to "welcome" someone, even by bot with a templated message, as soon as they add themselves to the memberslist, is more of a courtesy than showing a personal interest in that editor. Whereas if coords were to take time to seek and appraise editors, issue a few minor barnstars for efforts to editors perhaps not as involved with our community pages here, might stimulate more involvement. Welcome messages probably don't attract the interest of other editors on an editors talk page, whereas barnstars are eye-catching, make people wonder how they might earn one, or what the project is like that gave it, if we made it more "from MilHist" than "from X coord". Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Every New Years I have an installment of this: User:AustralianRupert/New Year Honours List, which is my attempt at recognising the broad contributions of editors in the Milhist sphere. I tend to try to mix my awards, giving some to those that are "unsung" in order to encourage further involvement as well as awarding those upon whose contributions we rely significantly. This is very subjective and isn't quite the same thing as welcoming new talent, but I wonder if the idea could be developed further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That certainly seems to work as a fixed editor to editor recognition scheme. I think a similar project to editor scheme, perhaps quarterly with either the coords selecting say, 5 to 10 non-coord editors for overall recognition, or picking 2 or 3 each, might work also. Wouldn't need to be any of Milhist's own chevrons, just one of the standard WP:Barnstars, perhaps selected based on how that editor has contributed, e.g. as a copy-editor, dealing with vandalism, etc.. for that personal touch, to appraise a particular function rather than the generic barnstar, should please the recipients. Whether a log of this scheme need by kept it another matter - would avoid the same editors being picked again, when the aim is to award new people, I suppose - though a "hall of fame" style approach may be an added incentive to some. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 03:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Would anyone object to me adding the following edit notice to the election page? Its intended to help keep the tally up to date. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Not sure.. might be best if tallying were left to coords and trusted members, so we can make sure all votes are legit and properly totalled to prevent meddling (by disruptive/vandal accounts, not people here) during the voting, might not be wise to advertise it that much. I've been totalling up the votes frequently anyway, doesn't bother me if some people add their tally or some don't. Either way, though. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
And thats exactly why I did not just go ahead and do it. Most of the people already do this, but I thought it might be nice to let those who are maybe unsure of tallying votes that they are in fact free to update the table. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking over the past couple years coord elections, it appears votes come mostly from other coords and regular active members at the beginning, dribs and drabs, then a last rush of final votes. It's a pity of our so-called 1000+ "active members" lists only as few as 30–50 bother to take interest in the project's coordination, because it is ultimately the strength of the coord team that will determine how well the next year goes, in terms of modelling or encouraging "project success" rather than individual editor contribs. Even if the top number of votes was 50, it's still only a small percentage of members, and doesn't really inspire confidence in the Wiki community itself. As a result the coord team becomes a tight-knit team sometimes working more for each other, than members. Hence the breakdown of task forces and special projects into neglected topics. I'd hope that people intending to vote would base their choices more on how they feel each candidate will help develop the project, and not simply based on friendships, associations or out of thanks for a review. Perhaps the comment regarding self-selection bias carries some truth, and that the totals show more votes between coords than members. Maybe next year we can discuss how we can work better with members: retention, interaction, communication, to promote the project, and stimulate growth. Probably not the right thread for this, but I thought it worth mentioning, given that most of those that you feel it would be nice to inform show relatively little regular involvement with us the rest of the year, sadly. I know that sounds harsh, but it's more an observation than a dig.. I have ambivalent feelings towards the current election process, even as a candidate, because it clearly does not represent a wider view of Wikipedia, of which we are but a small part. Maybe next year we can make it a more balanced process, to ensure the integrity of the project, coords and members and improve efficiency in more areas. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that relatively few editors comment on Wikipedia-wide proposals, the 'turn out' for the coordinator elections is actually pretty good. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It could be better, statistically speaking. If people are going to sign up to our members list, it wouldn't hurt them to show a little interest (is 5 minutes in 1 year asking a lot?) in which members are giving up some of their regular editing time to help organise and keep the project running smoothly for another year. It's all well and good saying the point of Wiki is to write and develop articles, but I'm sure this project didn't become the biggest and best overnight, nor without some hard work gone into building it up. I see the project even used to hold elections bi-annually. Have people really become less concerned now that it's running, or are there other reasons interest is slipping.. as I see it, if Wiki has gained more editors since 2006, votes should be proportionally higher. They're not though, they're lower. These are things future tranches need to "worry about" and start finding ways to retains and encourage growth. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The biannual coordinator elections were dropped as there was a feeling that they were over the top and were wasting time which editors could more profitably use in other fields (they also involved a lot of disruption for the coordinators as they had to spend time standing for election instead of doing their jobs). Editors have different reasons for joining projects; while I'm very active in this project, I'm much less active others I'm a member of, and recently signed up to the London Transport Wikiproject mainly as a way of keeping up with the fine work other editors there are doing (I live on the other side of the world to London so I don't have access to many sources, though I have contributed a number of photos of tube stations taken during my travels, and have also reviewed various relevant FA nominations). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A-class review(ers)

Not a particularly helpful title I know, but I just wanted to get my suggestion in before the end of the co-ordinator elections because I don't want it caught up in that. I don't know if it's been tried before, but I feel the membership of MILHIST, and potentially the number of reviewers could be strengthened by identifying the nominators of current Good Articles and suggesting they nominate the article for A-class, join the project, solicit feedback, or a combination of the above. Obviously the main focus would be on nominators who are not already very active in the project, but it need not be totally that. I did a rough poll of 5 "warfare" GAs. Their nominators were:

  • Cplakidas, very active.
  • Skinny87, ex-co-ord.
  • Aldwinteo, inactive on Wikipedia.
  • Kyteto & TraceyR, both of whom on a quick glance could be a greater asset to the project but do seem to have some experience. (Hope I'm not doing them an injustice.)
  • Bedford, previously active MILHISTer, now only partially active.

So that's a very small number I've had the time to check out, but there seems like there might be enough potential there even if it is one-in-five or so. (5 was hardly enough to gauge the overall number, but seems about right.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. There are also several editors with excellent track records in developing articles to A-class status who rarely nominate these articles for FACs. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Abject apologies

Hey all. Please accept my sincere apologies for dropping so completely off the radar for so long, to the point where I've even missed the coord election. I've been so insanely busy that the days and weeks have just slipped by without my realising how quickly it was all going. My RL job is expanding to the point where I could do with an extra day (or possibly two) in the week, and my kids have reached that age where moving away from home and higher education have eaten up what little free time I've had. However, that doesn't excuse me not making the time to post something here and again I apologise for that. Clearly I'm not standing for re-election as a coord (and wouldn't have been if I had remembered about the election in time). I do hate leaving unfinished jobs behind me though, so I'd very much appreciate it if the standing coords wouldn't mind me finally tinkering with the Academy content... if I ever get the time. If not, no worries.

The last six months have shown me that the best laid plans of mice and men etc, but I dearly hope I'm only saying au revoir and not adieu. It's been an immense pleasure and privilege serving Milhist with you all.

Best regards, EyeSerenetalk 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do fiddle, and good to see you, even in passing :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day, Eye. Good to hear from you. If you are keen to work on the Academy content, I think that would be a great help to the project. Good luck with whatever the future holds and with luck, the work days will get shorter eventually! Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Family and work should always come ahead of Wikipedia, so there's nothing at all to apologise for. It's always great to see you around. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Eye -- ditto all above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, you're all very kind :) I'm hoping we'll be recruiting more staff very soon which will ease things considerably. Milhist has been a real home for the last four years and it's a wrench to step back from everything, but I'll lurk when I can and hopefully be able to start editing again soon. TC, EyeSerenetalk 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Election

G'day all, with only about four days to go in the co-ord election and a relatively low turn out, what do people think about sending out a reminder about the election? Unless a few more people stop in to vote, we will have a fairly small tranche. There are probably another four or five nominees that are within striking distance of qualifying and it would make the job of being a co-ord a lot easier if we were to have a full compliment of 15. Of course, I don't want this to be seen as asking for votes myself, so I would be more than happy if those who respond to this don't vote for me. I just think we have a number of good candidates who need some support to get over the line so that they can keep on helping the project. What does everyone think? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If the number of votes required is 20, it shouldn't be necessary for you to ask that they don't vote for you, as you're well over that total.. there are perhaps 4 of us needing 1 to 5 votes more.. I'd like to see Arius1998 reach the post also. There hasn't been any voting from our emeritus coords yet though, I don't know if they usually vote, I expect so, perhaps their votes will add to the totals. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I posted a note at WT:MILHIST, but would also support sending out a reminder (as well as extending the voting period until the end of this upcoming weekend). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Extending the deadline might be helpful for those of us who are busy in real life. But, I believe in the past, we've simply coopted coords from the group that didn't quite make the cut so we'd have a full tranche. We'll probably have to go that route this time due to the low turnout. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I vote cooption myself. It seems the easiest way to get where we need to go. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that only 46 people have edited the election page, bearing in mind how many of those are current coords and new candidates, it seems a piss-poor turnout from our "~1000 members".. I think another reminder would be worthwhile, asap, as well as extension to 23:59 of 30 September, if that seems prudent for busy editors who don't get much time online mid-week. If 46 represents the current "active interest" in the project, I don't hold much hope for activity and progression next year.. it's hard to remain optimistic with 46/1171 bothering to spend just 2 minutes getting involved in voting, so you have to wonder why so few don't want to lend their weight to tagging, reviews, backlogs, and all the other things that get brought up as holding the project back from developing. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A reminder sounds good, but I don't care about the low turnout. As I recall I didn't vote last year, I simply felt I had opinion to bring to the table: like I might not have on an ACR or FA or whatever. Electing co-ords is a really arcane and small part of MILHIST and although I do care about the overall numbers, activity in an election is a poor metric for success or failure. I struggled to really express an opinion this year, and I'm standing for the role. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I care about the turnout because it is an indicator of who cares about the project and being involved with it, and making sure it is properly coordinated and managed for a year. If we take time to send out notifications to those 1000-odd members, there's no excuse for them not to be interested in how a project they claim "membership" to is being handled. To me, it's also an indicator of how editor retention is suffering.. as Wiki loses editors, maintaining interest fails, projects become more barren, no one sees the point in making the effort to vote, or do backlogs because it's like flogging a dead horse. The only thing holding this project together IS the coord team and a very small number of regulars.. if we were to analyse the edits of our "members" over the past 6 months and remove those who have not contributed significantly towards "military history" related articles, I suspect we'd have 200 or so people poking about.. the evidence stands for itself.. major conflicts, like the Middle Ages, American Revolution, American Civil War, Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and Vietnam are hardly mentioned anymore, editors are so rare you might as well call them "specialists", only WW2 seems to get the most interest, unsurprisingly. And even that seems to be the coords favoured topic, with few "members" chipping in. I can't be the only one concerned about these trends and wishing there was something could be done about it, but truth is society as a whole, over the last decade, seems to show less interest in pre-modern history these days as it used to, and so historians are becoming specialised in these areas. I would have to conclude, based on my understanding of these trends, that this project is either not meeting the expectations of members to maintain their interest and/or the project scope is not focused enough for members to know "how" to participate.. at the moment, anyone wandering into the MilHist camp would probably wander out again without being certain how they can contribute, because all the Task Force pages and Special Ops (OMT excluded) are as good as dead. I think it's vital we look at ourselves much more critically next year, and look to make massive headway.. we seem to have it our heads that this is the best project that all other projects look up to.. I'm not sure I agree anymore. I think we're slipping as our membership becomes thinner and less active each year. Our standards are high, and coords work well together, but it's more like a huddled group that the rest of Wiki has become bored of. Just my thoughts though. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you say, Marcus, I merely disagree specifically about these elections. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Grandiose may have a point on the turnout. And if you look at the last election, Dan "won" (as much as getting the lead position counts as winning) with 30 votes, essentially the same number of votes he has this time around. I had 46 votes for my term as lead coord, which isn't significantly more than now (compared to the number of project members). I think there's just a general slow period for a lot of people right now. I for one have been much less active since the start of the semester. This problem isn't confined to MILHIST - for instance, FAC has had trouble recently getting enough reviewers. I don't know how much I'd read into the turnout for the election. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

At the moment we have 12 on over 20 votes, with a thirteenth on 18. Looking back at the history finding 15 co-ords is no more difficult now that it was in 2008 (in September, only 13 people stood). Only 2010 elections would have produced 15 viable candidates, and even then only just. of 13 would seem a perfectly feasible number, with any others co-opted if found to be necessary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

End time?

Are we definitely extending this until 23:59 30 September? If so I'll adjust the heading on the vote page to indicate this. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there doesn't appear to be support for that from the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep. I don't see any support for it, so I'll box the election page up with the "discussion" template for now. I'm going to make a suggestion privately to Nick and Rupert to see if we're all on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm updating the Coords listing page.. I think Kirill normally does this, but as he's been on-and-off wiki lately and is often busy with Arbcom things when he is on, it won't hurt for someone to get this simple task done, to save him the time.
Given that there were 13 candidates with >=20 votes with top 3 tied, do we want to list any as coopted from the remaining four at this stage: Arius1998 (12 votes); RoslynSKP (8 votes); Knight of Gloucestershire (2 votes); Johnsc12 (0 votes)? If there are normally 15 coords per year, clearly Arius and RSKP would be the better choices, based on votes received. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Marcus, I've asked for input on that and other things at WT:MIL#Election results. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As a note (mainly for the benefit of Dank and AustralianRupert), I've just updated

This user is the lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject.

to reflect that there's now more than one lead coordinator (though on the 4-months on model we've suggested, I guess there'll also be a senior lead coordinator!). Hopefully this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the userbox (although "co-lead" seems snappier to me than "one of the leads", and AFAIK means the same thing), as long as we make an effort to avoid a triumvirate. If a new user asks me for help next week and says "lead coord" somewhere in the message, I'll just help them ... fine distinctions would bore them. If someone says, "I'm the editor of the Journal of Military History, and we want to do a story ...", I'll direct them to Rupert. As I mentioned on Rupert's page, my plan is to be responsive to whatever you guys are trying to do during your terms, and then to follow your example during my term next summer to the extent I'm comfortable with that. Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. Please avoid invading Parthia, though; that never turns out well. ;-) Kirill [talk] 13:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WPMILHIST banner bug

This is going to require an admin, due to Template:WPMILHIST being edit-protected.

Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles is currently picking up articles with words that include "list" in them, so http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_Military_history&action=edit needs amending to make sure only the word "list" is filtered to prevent is mistakenly listing other articles in the backlog, as they can't be manually removed being part of the template.

I can see the block that needs adjusting, it's the very last bit in the banner's code:

{{#ifexist:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}||{{#ifeq:{{WPMILHIST/Class|class={{{class|}}} |list={{{list|}}} |A-Class={{{A-Class|}}} |B-Class-1={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-1|}}}|{{{B-1|}}}|{{{B1|}}}|{{{b-1|}}}|{{{b1|}}}}} |B-Class-2={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-2|}}}|{{{B-2|}}}|{{{B2|}}}|{{{b-2|}}}|{{{b2|}}}}} |B-Class-3={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-3|}}}|{{{B-3|}}}|{{{B3|}}}|{{{b-3|}}}|{{{b3|}}}}} |B-Class-4={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-4|}}}|{{{B-4|}}}|{{{B4|}}}|{{{b-4|}}}|{{{b4|}}}}} |B-Class-5={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-5|}}}|{{{B-5|}}}|{{{B5|}}}|{{{b-5|}}}|{{{b5|}}}}}}}|IMG||[[Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{padleft:|4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}|list|{{#ifeq:{{WPMILHIST/YesNo|{{{list|}}}}}|yes||[[Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

If any admin knows how to correct this, it would get rid of this minor bug.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Kirill [talk] 13:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Great! Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A few ideas for the coming year

G'day all, now that the election is concluded, I would like to outline a few ideas that I have for the coming year. I would also like to invite other co-ords and any other interested members to also take the opportunity to outline any ideas that they have at this time.

A couple of the ideas that I would like to discuss at this point are:

  • the creation of a Milhist "collaboration of the month": essentially this would be a mini-project (i.e. a single article) that a group of editors would decide to work on together over the course of the month. We could try to use this as a means to target a few "vital" or "popular" articles; we could also try to use it to expand our coverage in some areas that we don't currently have many high quality articles.
  • standing up a Milhist drive of some sort over the next uni break (whenever that may be): the shape that this drive could take could be anything, as I think the important thing here is to start getting members engaged again.

Does anyone have any thoughts on these? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We had a collaboration of the fortnight some years back, which was superseded by our current contest format. I'm unsure if bringing back a collaboration would work well only because most the editors we have are spread out so much that trying to gather enough of them to work on a collaboration for a month would be tricky. As to a milhist drive, I'm all for that. Personally I would like to see a drive of the month sort of concept where we have a different drive every month to see if people would return to us, though I admit that a drive every month would be a bit much. As long as we are discussing ideas for the coming year, I would like to visit one rather radical one I proposed over at the election: Turning all of our Task Forces into Fleets In Being and using them for the sole purpose of managing articles categorically. I'd like to see all principle work run off this project solely to see if uniting all editors in one place would help our editor retention at all. I would also like to see a greater effort at outreach made to the members, with people leaving personal messages to check up on editors from time to time. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I have an opinion on all of this, but I think it might be helpful to split ideas up into headings, so we know what support there is for each. I think most co-ordinators have plans of one sort of another they'd like discussed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A drive is always good to make people more active here, and I agree with Tom's comments on the task forces and outreach. On the latter two, I would also suggest that each coordinator (or other project members, if they so wish) picks a few task forces that he is willing to supervise, so that he/she would be responsible for interacting with the old and new editors who work in the specific area. The coord would then be responsible for outreach and serve as a contact point for enquiries, aside from the project talk page. I would also find some sort of "library" or resource section useful, with links to websites or PD books. I know we have WP:MHL#LIBRARY and WP:MHL#JSTOR, but the Logistics link is rather buried in the project and difficult to find. In any case, I was thinking something more project-hosted rather than sending off enquiries to individual editors. I've tried to do something similar with Portal:Byzantine Empire/Weblinks. Constantine ✍ 09:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I hope that "Fleets in Being" is just a technical phrase and not a term we would ever adopt.. I voiced my concerns that MilHist is more OMT-weighted these days, but the last thing we need to do to prove that point is start using navy-specific terms for a project that encompasses far more aspects of military history than sea traditions. If we're going to try to revitalise interest project-wide it needs to be done with a more neutral tone, and less directed towards coordinators favoured topics. OMT can definitely stand on its own two feet.. less can be said of the three other Special Ops, and a dozen or so Task Forces that I can't even name all of, they're that distant from us lately. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
You'll learn with time that Tom likes to use naval slang in his messages – he only means to transform the task forces into an organizational structure rather than active pages. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I really like the idea of having a 'collaboration of the month'. I'd suggest that we focus on improving a low-quality but high-importance topic (as examples, the Officer (armed forces), Soldier, World War I and Pacific War articles), with the goal being simply to stop the article from being bad rather than aiming for GA/A class status. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
As per Grandiose's the request above, I have split my proposals under headings so they can be discussed separately. Apologies for setting it out so poorly in the first place. Tom and Constantine, would you mind creating separate sections for your proposals as well? That way we can focus our discussions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

Just going to toss my ensemble of ideas below, straight from my sandbox.. anyone feels like commenting on any of them, go ahead. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Project calendar

Project calendar
  • Break down the term into 4 quarters, and organise project-wide efforts that can involve all coords and members willing to participate, such as focused drives, new member retention, task-force/special ops. assistance, GA/FA initiatives. Allow coords/members to "sign up" to joining in any given effort. Example:
Q1 (1 Oct 2012 – 31 Nov 2012) Q2 (1 Dec 2012 – 28 Feb 2013) Q3 (1 Mar 2013 – 30 May 2013) Q4 (1 Jun 2013 – 30 Sep 2013)
  1. This effort
    • Member X
  2. That effort
    • Lead coord
    • Member Y
  1. This effort
    • Member Z
  2. That effort
    • Coord X
  1. This effort
    • Coord Y
    • Coord Z
  2. That effort
    • Member A
  1. This effort
    • Member B
    • Member C
  2. That effort
    • Coord Q
Lots of bureaucratic overhead. Volunteers are ephemeral - our working groups - taskforces - have been a failure (more or less). The more formal, the bigger the problem. I asked for a collaborator on the main page on one thing and got one, that worked well enough. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm not sure that it's at all feasible to plan activities out a year in advance, given how much (and how unpredictably) individual levels of activity tend to vary. Kirill [talk] 03:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Minimising this as it fills a lot of space.. not the best idea, wasn't easy to envision, probably impossible to setup and "enforce" given that making a time-commitment also depends on RL issues, so hard to plan too far ahead. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 18:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing A Class reviews

Ok so I'm a bit of a dummy. I closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (F) today but mucked a couple of things up. As a result I think it might be helpful if we consider rewording the Academy article on this a liite - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review.

  • Step 7: Updating the newsletter - Propose clarifying that articles promoted get added to next month's Bugle (currently it seems to link to this month's Bugle) [the markup points to CURRENTMONTHNAME - but I think maybe it should point to NEXTMONTHNAME].

Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Both great ideas. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
We've been talking about deprecating the Showcase. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, I think it would be fine to make those changes. It may be a little while before we decide what to do with the Showcase, so we should probably update our instructions now to make them a little clearer. Is everyone happy with doing this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Added something as there didn't seem to be any objections: [1] Please feel free to tweak. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks AR. Looks good - I would have got there in the end! I'm a bit slack its true. Anotherclown (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:WPMILHIST Announcements

People are asking above about coord jobs, one of which is keeping our announcements template updated ... it automagically updates a number of other widely used templates, including Template:WPMILHIST Review alerts. To make November's Bugle page that lists A-class and Featured promotions easier to update, if you remove the listing for a promoted Featured page from Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, please either say in the edit summary what the page was promoted to, or list at least the name of the article yourself at the proper Bugle page, so we won't miss it in the next edition. Thanks. (Edit summaries are preferred, including for A-class, because some people watchlist the template to keep up with nominations and promotions.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

September contest

G'day all, I've initialised the table for October's contest and started verifying the entries for September. As it is late here, I'm heading to bed. If one of the co-ords on the other side of the world are free, would you mind finishing the verification? The link is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest. Once the scores are verified, the scores need to be tallied, the October Bugle needs to be updated and awards handed out. I don't mind mind doing the tallying, Bugle and awarding, but if someone can help with verification, that would be great. (Particuarly my entries as I can't verify my own).

On a side note, I would like to propose removing the scoreboard from the monthly contest. My reasoning is that there is no real end state that we are working to for the contest, so a scoreboard doesn't really make sense. If we were to change it to a scoreboard that ran for a set period (say a quarter or a year) with the editor with the most points at the end of the period receiving something, then it would probably make sense, but currently all it serves is to add more work for the tallying co-ord. That's just my opinion, does anyone have any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to Ian and The Bushranger for helping out with verification. I've finalised the results of the contest and posted the results in October's Bugle. I have also handed out the second place award, but could someone please award the winner their Chevrons? The results are as follows: AustralianRupert 45 pts (seven articles), Sturmvogel 66 38 points (seven articles), RoslynSKP 29 points (five articles), PunkyNZ 20 points (four articles), Arius1998 16 points (seven articles), Ian Rose 10 points (one article), Djmaschek five points (one article) and The Bushranger two points (two articles). Also, does anyone have an opinion on my proposal IRT the points table? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi mate, agree with your analysis that there's no end point to the contest as a whole so the worth of the running totals/averages is dubious. Awards for say highest total and best average each quarter might make sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I kind of like knowing how much I've done over the last few years, so I'd kind of like to keep it ;-) However, that doesn't mean that we can't update it less frequently. Perhaps quarterly? That said, do we want to continue the monthly contest, lengthen the duration to quarterly or yearly, or both? If we do both, then would we need new awards for the longer contest?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
G'day, I think it would be good to keep the current monthly contest as it seems to generate some interest and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage that. If we are going to keep the scoreboard, I'd recommend that it is updated at the end of each month as it is actually a lot easier to do this. It would be possible though, to run a yearly contest over the top of the monthly one. All that would be required would be for a yearly "leaderboard" to be maintained alongside the perennial one. At the end of each year (or whatever period was chosen, for instance: quarter, half year or year) a new leaderboard would be created. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW I've awarded ARs Wikichevrons now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Quarterly review totals

G'day all, if I am not mistaken, the quarterly review tallies are due. Is anyone in a position to start going through the related PR, ACR and FACs for the Jul, Aug & Sep period? If not, I might be able to take a look on Friday night. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I can do it in about 12 hours. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Username PR Jul–Sep 12 ACR Jul–Sep 12 FAC Jul–Sep 12 Total Jul–Sep 12 Awarded
User:Adamdaley 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Allens 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Anotherclown 0 8 0 8 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Auntieruth55 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:AustralianRupert 3 19 6 28 Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Batard0 2 0 1 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Brianboulton 1 0 3 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Buckshot06 0 1 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Cbrittain10 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Cla68 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Crisco 1492 0 2 4 6 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Dana boomer 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Dank 4 21 30 55! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:DemonicInfluence 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Ed! 0 2 0 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Fornadan 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:FunkMonk 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Grandiose 1 7 5 13 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:GregJackP 0 1 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Hawkeye7 1 0 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009 1 9 1 11 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose 0 3 4 7 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:IxK85 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Kingjeff 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Kirk 0 1 2 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Magicpiano 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Midnightblueowl 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:MisterBee1966 0 2 2 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Nick-D 0 10 4 14 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria 2 2 28 32 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Parsecboy 0 5 3 8 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Peacemaker67 0 3 1 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Piotrus 0 1 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:PRODUCER 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:RTO Trainer 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Ruhrfisch 1 0 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Runfellow 1 0 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Sjones23 0 1 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Thefrood 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:The Rambling Man 5 0 0 5 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Zawed 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Need volunteers to check math and distribute. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikki. I've tweaked the mark up to make the table sortable and added a column for noting if the award has been made (I hope you don't mind - feel free to revert if you don't think it's an improvement). Before we start awarding these, a question: I seem to recall that in the past we haven't made awards to members who didn't have at least one Milhist ACR. Is this still the case? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've awarded all the editors who performed at least one ACR (except myself - can someone else please do this?). I made the awards on the following scale: Chevrons 10 or more; Content review medal 5-9; Two stripes 2-4 and One stripe 1. We still need to decide if we are going to award those that performed PRs and FACs, but not ACRs. Does anyone have an opinion on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a preference; we haven't so far, usually. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought we usually awarded to everyone who did at least one ACR or PR? See past discussion here, here and here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Heh ... I was answering the question in my head, just considering ACR vs. FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that was when the project ran its own PRs (I might be wrong, though). As we don't currently do that, I was considering them the same as FACs. I have no objection to awarding them (although I would ask that someone else finish the job as its late here) but we should be consistent. If we award editors who've only done PRs and no ACRs, we should also award editors who've only done FACs and no ACRs. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the last two or three awards have used the PR-or-ACR standard, which postdates the change to the PR system. I didn't include in the table people who had done only FACs; let me know if you want them added. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
G'day, I've made all the awards now based on the stats above. I think we should leave as is now, but if others want to, we could discuss how we want to handle the awards in the future. Can I also ask that someone awards my barnstar? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Done, thanks for your work on this! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki and Rupert. Not entirely relevant, but I'm going to be too busy this month to keep an eye on the comings and goings at FAC. If I've supported an article on prose at A-class and I see from our announcements template that it's at FAC, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war

I think that this request for mediation might benefit from input from other coordinators who are familiar with the kind of disputes which spring up over infoboxes. The editors there are at risk of trying to reinvent the wheel, when this is the same kind of issue which has been discussed many times previously ;) Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash#Proposal_II

I'm trying to find a way forward for this hotly debated page which has attracted a large number of SPAs and sockpuppets. Would somebody (Kirill, can you spare five minutes?) take a quick look at what I'm doing and give me any suggestions/thoughts, either here or on my talkpage? Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Military History - a thematic organization?

I know we're debating reforms above, but here's an idea for a bold step in a new direction: a Wikimedia Thematic Organization (one of the affiliation models). As described on the linked page, WTOs are "independent organizations founded to support and promote the Wikimedia projects within a specified focal area." More simply speaking, WTOs are similar in mission to the geographically defined chapters, but are instead defined by subject.

There is precedent for an English-language WikiProject to organize like this – see Medicine WikiProject and the WTO Wikimedia Medicine, which are currently applying to be the first thematic organization. In my opinion, forming a thematic organization is the next logical step for us: it would allow us to have a greater voice in the Wikimedia movement; to receive and give grants to support the development of military history on Wikipedia, and not just in English; an area to collaborate with similarly minded editors in other languages, which we'll have to to anyway if we form this; and give us an 'official' organization from which we could liaison with museums, organizations, and government institutions. I'm very interested in hearing your opinions before possibly presenting this to the Milhist members as a whole. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll support whatever you guys want to do. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I like this idea; as you say, a thematic organization is a logical step forward, particularly in light of our increased involvement in GLAM partnerships and similar off-wiki collaboration. Having said that, as a purely practical matter, I would suggest waiting to see the outcome of the Wikimedia Medicine application before starting with one ourselves; at the moment, the thematic organization establishment and approval process is rather vague, and having a group successfully complete it will give us something more concrete to work with. Kirill [talk] 01:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping others would comment too, but that makes perfect sense. I'll raise the idea again if/when MED has completed it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with WP:MED being the guinea pigs for this as well ;) While there's a case for us to also apply for this status if it works out, getting the governance settings right would be tricky - as recent events have shown, this can be problematic for an organisation in which most (all?) of the key people have met one another face to face. We'd also need to think about what we'd want to do with such a status that couldn't be done through the national-specific Wikimedia organisations (eg, would a "Wikimedia Military History" open more doors than Wikimedia Australia or Wikimedia Washington DC?). I imagine that "Wikimedia Military History" would help editors gain access to overseas institutions and set up events with a remote component, but this could be at the cost of making it harder to facilitate events in their own country. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you raise a good point there, Nick. I think the idea is that thematic organisations complement the geographical chapters, and it would make it easier for us to do things as one. For example, I'd really like to see MilHist hold a conference dedicated to military history and what MilHist can do in "real life", and that (and anything else that requites international travel) would be difficult to fit within the aims of chapters—I don't think funding me to attend would fit the objectives of either WMUK (my local chapter) or the chapter in whose area the conference was held. But I also agree that we should see how the medics get on, because they've been talking about this for quite a while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair point. The recent Wikipedia Takes the Australian War Memorial event was affected by some crossed wires (which were partly my fault) over the scope of the event, which lead to parsimony from WMAU which in turn meant that we couldn't take full advantage of the larger-than-expected opportunity to photograph the AWM's collections. A member of WMAU then sent some quite rude emails to the mailing list complaining about the quality of the photos Bidgee and myself took, which was highly discouraging (especially as Bidgee's photos were excellent and mine were at least competent). I think that the event was successful (we have good quality photos released under free licences of the key aspects of the historically important, and soon to be demolished WW1 galleries), but a smallish 'bucket of money' would have made a big difference by allowing editors from outside the Canberra region to attend. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Another angle: last week's News and Notes mentioned Sue's planned presentation at the October WMF board meeting; it's mainly about shifting money around. For instance, it sounds like they're going to be giving less money to chapters: "The core purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation is [no longer] to ensure the chapters grow and develop". I'm wondering if this is a time when they're regretting some of their expenditures, and looking for new subgroups of WPians to invest in. If that's the case, then we probably don't want to be last in line ... I don't know if this would be an especially good time to ask them for money, but if it is, we should ask. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My reading of that is that they're going to have a tighter control of the purse strings, and distribute less money more carefully while building up the WMF's capabilities. All of which seems a good thing given the amount of money which has been sloshing around some parts of Wikimedia-world and the mixed results of some initiatives. Given the nature of any organisation we'd realistically be able to put together (eg, good people who've never met one another and probably never will and who have limited experience with running an organisation), I'd personally feel more comfortable with initiating a chapter under a tighter funding and accountability regime than that which is in place at the moment (which isn't broken, just a bit too loose for its own good). The WMF deserves credit for experimenting, and for revising its settings to take into account what's worked and what hasn't. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. I don't know if you follow the mailing lists, but there's been significant discussion (and opposition) to Sue's plan, which I suppose should be expected (no one likes to see their pet program cut). I do wonder if they've privately determined that geographical chapters have been too inefficient for the money spent, but that's idle speculation. Either way, if MED succeeds, I firmly believe that we should be the next in line. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Signpost interview plea

I'd appreciate it if a few coordinators could contribute to this Signpost interview (I can't, for obvious reasons). Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_42&oldid=1232551825"