Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Is it that time again?

When do we open nominations for coordinators for 2013-14? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

...Wow. Really? I mean it seems like just yesterday we were all being sworn in such as it were, and now here we are up for (re)election again. Time really seems to move fast these days... TomStar81 (Talk) 06:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I find that too -- I think it's called getting older... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Think I'm going to step back from standing again.. I've found the experience of trying to be a coord utterly disappointing and I am all too aware of my lackluster efforts over the past year. My nomination last year was based on presenting ideas and trying to implement new ideas and reforms to the MilHist project, and most of the supports I received acknowledged and welcomed that idea. As it turned out, virtually ever suggestion I presented was either rejected or failed to blossom following brief or sporadic discussions within the first month. Since then I've failed to witness any real growth or renewed efforts in key areas of the project (i.e. task forces, special projects, membership in general is still down or dead). As a member, I've felt like an item gathering dust in an antique store, and I'm also in the opinion that we need to look towards having a complete overhaul of the coords nomination system, because electing a majority of the same people year after year is having a negative effect, in my opinion, it's more like a regime which gives the project their personality, rather than encouraging editors to inject fresh blood into the project so that it may develop its own personality. I think we need to stop the sycophancy with regards to the same circle of friends electing each other, and look at the bigger picture rather than who's in the local neighbourhood. Maybe a 2 or 3 year cap on how many subsequent terms an editor can stand should be introduced. It's all very well saying coords are performing all the hard work with regards closing reviews, etc.. funny that, because no other coord has approached me in the past year to ask if I want to get involved or learn the ropes and "get on the team", as it were, with regards input, there's no life and soul amongst the coords, no form of encouragement, no merit, except amongst those who are familiar with one another and don't appear to want to "pass the ball" to other players. Just my 2 cents, not attacking anyone, nor focused at any one in particular, it's just the unapproachable "cold shoulder" attitude I feel around coords in general. There's a very low level of "community spirit", I feel.. poor communication, poor task-sharing, I don't recall any coord dropping me a message this year to ask for a hand in doing something. Not sure what evey other coords self-esteem has been like over the past year, but I don't mind saying that due to the reasons I have addressed my commitment to the project has been impaired. Perhaps it's for the same reasons that few other members are willing to step up to the plate and give it a shot. I think there's a few weeks before the next election, and it might be worth other coords and members voicing their views with regards the nomination process, and it's not unfair to state that I believe the current method works more in favour of coords wanting to be re-elected due to over-whelming bias involved, than it does in encouraging other members to get on board. If I recall from last year's votes, two nominees didn't meet the minimum vote due to not being well known, yet other long-serving coords were reaching the minimum just from other coord votes alone, or close enough. It's a very slanted and undignified process, and too easily exploited with "unlimited votes" and editors returning to "top up" on who they need to vote for. There needs to be a fairer and balanced system, such as "3 votes each, all placed together, no mind-changing unless a nominee withdraws" type system. Given that we don't get a massive amount of editors participating in the voting anyway, most coords rely on each others support and usually get it.. I personally find this type of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" system a sham, because it's easy for a coord to vote for everyone in order to shame them each into returning the favour, taking him almost all the way to the minimum votes needed before non-coords even count. Limited vote casting would prevent this nonsense. It also helps to be an Aussie (Yes, I was kidding there!) Thoughts, opinions, disputes, etc let's hear them. Sorry about the wall of text, but then I haven't said much else all year. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 07:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite... ;-) Marcus, you raise some fair points, such as coords encouraging participation from their fellows re. daily tasks, the possibility of capping the number of terms (or at least consecutive terms) that coords should serve, and limiting the number of votes in the election. Re. the first one, I have to admit that I tend to assume people will 'muck in' where they can and, if they're not, then perhaps RL or other pressures are telling. Re. the others, I'm sure we've discussed them before but I have no issue revisiting. Now in terms of fresh blood, a number of us 'old hands' have made a point in the past of encouraging new people to run, so I don't think we're all being 'clubbish' in that respect. Lastly, I think you could AGF re. people's voting patterns -- I'll support whoever I think will do a decent job, no matter whether they're old or new, and not because I'm hoping for a return vote... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
To echo Ian's comments, I think you make a good point regarding our process (or lack thereof) for getting new coordinators "up to speed" and involved. Traditionally, we've all assumed that someone elected as a coordinator would be familiar enough with our work to simply pick things up organically; this has meshed well will many of the coordinators' personalities—I think it's fair to say that many of us have been self-starters—but you may be right that there are some coordinators who would be more comfortable with a more guided introduction. That's something we can try and do after this coming election.
As far as your other points, while it's certainly good to bring in fresh blood—and, as Ian says, we've deliberately tried to do so in virtually every election—I don't see anything inherently wrong with the idea that veteran members of the project (whether current coordinators or not) will find it easier to get elected than people who aren't well-known to the project members at large. It's perfectly natural that members will more readily vote for people whom they recognize, and who have demonstrated experience in the role, than for someone who, while potentially very talented, has neither name recognition nor experience. This doesn't mean that having some degree of turnover isn't a good thing, of course—some of our best coordinators have been people who were not "regulars" when they were elected—but I think we shouldn't get so caught up in trying to artificially increase the turnover ratio that we eliminate otherwise perfectly good candidates or force the members into some convoluted voting scheme. Kirill [talk] 09:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Ian - I'm sure there are some who will "muck in" due to their experience, and those who can't due to inexperience. For example, I recall seeing one experienced coord ask a first-time coord to close an ACR, last tranche year, and due to not knowing the process the new coord had some difficulty. So by assuming all new coords are capable of assuming all the technical roles, because Wiki doesn't provide an User Interface to automate various processes in one click, some coords may be left in the dark. I will say now, I haven't learned a single thing from being a coord this year with regards dealing with the various more involved daily tasks.. I couldn't close an ACR, I don't know how the monthly competitions or review totals are quickly summed up.. no one asked me for help, no "coord training" as it were, nothing. It has been a thoroughly unrewarding experience, but I have no doubt no one will be sorry to see me go anyway.
@Kirill - I don't think something such as "only 3 votes, make them all at once" is convoluted, if we are to AGF and request that voters self-managed their votes. It's not like we'd be operating a complex "first past the post" or "alternative voting" system which would require more involved considerations by both the voter and the people who tot up the results. It's about "balance" and I think unlimited voting which can be added and even withdrawn at any time during the voting period does not represent balance, or an even an honest representation of voters confidence. Sure, we can "AGF" as Ian suggests, but I've seen plenty of examples of voting over the past few years where coords would hold back their votes, then apply them "in return" to each coord who voted them. The quaint pattern of "you voted me, so I'll vote you" can hardly be considered "a coincidence" and I think it's something we need to put an end to. If people are voting with an affirmed opinion of the nominees then they should be capable of slapping their votes down, across the board, in one go.. not coming back and doing one or two a day over the voting week. That is not intrinsic behaviour, which voting should be based on, it is being influenced by other factors other than their confidence in the candidate. I'd like to hope that if people were voting for me, it was based on their trust in my ability to be a decent coordinator, not as a thank you gesture because I voted for them but they really don't have equal faith in me. But that's how I feel past years have gone, in part. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Marcus, closing an ACR is easy. You just list it on the ACRs for closure and I'll come along and close it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Which totally goes against my point of coords learning to do things so they can perform their role and become experienced instead of relying on other people to do the things they don't know how. i.e. anyone can hire a taxi, but most people would rather learn to take the wheel and responsibility that goes with it, eventually. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
My 2 cents: back when I was a first-timer lo those many years ago, nobody taught me how to do anything. But I saw the list of ACRs that needed to be closed, and so I figured it out. And to be sure, I had to have a browser tab open to the instructions while I was doing it. I guess that my point is, no, we don't have an equivalent of the new admin school (and maybe we should), but there's no reason why you can't jump in and get your hands dirty on your own.
As an aside, I tried at least a couple times (including once when I was lead coord) to create a reviewing contest similar to the contest we have for writing. Nothing happened with the idea, and only relatively recently have we started the current ACR/FAC review award system. I wouldn't take our project's slowness to adopt new ideas personally, it's just our organizational culture. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Forget being a first-timer, I still have a browser tab open to the instructions while I'm closing an ACR...;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Parsecboy - Don't get me wrong, I'm far from unsavvy with regards using website tools, but so far as changing things goes on Wiki, on the project's administrative side rather than editing, if you do something wrong during a close/move/archive then it often becomes someone else's job to clean up. Personally, I'm not in the habit of trying to do a task I'm not at least slightly familiar with, whether than be from some basic training to some other experience, like watching other people do it closely. We would hope that new site Admins wouldn't "experiment" with block functions without first knowing what they're doing, I think the same should apply to processing things such as ACR closes given that a lot of time has been taken to write and review the article, it would be awkward for one fresh coord to cock-up the process right at the last hurdle. I also think the project's "organisational culture" is mundane. We're in the 21st century, most of us are using broadband speeds and connecting daily, a discussion starts, various comments are made, a general idea is formed about something leaning towards a consensus, months later we don't see any changes or development in the thing discussed, it's like the discussion never even happened. And then you have to wonder why we bother having these discussions. It often feels like the project is being run by old men who prefer their traditional roots, and can't be arsed to progress with the rest of society. I think a lot of coords round here are already old men, in mind rather than in body. Call me impatient, but I often find the progression of many discussions on our project boards akin to standing in the queue at the Post Office on pension day.. takes bloody ages to get to the front, and when you do get there she closes the counter. In short, the organisational culture of this project is still living in the history it studies, and I haven't seen a lead coord yet take the initiative and try to get the project moved onto the fast rails. If "Lead coord" is nothing more than a title for show, as the Coordinators page specifically states "The position has no special responsibilities", then I just think we're wasting time having such a non-functional role.. in essence, I think there should just be a flat position of "coords" instead of some pointless "King of the castle" title. I imagine when the project started back in 2006, with Kirill as Lead coord for two years there were a lot of lead duties performed to get the project up and running, to build the project pages, to encourage membership, etc. Now, with all that done and established, the title is either a dysfunctional role, or we need to establish some duties for such a role with regards to them having some responsibility towards building membership and advancing the project. Especially when you consider how badly membership has been over the past few years, how the task forces have become worthless, how 3 of 4 special projects are dead in the water, etc. I don't feel like this project is a part of the greater Wikipedia system, more like one of those Wikia offshoot websites with its own self-contained content and very little interest in growth. I'll just conclude by saying, a year or two from now, I don't expect anything to be different.. still a "stuck in the mud" project with other projects climbing faster around it. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: When I saw the daunting list of steps for closing an ACR, I wrote a Bot to do it. I used it to close all the ACRs I close. The idea is that eventually all you'll have to do is post an entry on the ACRs for closure and the Bot will do it all for you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Assuming we follow the same schedule as last year, we're less than two days away from opening nominations. I've set up the election page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2013; I'd appreciate it if someone could check it over and make sure that I haven't missed anything. Kirill [talk] 08:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Kirill. I've just tweaked the wording to allow for the possibility of there being more than one lead coordinator, but would appreciate it if another editor could check my wording for precision, etc. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it reads clearly to me, Nick. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notification Kirill. I've just posted messages of encouragement on the talk pages of a few of the editors who I think would make good coordinators (I think I've missed a few people), and would encourage the other coordinators to do the same. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I can't stand again, I don't think, next year, because of University commitments. Marcus, I think proposals next year should be put one-by-one on the main talk page, perhaps soliciting initial opinions at this page. I hope we can find some new blood, as always, and do what we can to ensure that new co-ordinators do the closes and whatnot, even if it means putting a bit more effort it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder for anyone else planning to stand for re-election that there's less than 48 hours left before the nominations close. Kirill [talk] 04:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And now less than 24 hours. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

August contest results

The results of what was a quieter month than we've seen in the recent past were: Peacemaker 67 - 56 points from five articles, Parsecboy - 37 points from five articles, Ian Rose - 26 points from four articles, Cdtew 25 points from three articles, Tomobe03 - 15 points from three articles, and Cuprum17 - Nine points from two articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd wager the resumption of university duties (among other things) has left some of us with a bit less time to spend writing :) Congrats on taking the top spot Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I reckon you might be right. Thankfully, that's a long way behind me... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
What's the drill with the contest awards? Do they go out when the Bugle goes out? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That's usually when I award them these days, no objection to anyone else doing it sooner, though of course you can't award yourself (actually now I think about it I might still be waiting on a second-place award from a couple of months ago, will have to check)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

First prototype of new membership directory

A few months ago, we discussed changing our current membership list to a more feature-rich membership directory based on subpages. I've now put together an initial prototype of what a page in the new directory would look like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Example; the code that generates that page is as follows: 

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Framework/Member page

| image = Napoleon Wagram.jpg
| about me = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

| British military history = yes
| weaponry = yes
| World War II = yes

| receive newsletter = yes
| receive announcements = yes
| receive notifications = yes

| active = yes
| joined = 2011

}}

Walking through the different features demonstrated in the prototype:

  • The "image" parameter allows a member to place an image onto their member page; this can potentially be used for actual photos of people (for those members who are comfortable posting them) or for other images that members feel represent them in some way.
  • The "about me" parameter is a free-form text field that is placed under an "About me" header on the member subpage. It is intended to be used for a general description of a member's interests and activities relative to the project.
  • Each task force will have a corresponding parameter (e.g. "British military history", "weaponry", etc.). Setting the parameter to "yes" will display a link to the task force under a "My interests" header; it will also automatically generate a task force membership category (e.g. Category:WikiProject Military history members interested in British military history) as well as activity/subscription categories specific to the task force.
  • There are three parameters related to subscriptions:
    • The "receive newsletter" parameter is intended to indicate whether the member wishes to receive copies of The Bugle. When both "receive newsletter" and "active" are set to "yes" the page generates a corresponding category (Category:WikiProject Military history members receiving newsletters) that can be used to drive the newsletter delivery bot. Note that the check for "active" means that inactive members will automatically be unsubscribed from the newsletter until they return to activity.
    • The "receive announcements" parameter is intended to indicate whether the member wishes to receive project-wide announcements (such as election announcements, etc.). When both "receive announcements" and "active" are set to "yes" the page generates a corresponding category (Category:WikiProject Military history members receiving announcements) that can be used to drive an announcement delivery bot. As above, note that inactive members will automatically be unsubscribed from announcements.
    • The "receive notifications" parameter is intended to indicate whether the member wishes to receive Echo notifications from the project. When both "receive notifications" and "active" are set to "yes" the page generates a corresponding category (Category:WikiProject Military history members receiving notifications) that can be used to drive a notification bot (more on this below). In addition, setting any task force parameter to "yes" while "receive notifications" is also set to "yes" will generate a task force-specific notification category (e.g. Category:WikiProject Military history members receiving notifications about World War II) that can be used to target notifications at a more granular level. Again, note that inactive members will automatically be unsubscribed from notifications.
  • The "active" parameter is intended to be updated by a bot, and will indicate whether the member has edited in a set period (e.g. the last 30 days). When "active" is set to "yes", the page generates a corresponding category (Category:Active WikiProject Military history members) that can be used to automatically generate statistics on active versus inactive membership. In addition, setting any task force parameter to "yes" while "active" is also set to "yes" will generate a task force-specific activity category (e.g. Category:Active WikiProject Military history members interested in weaponry) that can be used to automatically generate the active participant lists on task force pages.
  • The "joined" parameter is intended to be automatically set when the page is created, and is included mostly for statistical purposes.

In the description above, I've alluded to the use of a notification bot. This is something that I've recently started developing; the basic idea is that the bot would cross-reference the interest/subscription categories generated by the new membership directory and the article alert feeds for each task force to automatically send members notifications on topics of interest to them. For example, if a World War II article is nominated for peer review, the bot would generate a post that would send a notification to everyone in Category:WikiProject Military history members receiving notifications about World War II inviting them to participate. The basic idea would be to reproduce the useful elements of the per-task force update system that we had a few years ago (when each task force had its own talk page) without actually requiring members to watch multiple pages, and without requiring any manual posting of announcements by the coordinators. The notification framework could potentially be expanded to allow direct notification of discussions as well (e.g. notifying aviation editors when an aviation-related question was posted on the project talk page), but that's something I haven't really considered in detail.

Obviously, the directory page template is still a prototype, is missing both the full set of task forces, and will require some stylistic work. Having said that, I would appreciate any feedback at this point, particularly with regard to what other features/data points we might want to include in the template. Kirill [talk] 20:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Kirill, I'm afraid I don't have the technical knowledge to provide much constructive feedback, sorry. I do like the idea, though, especially the idea of sending a notification about reviews etc. I think that would be a great way of facilitating increased participation. Thanks for working on this. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Any other comments? I'm planning to work on the styling and missing task forces this weekend, but are there any other features that people would like to see implemented here? Kirill [talk] 00:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I like this very much. An idea: I think it would be good to have parameters to denote administrators, coordinators, lead coordinators and such, probably to appear next to "Member since [year]" (we could just leave this up to individuals to put in their "about me" section, but I think my suggestion would be clearer) —Cliftonian (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That should be pretty easy to add. Kirill [talk] 23:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Does the "joined" parameter refer to when someone first registered on Wiki, or first joined MilHist, as there may be a difference between the two, especially anyone who used an IP for a significant period as an anonymous contributing "member" before getting a proper account, or didn't join MilHist until a year or two after registering due to other interests or independent editing? Depends what the statistical purpose of the parameter is meant to show, though I realise only the account registering date can be automatically added.
If Wiki markup allows for arrays, a parameter that lets members list the articles they created might be useful, as a way of tracking members in case they're interested in being notified of developments of an article (proposed moves, splits, mergers, deletions, etc). Alternatively, though I am hesitant to request this: members be allowed to list articles they created based on class. It's possible that could cause issues where articles have more than one class, e.g. GA/A, but if members could detail the top-class MilHist articles they created, i.e. A/AL, GA and FA/FL, to allow some way of auto-generating a "showcase" on each member page in a way that is uniform and accessible, it might be useful. I know some people already do this on their own userpage, in various ways, so it might be considered an extraneous feature. To be honest, I don't know how flexible Wiki is in allowing detailed member pages, given that you're limited to Wiki markup rather than raw PHP or whatever they use now, so these ideas are made ignorant of Wiki-workings and may not be feasible. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
My thinking was that the "joined" parameter would be used to indicate when someone first joined MilHist, so that we can generate statistics about our membership growth and retention. I suppose there might be useful statistics that could be extracted from the date when people registered their accounts, but—as you point out—that's something that can be collected automatically anyways, and thus wouldn't necessarily need to be tracked in the membership form.
There's no easy way to include (arbitrarily long) lists of articles as template parameters, but I'm not sure that's something we need to do through the membership directory; if someone has worked extensively on an article, wouldn't they have it on their watchlist (and thus be aware of any changes regarding it)? Conversely, if someone doesn't have it on their watchlist, we can probably assume that they don't really want to be notified of anything having to do with it.
Having said that, some form of showcase mechanism might be useful for other reasons, and I'll continue looking into ways to implement one. Kirill [talk] 23:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit out of my depth on this stuff, but I like what has been suggested so far, and I'm looking forward to seeing it up and running! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing "task force" terminology?

On a topic tangentially related to the discussion of the new membership directory above, one of the things that I heard mentioned a few times at Wikimania was that one of the possible factors contributing to the inactivity of our task forces was the fact that "task force" is not a self-explanatory name for new editors, who are unlikely to know the history behind our usage of the term, and would probably assume that the task forces were some mechanism for assigning tasks rather than groups related to certain topics. One of the people I spoke to suggested that using a more "obvious" name, such as "interest group", might help attract more participation from newer editors/members.

Is this something we want to explore further? I'd appreciate hearing everyone's thoughts on the matter. Kirill [talk] 20:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That actually could be worth looking into, especially in light of the "special projects" we run that are in fact specifically focused on one or two particular goals. I still feel that a complete overhaul of the task forces including a realigning and merging of relevant or closely related fields would also benefit by allowing the project to tighten up and broaden (to a certain extent) the task forces, which would help make them appear more active by increasing the number of people said to be listed in them. The more people that appear to be working in a particular area the better off the satellite groups like the TFs an the Special projects will be as it will lend an appearence of activity to the group in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree. I also think that many editors' interests often are narrower than those identified by our task forces, and that this may also be contributing to inactivity. For example, mine are essentially an intersection of two MILHIST task forces, Balkans and WWII. But even Balkans is too wide. We define the Balkans as including Greece and other countries in the region, most of which don't remotely interest me, as my interest is in Yugoslavia only. So my "area of interest" really is an intersection of our WWII task force and WikiProject Yugoslavia. This is why User:PRODUCER and I created Operation Bora, which we set up as a special project of WikiProject Yugoslavia, not MILHIST. I think changing "task force" to "area of interest" is a no-brainer, but I'd be interested to explore the idea of "Balkanising" the task forces into more specific "areas of interest" as well. Many task forces look like they are active, because they are adding new FA, A-class and GAs, but they really are not, because they are just benefiting from the work of editors that aren't even a member of that task force. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. In some case we have held on to inactive task forces because they function as a kind of fleet in being, a needed force to prevent other competing projects from gaining traction (of particular note here is the repeated suggestions that a dedicated WWI or WWII project be created). In other cases an inactive task force is shared by us and a relevant geographical project, and as a result there is reluctance to move on the matter for risk of alienating the other project. When I had suggested a merger of similarly minded geographical task forces into a regional/continental task force it was in part with the hope that a larger pool of geographical projects would help open up such task forces to more editor input. Over the years, and in particular over the last four or five years and Wikipedia as slowly begun to suffocate under the ever increasing policy, guideline, and bureaucratic creep is that those of us left who still edit are incline to edit a very particular set of pages, often times far too small to build a dedicated task force to/for, so as I learned with OMT it may be best in the long run to study what people are going to work on anyway and then structure something big enough to appeal to their interests so that the work group / special project / task force in question already has the editors it needs when it gets started. Otherwise, all the fanfare in the world isn't going to appeal to people who have little if any interest in the geographical area / time period / conflict in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think there's something to be said for viewing task forces primarily as ways to categorize our members according to interest for the purpose of reaching out to them individually (see e.g. the discussion of automated notifications in the preceding section) rather than as cohesive "groups" per se; in that context, narrower, more specific task forces are probably going to be more useful than broader, less specific ones.
As a practical matter, with the exception of OMT, I don't think we've really seen a lot of activity centered around individual task forces or special projects (and, even in the case of OMT, it's arguable that such activity was already happening and having the special project there merely gave it a convenient central home rather than actually being the cause); while we can certainly keep exploring ways in which we can help foster a direct collaborative environment/process within individual task forces, I don't think we need to necessarily focus on that as our primary goal in developing them. Kirill [talk] 04:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I think the "interest group" idea has merit. IMO the task forces/interest groups/etc continue to serve some purpose, providing a structure for categorisation (as mentioned above), but also providing editors with some idea of who they might contact for collaboration/help etc. They also serve to provide a list of resources etc, that can be used, which I personally have found helpful in the past and I think others have as well (this aspect might be little known by others, though, so perhaps we could advertise that a bit more as it might help others access sources). That said, the structure/form that they take probably could be improved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "task force" sounds somewhat intimidating (and, to be pedantic, "task forces" are typically temporary organisations assembled for a specific purpose). "Interest group" or "work group" would be an improvement, and "community" might be better as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
If I may be free to comment, I certainly think a moderate change in task force implementation would help. As I said in my self-nom for coord, the area I work in has about 4.5 task forces dedicated in part to similar topics; with a total of perhaps 5 active MILHIST contributors between them, there's no reason why Early Modern, AmRev, Three Kingdoms, part of Early Muslim, and Napoleonic Task forces couldn't be combined into an "Early Modern and Pre-Industrial Warfare Community". I think that Peacemaker's idea of "Balkanization" would best be reserved for Special Projects; task forces could be the logistical launchpad for those, and my hope would be that they would be able to do more focused recruitment of editors who share an interest in the subject-matter and content reviews of other editors within the TF. Just my 2 cents, but glad to listen to others' opinions. Cdtew (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I think a change of name to "interest group" or "work group" would be an improvement; makes the thing seem more open and less menacing to newcomers, and is also a better, more accurate description of what it actually is. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Not particularly fussed but would happily support a change to "work group". Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As a practical matter here, before we change anything, we should seek the input of the active projects within who share a military themed task force to make sure that they understand what's being discussed here and allow for them to weigh in with regards to their particular task force so that when this change takes place they do not draw the incorrect conclusion(s) from the actions taken. The last thing we want would be for the US project and the Ships project and so forth in that manner to come to the conclusion that we are abandoning their/our task fores as a result of the renaming being discussed here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite happy with a change to 'work group'. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, it seems to me that there is a consensus here to change, probably to "work group", so are we happy that the next step is to consult the other affected projects? If so, which should be contacted and how do we want to do this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be less complicated to decide what name (i.e. "work group" or "interest group") we want to use first and to ping the other projects once the renaming plan is finalized; if we approach them and basically say that we're going to rename task forces, but we're not quite sure what the new name will be yet, I think that would be slightly confusing. Kirill [talk] 11:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
On a tangential note, "working group" might be a more commonly-used variant than "work group", so perhaps we should consider that as well? Kirill [talk] 11:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, no worries. I propose a quick "hands-up" survey amongst the co-ords. From the above it seems that there is consensus to rename the "task forces", and they appear to have been three options proposed: "work group"; "interest group" and "working group". So that we can quickly determine who supports what option, could you all please record your preferred option below, for example as I have done? If there is a clear consensus one way or another, we can go with that option, otherwise it might need a bit more discussion. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
When this is over with, I would like to formally propose my idea of combining several extant task forces into larger "interest groups" or "working/work groups", whichever is decided. I imagine that in going public with a new name, this would be the best possible time to discuss also consolidation (or, for large, active work groups, discuss balkanization). Then, upon rollout of the new name, there will be a new image that might (hopefully?) reinvigorate interest. Cdtew (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Good luck buddy, some of us have been barking up that tree for years...
Still, it is an idea worth revisiting (again), and as before, it will likely be an idea that generates a number of proposals for how to approach the problem. I favored a continental task force consolidation program a few years back to put the countries in the same general geographic header, but that didn't take, and I know that some of the oft mentioned task forces for reorganizing are maintained in order to prevent them from being reorganized into full blown projects. On one occasion we did combine a handful of small task forces to create a medium sized one, but that was some years back and I have no idea off the top of my head why that one in particular was successful. In short, propose, but its gonna take a lot of effort on your part, the coordinator's part, and the community's part to actually gather the momentum needed to get such an effort over the hump. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey of opinion

As per the above, to help determine consensus regarding renaming the task forces, please state what option you would prefer out of "work group"; "interest group" or "working group" by recording your preference below.

Should we reactivate some of the talk pages as well?

Given that there's consensus to change the name of these groups, I'd also like to suggest that some of the groups be "reactivated" by removing the redirection of their talk page to WT:MILHIST. While I strongly supported this move, a few times in the last year I've wished that there was an Australian-specific talk page to use to discuss specialized topics, and I imagine that a few of the other task forces could probably sustain a viable talk page (WW1 for instance given the rapidly approaching centenary). I'd suggest handling this on a demand-driven and case by case basis though. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, yes I think that this could work. I agree that there are probably some areas of the project that probably have enough demand to support a separate talk page. Are there any further thoughts on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Are there any other views on whether this is a good idea? Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection to reactivating the talk pages in cases where there's interest in having a dedicated discussion area. Kirill [talk] 11:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm good with the "as required" approach. I think the active editors within the individual working groups will be in the best position to determine whether a talk page is needed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Per Peacemaker. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Also. I think reactivating all the talk pages would be counterproductive as some of them would be very rarely used. Messages might be left and not answered for a very long time. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per Peacemaker, but to address Cliftonian's concerns, perhaps it's time to re-activate the "supervisory coordinator" delegated to each group; in that coord's discretion, if a talk page needs reactivation, it can be done, and then that coord is responsible for ensuring the talk page is maintained? Cdtew (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Only as required. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Only as required, however I say to get there we reactivate them all, then in 90 days we can deactivate the ones that failed to get spun up again. In this manner we can say in good faith that we did not play favorites with the pages, everyone had there chance, and the lack of activity on the talk pages justified a return to the main talk page once more. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't reactivating a bunch of pages only to deactivate most of them a few months later be confusing? I think it would be easier to reactivate the pages on request rather than arbitrarily changing all of them between different states; given the lack of complaints about the current system, I don't think anyone will accuse us of favoritism if we only reactivate some of the pages. Kirill [talk] 13:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my suggestion is to only re-open the pages which editors ask to be opened and which we're confident will attract enough traffic to remain viable. If things don't work out we can re-close the page as Tom suggests, but I'd suggest that we try to keep them active for six months or so. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow in getting back, they've been demolishing parts of my house for the last three weeks in an ongoing effort to fix major roof/ceiling/plumbing issues, and as a result I'm out of the house more than in it these days. Anyway, on the matter of talk page reactivation, my suggestion was intended to be a safeguard against playing favorites, as such I realized even before I penned it that if done in the manner suggested about...oh two thirds or so of the reactivated talk pages would be deactivated again once the active ones were selected. As far as selective reactivation, that works too, provided it is what the community feels is best and doesn't reflect poorly on us for not adopting an all or nothing position on the matter. In the long run, if that reborn task forces work out, then we may consider expanding the talk page reactivation as needed, otherwise we can leave it as is with the selected unfrozen. Either way, it'll be a sign of good faith on our part, so we can't lose. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can be (justifiably) criticised for taking our lead from the working groups. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Election results

The coordinator election has now concluded, with the following candidates meeting the 20-vote threshold: AustralianRupert (44), Hawkeye7 (41), Nick-D (38), Anotherclown (35), Ian Rose (34), Dank (32), HJ Mitchell (30), The ed17 (30), Ed! (28), Cdtew (26), Peacemaker67 (26), TomStar81 (23), Cliftonian (22), and Tomobe03 (20).

Does anyone see any issues with these results? I assume that Rupert will be taking on the lead coordinator role this time around (unless he has any objections?). Kirill [talk] 00:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, and those are the correct numbers of votes for each candidate. Congratulations to everyone - I think that this was the strongest field we've ever had, and I'm pleased to see several new faces in the Coordinator team :) Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm proud to have been elected to join such esteemed company, and hope I don't disappoint. Well done everybody! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Good luck to all and happy coordinating. Enjoy MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
G'day, thanks to all that took part. I will start handing out the co-ord stars to those that gained the required support. I'm happy to take on the lead co-ord role (although I'd hope to avoid it this time!), but I'd like to reiterate that my opinion is that my role in that position is more to support all the other co-ords, not the other way round. As I said last year, if any new co-ords have questions about how to do things, please – I mean this sincerely – please ask. I am more than happy to talk through processes etc, as I am sure the other returning co-ords are. Also, if you have ideas about adjustments to processes etc. please feel free to put those forward. Everyone's opinion, whether new co-ord or returning, or even you are not a co-ord, is equally valid and worth considering. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations to all, especially to the new coordinators! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've handed out the stars. Would someone mind awarding mine? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
There we go. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the stars, guys, but I can hardly see them - or anything else - at the moment, as it appears I've got pink eye. All the same, I hope to be back in the saddle soon-ish. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Congrats to all the new co-ords and the electorate! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
As has been said, it was a very strong field this year and great to see a significant proportion of newbies stepping up and getting the nod. Aside from the fact that one potential first-timer missed out, I suppose the main regret is that diversity-wise our field makes Tony Abbott's controversial cabinet look quite good by comparison -- perhaps we can try to remedy this over the coming year... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
So true. Tony's cabinet has one woman in it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing the "History of the coordinator system" section

The table we keep in the "History of the coordinator system" is starting to get long. Would there be any objections to collapsing the table and keeping just the current tranche visible? It would save space and probably make it easier for visitors to the page to determine who among us are currently serving as coordinators. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no particular objections to collapsing the table, although I wonder if it's really necessary, since anyone looking for the current coordinators would presumably consult the list at the top of the page anyways. Kirill [talk] 08:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Kirill. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, not a big deal, but my feeling was more that a reader might tend to keep scrolling down to see if there was any more beyond the table and if it's collapsed you save 'em the trouble... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd also support collapsing the table. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Its true that this isn't particularly necessary, but I think it helps to keep the page tidy such as it were. Granted the list is small, but other table pages are pretty long, and since this system's been in place for some time and doesn't appear to be going anywhere it'll only be a matter of time before the table grows to ridiculous lengths, hence the suggestion now for the sake of aesthetics. This is by no means a crucial task, just one I think will help keep things neat. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary, but it is a pretty minor thing, I won't object if the consensus is to collapse it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

September contest results

Ian Rose - 61 (from 7 articles), Peacemaker67 - 51 (from 8), Parsecboy - 42 (from 6), Zawed - 30 (from 5), Cuprum17 - 24 (from 4), Tomobe03 - 23 (from 5), Cdtew and Djmaschek - 6 (from 1), and RoslynSKP - 5 (from 1). The scoreboard hasn't been updated for nearly six months, perhaps we could rotate that job amongst us? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will work on updating it now. It might take a bit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm putting my hand up - volunteering to update the scoreboard - if that's alright with others.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll do one update for each month between April and now, just for the sake of archived monthly totals in editing history.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Good man! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
May and June updates are in, and I expect to post the remaining three by the end of the day.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
We have been pretty slack about the ongoing scores (there was a suggestion a while back that perhaps we didn't need them, though I think the consensus was in fact to retain) and updating them is just the task for an incoming coord -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
All done. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Would any of the two following charts be of interest to the project as addition below the summary table? I'm not sure if those are of any use except as a form of progress bars, but the data is readily available upon individual updates of the overall table - so I thought to ask.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Points awarded
100
200
300
400
500
600
04/13
05/13
06/13
07/13
08/13
09/13
Articles improved
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
04/13
05/13
06/13
07/13
08/13
09/13

G'day, Tom, thanks greatly for updating the contest. I had plans to do it in one edit; but your way makes more sense. Cheers. Regarding the tables, not sure to be honest. I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but my concern is that they would create another thing to be updated manually. But, I'm more than happy to discuss the idea and see what everyone else thinks. What would you see as the main utility of the tables? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not bent on having any of those included. I just thought to offer those since the data required for a manual update - a single number to be added in the group1= parameter was readily available to me because I prepared updates copying the wiki tables into an offline spreadsheet automatically generating totals by month. As far as utility is concerned, I'm afraid there is little in that respect besides an activity level indicator.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm on the same page as whoever raised the raison d'être for the big table in the past. I am not clear on what it tells us or why we keep the information in that way. Maybe we should have an January-December running tally of points and articles each year instead? With awards for the highest points and highest average at the end of the year. Such a system would reward the regular contributors to the contest but also allow for some catch-up if you had RW commitments in a couple of months and were off your game for a bit. Thoughts?
G'day, yes that was what I was thinking when I proposed it ;-) We did have a discussion about it at the time, though, and I think consensus was against it. Happy to discuss again, if others want to, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think some were still in favour of the overall totals but I have no problem with the idea of a yearly running total and prizes for at least first and second (like the monthly contest) at the end of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Awards - Monthly MH article writing contest

G'day all, Largely because I was institutionalised into the idea that awards should be handed out in a timely manner, I propose we hand out the contest awards as soon as they have been worked out (ie first couple of days of the new month. I still think that we should advertise the results in the Bugle, where everyone that had a crack gets a mention, but the two awards should actually be handed out not when the Bugle comes out, but straight away. Same as ACMs. Thoughts?

Any time suits me -- it's been convenient for me to award them out when I'm preparing the associated blurb for The Bugle that month but any coord can hand them out sooner. While we're at it, for completeness, before someone awards the first-placegetter for this month they might be able to dish out the Writers Barnstar to me for second place in the June contest, which I'm still patiently awaiting... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No prob. Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This sounds sensible. At the risk of sounding preachy, I think that we should be seeking to process all the various awards more quickly as there have been some lengthy delays in recent months (which I, as a lead coordinator of the previous coordination team, am of course partially responsible for). Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree Nick (not with your self-criticism, but with the idea of timeliness being important). The change to ACM procedure was a wise move that went through under your watch, so no-one could accuse you guys of being asleep at the wheel on this issue (or anything else) in my view, and that change will help ACM awards to be more timely once we all get to used to it. Are there other awards we should be looking at in terms of timeliness? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
There was also a lengthy delay with processing a nomination for the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves (the project's highest award). Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Not familiar with the process for nomination and award for that. Is there a process or is it organic? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there's a process - please see the entry at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards. It would be nice to hand out some more of these awards :) Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
No point in having it unless it gets awarded! There must be some deserving souls out there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow

I'd like to experiment with asking for a conversation about WT:Flow here rather than directing everyone to that talk page. (I've left a pointer at WT:MIL#Flow.) The developer team isn't getting as much detailed feedback as they'd like; the conversations tend to go in other directions, so it's possible that inviting discussion within individual wikiprojects will get us where we need to go faster. When Wikipedia got started, Google was just getting off the ground, and people who knew what the internet was were likely to dial in with a modem. At that time, free-form talk pages made perfect sense, but these days, research suggests that our talk pages aren't meeting current expectations of new users.

Some new college campuses are built without sidewalks, so that the designers can see where the students are wearing ruts in the grass before the sidewalks go in. By the same theory, I think our free-form style (up till now) has given us a lot of very detailed experience suggesting what features Wikipedia talk pages do and don't need. The developers need to know what we know. It will be easier to answer some questions when they get a working prototype up that we can play with (currently planned for early November), but anything we can tell them now would be appreciated. You can get some basic information at WP:Flow and on Brandon's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If we don't get much feedback in wikiproject settings, then I'm going to suggest we start a series of RfCs over on the Flow pages. That's likely to be messy ... it would be nice to get the work done in the calmer waters of individual wikiprojects, but one way or another, the work needs to get done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm fully in support of getting comments from Milhist users—it seems like an excellent way for Wikipedia users to give constructive feedback in a thankfully stress-free environment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I spent some time at Wikimania talking with Brandon about Flow (and specifically about how Flow might be useful in a WikiProject setting); one of the things he had mentioned was that selected WikiProjects were a potential area for beta testing Flow before it's generally released, so I'm hopeful that we'll have a chance to actually play around with using it within MilHist before it's rolled out.
To address the more general topic, Flow really consists of two somewhat distinct things:
  1. A new system for holding conversations on talk pages (which is what the current mock-ups and prototypes focus on)
  2. A system for semi-automated workflow management (e.g. nominating articles for reviews, etc.)
The second part is probably more directly applicable to WikiProjects, but I think it may be some time before the development team gets to designing it. In terms of the first part, the current mock-ups are definitely an improvement over what we have at the moment, and I'm not sure whether there's anything specific that we would need that isn't already included in the development plan. Kirill [talk] 21:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Pinging coordinators to this discussion. Can/should Milhist play a role in prototyping WMF initiatives? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd really like to see this and would entirely support the project's volunteering as a guinea-pig The first iterations of Flow will be a very basic structured discussion system, with all the cool stuff like workflows coming later, but even that structured discussion is likely to be a net benefit to our work. (I was at the same sessions as Kirill, and like him, I'm pretty confident it will be a generally positive thing).
From a WP-wide community standpoint, there's an awful lot of FUD/misinterpretations floating around about what it will/won't be, and I think being able to see it in action somewhere will help a lot.
Technically speaking, a project like this is a pretty good place for it - we have a more-or-less single centralised talkpage for a large and active community, which means a reasonable number of fairly competent users without requiring monitoring very many pages, but (unlike the VP) not an overwhelming number or a disproportionate amount of new users. We don't do very many weirdly technical things with ongoing discussions, and it's also a fairly low-drama environment, which helps when testing new things! And, you never know, the attention might even bring MILHIST some new people... Andrew Gray (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm gun shy about going with anything new only because it inevitably takes me awhile to get reoriented to both the new layout and the process steps required to do what I used to be able to do without much thought. That said, I'm not going to oppose the implementation of the new system here for my own personal reasons (though I note that increasingly it seems to me that the new stuff we role out on the site keeps people away - I think it to be a combination of increased automation and a perception that you now have to know all this extra stuff to participate, but again, this is just my opinion) so if the consensus is to try it out then lets go for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
My wife calls me a Luddite and I suppose she's probably right. I was technologically knowledgeable up until I was in my early twenties but now after a decade as a soldier all I know is how to break things. That said, I like the idea of Milhist helping out the wider community and maybe doing something that will make us a project leader. I guess I'm not really up on what it would mean, but is it possible to summarise in a short paragraph what changes would be necessary? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I fall right into line with these guys. While typically discomfited by new things, I have to remember that at one point I was discomfited by the current talk-page style as well. Since this Wikiproject is a bastion of activity, this participation could increase not only the whole encyclopedia's viability, but further swell our own ranks. Cdtew (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I support WT:MILHIST trialing this, but is it possible to set it up to run in parallel to the existing infrastructure during the trial period? WT:MILHIST would be a good providing ground given that it's a busy and content-focused discussion page populated mainly by experienced editors, but we don't want to be burnt if lots of development ends up being needed for the software. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
While the prospect of increased editor participation/activity seems enticing and I would certainly welcome it, I could not really determine what would be required from the existing users. In that respect I'd also like to see a short paragraph what changes would be necessary as AustralianRupert put it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I also wouldn't be opposed to being a guinea pig project, but it would be nice to know a little more precisely what we're signing up for. —Ed!(talk) 13:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it from reading the linked discussions, the idea is that we (and others, no doubt) first go to a page (somewhere else) that has Flow set up in beta, and play with it and make suggestions for tweaks etc. The next step is then to implement a further developed version on the MILHIST talk page so we can use it on a daily basis in a real WP environment. If that is what is being suggested, I'm all for it. When I joined WP, I thought it was a non-user friendly talk system, and Flow looks to be trying to address that. Let's do it! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be especially interested in how it translates user debates and disagreements. I liked the idea of the article feedback, but much of what I saw was that it devlolved into a forum. Would hate to see talk pages go that way. —Ed!(talk) 17:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, correct :) We're building a prototype/proof-of-concept over at the Flow testwiki. We've made some good progress on a new visual design and the set of features we think are required for a first release to Wikipedia; I'd say we're about 80% of the way there. Once all that functionality is ready and relatively bug-free, we'll invite any interested users to come check it out and assess whether it's ready to be deployed on a WikiProject discussion page (like this one). If so, we'd like to enable it for a trial period on the WikiProjects that want to test it, work out any kinks, and, together with the community members using it, come up with a suite of new features/functionality to add next, as well as a wider release plan. And if anything goes haywire, we can convert Flow discussions back into regular old talk page syntax. So, it's relatively low-risk for you, with the huge benefit that you'll have an active role in shaping Flow into the discussion and collaboration system you need. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

When I started the thread, I was concerned that the Flow discussions might go the same way as the VisualEditor discussions ... that is, it would turn out that there was disagreement within the community and with the Foundation, and we wouldn't find out about that until a lot of money and time had already gone into development. But things have moved along nicely both here and over at Brandon's talk page, and Mabeenot will be helping us out in this week's Signpost. I'd prefer to be one of the closers for whatever relevant RfCs come up ... we usually have a shortage of closers for "big" RfCs ... but to do that, I'd have to say as little as possible beforehand. Other people are pushing the discussion forward now, so I'm going to stop pushing (and get to work on the VE mess). There's not a lot of mystery here: user interfaces of all kinds are often designed by giving the users a "blank" interface to play with for a while, and that's what we've had for the last 12.5 years on Wikipedia, do-it-yourself talk pages, so the community and the devs now have a very rich data set to work from. The main thing is that any strong preferences the community has have to be expressed before the Foundation sinks a ton of money into designing things a different way ... that's not our usual style, usually we sit back and wait until there's some kind of conflict and deal with it then. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Since we have a lot of dedicated and knowledgeable people here (and we are a relatively high-end project), I see no reason why we cannot play a part in development here. If it doesn't work there's no reason we can't go back to the old system. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I wish I had gone to the session with Kirill and Andrew. I have no idea what it looks like. But I'm willing to give Auntie Flow a go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jul to Sep 13 review tallies

Username PR Jul–Sep 13 GAN Jul–Sep 13 ACR Jul–Sep 13 FAC Jul–Sep 13 Total Jul–Sep 13 Awarded
Dank 6 3 38 27 72 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 3 7 33 6 49 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 0 15 6 6 27 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D 1 2 12 8 23 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Anotherclown 0 10 23 1 34 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Sp33dyphil 0 0 2 2 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Kirk 0 0 6 6 12 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 0 6 3 2 11 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Zawed 0 6 5 0 11 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 0 1 1 3 5 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Ian Rose 0 6 9 9 24 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thewellman 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Errant 0 2 1 0 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hchc2009 2 2 4 7 15 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Grandiose 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Georgejdorner 0 0 2 0 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Parsecboy 0 2 1 0 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Cdtew 0 0 3 0 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Ed 0 0 3 2 5 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 0 0 2 0 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Piotrus 0 0 2 1 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Chris Troutman 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrolord 0 4 2 2 8 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Tomobe03 0 11 1 1 13 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hamish59 0 0 2 0 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Abraham, B. S. 0 0 1 3 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 1 0 1 38 40 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Inkbug 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day all, I've started to tally the Jul to Sep 13 review contributions. It isn't an exact science, I'm afraid, or at least not the way I've been doing it, so apologies if I missed one or two. Is someone in a position to do the PR and/or FAC tallies? Additionally, did we end up coming up with a method for easily tallying GANs? AustralianRupert (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

FACs done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki. I don't think we've cracked the deal with GANs yet, but from memory Hawkeye thought he might be able to write a bot or script to do it. Hawkeye? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, Nikki. I've added PRs now too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
One way to do the GANs would be to use deduct the 31 August totals from the 30 September totals at User:GA bot/Stats. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, yes, that might be a way, although I couldn't see any way to differentiate between project-related reviews and any others. Is there some way this could be done? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Bugger. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There were 147 MILHIST articles that were listed as GA in the review period, I'm going to start going through them to work out who did each review. I may be some time.... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Turns out not quite so many, thanks to a glitch. Added the GANs and tallied. Only query I have is, there were quite a few editors that did GAN reviews for MILHIST articles that aren't listed already. I recall someone saying they had to have done at least one ACR. Is that how we roll? For example User:QatarStarsLeague did 12 GA reviews, which isn't a bad contribution to MILHIST. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, thanks for tallying those. Yes in the past we have limited the awards to editors who took part in at least one ACR. Happy to discuss this further if others feel this should change. Question: when you did your GAN search, did it only include articles that were successfully promoted in the period, or all articles that had a GA review regardless of whether successful? I had a play around with the tool you linked to and could only seem to find those that had passed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Only those that passed, I couldn't work out a way of getting the failed ones. Any ideas? I have asked Legobot if there is any way it could do this automatically for us. It is a pain in the proverbial as it stands. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Re. query, I agree a dozen MilHist GANs is a very useful contribution, whether or not we apply the ACR rule you mention above I guess depends on whether we're all agreed that ACRs are what we particularly want to encourage/reward, and hence that listing here hinges on having reviewed at least one. Given that ACRs have so long been a part of these awards and GANs are just starting to be counted, I'm not opposed to the concept of one ACR at minimum to qualify, but I don't really have a strong feeling about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we go ahead issuing awards using the (albeit imperfect) successful review GAN figures we have, and tweak it as we go (especially if we can get a script or bot to do the numbers for us). On the issue of qualification to receive an award, while I agree getting members to do ACRs is important, GAN reviews are where we probably have the most interface with non-MILHIST editors, and therefore it is potentially the main way we could identify and recruit future MILHISTers. If we were to award something to anyone that did say three or more MILHIST GANs (one per month, indicating enough interest in MILHIST subjects that they might consider joining), we could follow-up the award with an invitation to join the project. Of course, this may all have been done before. I'm just thinking about ways to generate better cross-pollination with non-MILHISters and attract potential recruits. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

On a procedural note: if it's decided that ACR participation is not needed for reviewer awards, the FAC numbers (and possibly the PR also) will need to be redone, as they were based on the list of people with reviews at ACR only. Might I suggest that the matter be decided definitively one way or the other now, that it might be applied to the next quarter, but that for this quarter we stick with the one-ACR rule? Unless someone's volunteering to recheck everything...Nikkimaria (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, I support Nikki's approach here as it would be an imposition to go back and retally. Regarding PM's suggestion, yes I could support that, although I think we need to be careful not to create a too complex system. Perhaps we could just set the qualification for an award at a minimum of three reviews of any kind (PR, GAN, ACR or FAC)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I certainly don't want anyone to have to re-do the tallying, and agree with Nikki that we need to set the goalposts in place now for the Oct-Dec reviews. I think that AR's suggestion of a minimum of three reviews would achieve the objective. Shall I put it up as a proposal and ping the coords to vote on it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
And in the meantime, we can hand out the gongs unless someone has an objection? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, agree to both (the proposal/vote and starting handing out the awards). As before, the templates can be found here. Based on the change we made last quarter, we are now awarding based on the following schedule: "chevrons...15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3" (obviously for next time, this might change based on the above proposal). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll get started on the awards, I'll start the proposal in a fresh section. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Done now, thanks for this. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Another backlog drive?

Any chance we could orgainize another backlog reduction drive like the one back in June 2013? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to help out with this. I've already set up a "trial" page for the drive here similar to the June drive page. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I would support two drives per year (maybe in the uni holidays, if that works internationally), but I think we should consider mixing it up a bit by focussing on a task force (or something similar). For example, during the general backlog drive in June 2013, as part of my contribution I cleared the Balkans TF backlog. Maybe we could hit WWI or WWII? Perhaps even something like attacking the "articles needing images" backlog or the grammar backlog could be considered? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want to run two drives a year then what we could do is institute a rolling backlog driving to cycle through the "Articles need work on (X)" categories so that once a year one of the four or five figure categories receives the bulk of our backlog attention, while leaving the other when "at large" so as to allow the coordinators or the community to weigh in on what the other area for work on would be. The catch though is that we need to time this so that we can catch the greatest amount of editors for both attempts. Summer and Winter seem to be the worst times for any type of drive, so I'd look for something in the Spring and Fall, but when exactly in that frame would need to be hammered out, as would the length of the drive and the time we would need to build and adverstise the drive. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, all good points. I particularly like the idea of having one of the two as a "cycle" drive, and the other for selection by the coords. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, all, yes, I think we should look into this as the last drive was quite successful, IMO. Regarding timing/scheduling, Tom when you say "Spring and Fall", I assume you mean March, April and May for Spring and September, October and November for Autumn? In the southern hemisphere these terms relate to different months and are in fact reversed for us. I'd probably suggest timing it so that it doesn't conflict with university/college exam times or major holidays when editors are likely to be busy in real life, but I agree it needs more concrete thought. Regarding format, I could support a "cycle" drive followed by another focused on something else, although I'd suggest that it might make sense for the co-ords to suggest a couple of areas that could be focused on, and then put it to the wider project to determine the focus. That way we would not only cover off on advertising the second drive, but would also possibly increase the number of people interested in it due to it being consensus based. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Could we get some specifics together about uni breaks? In Australia (I'm using Monash uni as an example), uni starts in the first week in March, has a break at Easter (which moves all over the place, next year it's 18-25 April), 1st semester exams finish around the last week in June and uni goes back around the last week in July, another semester break fits in late September-early October, and 2nd semester exams finish in the third week in November. I've left out the supp exams periods. So, (I'm guessing here because it is a LONG time since I went to uni...) months where maximum Australian hands to the pumps might be available in 2014 are probably February, July and December, with the semester break periods of April and September as possibles. I looked at the Stanford calendar for some guidance on US semesters, but the terminology is a bit unfamiliar. It appears that US semesters might run early January to mid March, end of March to early June, third week in June to mid August, and third week in September to mid December? Brit semesters seem to be similar to US ones to my eye. One solution to this apparent impasse would be to have one drive each year that is tailored to the northern semester breaks, and one tailored to the southern semester breaks? Say a southern drive in February (before uni goes back in Aust), and a northern drive in September? Or something like that? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, this seems like a good idea. September might be slightly problematic with the co-ord election, but maybe it isn't really an issue anyway... Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a September drive and the coord election being too disruptive. Is there enough here to float a proposal for February and September drives? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Generally I'd prefer to leave September alone owing to the election but if it's the clearest month otherwise (August and October apparently being more of a problem) then I guess it's the best best. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here in the states the best times for a drive would probably be in February and September/October. March usually includes a good 7-10 days for Spring Break/Easter Break, while April is a poor choice since most collage students and certain high school students are coming up on finals and thus re-budget their time to study for said exams. September is problematic for us vis-a-vis coordinator elections, however the school year usually is new enough that teachers haven't assigned anything major yet and students usually only have a labor day break, which is short but not enough so to allow students to leave town. October could work, but the collage students usually have to start thinking about midterms in October, and November is iffy becuase most collage students typically start studying for the coming finals which tend to occur the first 10 or so days in December. Taking this into account, stateside we would probably do the best with a time frame from early February to maybe mid March (about 6 weeks) in the Spring (well, Fall in the southern hemisphere) and early September to early to mid October for a fall drive (again about 6 weeks) for a fall drive (or Spring drive for those in the southern hemisphere). We could start early or run longer as needed, but a 6 week time frame for a given drive sounds decent. If there is enough participation and a large enough drive we could extend that as needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems February/March and September/October might work for editors on both sides of the world. Are there any further thoughts on this, or should we start planning the Feb/Mar drive? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we could just crack on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so Wild Wolf has started a draft for the drive here: User:Wild Wolf/backlog drive proposal. Are we happy with running the drive in this format, or are there any changes people would like to see? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer a slightly more targeted operation, such as the WWI taskforce and another one or two areas like articles needing photographs and those needing attention to grammar? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
G'day, okay that sounds like an interesting idea and it given that 2014 will be the 100 year anniversary of the start of World War I, it would be a good way for the project to focus on that event. I'm just thinking out loud now about how we could go about achieving this, so please feel free to jump in with ideas...If we are going to go down this path, perhaps the way we could do it is to replace the categories currently listed here with those that are listed at here. For instance, instead of working from Category:Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation (currently 52,413 articles) we could work from Category:World War I articles needing attention to referencing and citation (currently 5,649 articles) etc. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That's the line I was thinking on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd spt this idea. Anotherclown (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me as well. If this is successful an extension could be to conduct these drives at six-monthly intervals, alternating between "targeted" drives and a general drive. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been using my OH sources to add citations to quite a few Great War pages, when I'm not in the mood to go into detail so if anyone has a page they particularly want scrutinised for sources and citations please let me know, it'll give me another excuse to leave Delville Wood on the shelf....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh and if anyone wants a Western Front map, I've gleaned a few from ex-copyright books here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Keith-264 but haven't categorised them that well.Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a go at reworking the draft page for the backlog to focus specifically on World War I. The page can be found here. A couple of changes from last time are: the points schedule has been changed, I have included the stub category which was previously excluded and the duplicate photograph/supporting materials issue has been rectified. Please feel free to offer any suggestions/criticisms, etc. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi I have just found this list Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History. This is a currently incomplete list of 10,000 subjects for which Wikipedia should ultimately have high-quality articles. It expands on Wikipedia:Vital articles, which lists 1000 articles. Several of the articles fall within WPMILHIST. Some surprising articles are listed as needing work Attack on Pearl Harbor C Class, Pacific War C Class, Battle of Britain B Class, Gulf War C Class, American Revolutionary War B Class for example. And following on from the above discussion, there are also several in WWI. It might be worth including/giving special attention to those in a drive. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Jim, good idea. I've added a little bit about this to the drive now: [1] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Awards owed to Military History members

At some point we as a governing body (such as we exist as a governing body) should really to take a close look at Wikipedia: Other Awards as they relate to our project's members and make sure that everyone in the project entitled to one of the awards listed there has either received the award(s) in question or receives the awards in question from the the project for working on articles within our scope. Last time around it came as a surprise to a number of people that those who were entitled to an award off this list or from other projects as a result of work in the task forces had not yet received them (I remember a great many people, for example, were surprised I hadn't earned a ship barnstar at the time despite all the work done with battleships). A check of the records will be tedious, but it may help reinvigorate the project somewhat if they see that we are attempting to make good on back-earned content and project awards. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Tom, good idea. Perhaps the way to go might be for each co-ordinator to think of a few editors (maybe five or ten?) that they feel should be nominated for one of those. We could then collate a list to ensure that we don't double up, and then start awarding them like the reviewing awards. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I think a better idea at the moment would be to wait and see how many coordinators as down for this, then proceed in one of two ways: either everyone picks an award on the WP:OA and checks the entire membership list for those eligible to receive it, or we take the number of coordinators and divide them by the number of letters in the alphabet, then have each coordinator assigned a letter set for membership names and check those names against the awards listed at WP:OA. Remember though that at the moment all of this is simply brainstorming, since we haven't heard back from a majority of the group (not yet, anyway). TomStar81 (Talk) 00:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the ice of dividing it up by award, one per coord. Now that my work seems to be getting back to normal, I'd like to pitch in. Cdtew (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Cdtew. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but how are we defining "eligible to receive it" here? It's reasonably straightforward for some of the awards (e.g. the FA/FL/DYK/GA medals), but some of the other awards listed on that page seem rather vague and/or subjective in terms of what qualifies someone to receive them. Perhaps we should put together a list of specific awards that we'd like to give out and verify that we can effectively determine whether a member should receive them without necessarily having to comb through their entire contribution history in detail? Kirill [talk] 01:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Some of those are obvious as you noted, but we do not need to hand out each and every award on the page. As we go through the membership list to match we can move to address matters of eligibility for project members as they related to awards listed over at the page. For example, bot builder, cvu, admin, outlaw halo, and valued picture awards are largely unneeded and/or unrewarded for our group since these are largely outside the focus of the milihist as a whole, but awards for FA, FL, GA, ITN, DYK, etc based on material that falls within our scope should really be looked at. In a handful of cases, such as those pertaining to reviewing, we can consider the merits of awarding something from that page or forgoing an award if the editor in question would be better suited to receive something like an A-class medal or a Wikichevrons. Above all else, note that right now this is very much so a post intended to feel out the support for matching members and other awards, so if there isn't enough interest we do not have to consider doing anything here. If enough of us decide that this is a good idea we can sit down and hammer out the details and the battle plan in full, but I prefer not get ahead of myself on such matters if I can help it so as to take things on step at a time. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for changing qualifying criteria for the quarterly MILHIST reviewing awards

G'day all, A few sections above there was some discussion about changing the qualifying criteria for the quarterly MILHIST reviewing awards. This came out of thinking about ways to generate better cross-pollination with non-MILHISters and attract potential recruits, so I thought it was worth putting up a formal proposal.

In the recent past, points have been awarded for the total of FAC, PR and ACR reviews done by each editor that completes at least one MILHIST ACR. After some discussion over the last few months, we are now counting MILHIST GAN reviews as well (this is still being refined, and for July-September, we were only able to identify and include reviews that resulted in passing, not failing reviews). On the issue of qualification to receive an award, while I agree getting members to do ACRs is important, GAN reviews are where we probably have the most interface with non-MILHIST editors, and therefore it is potentially a significant way to identify and recruit future MILHISTers. If we were to change the qualifying criteria for receiving a reviewing award to having completed a minimum of three reviews of any kind (PR, GAN, ACR or FAC), this would make it much more likely that nonMILHISTers (particularly those that review at GAN) would receive an award. For example, one nonMILHISTer did 12 MILHIST GAN reviews in the last quarter, but because they did not do an ACR, they aren't eligible to receive any award. I think 12 GAN reviews is a significant contribution to our WikiProject, and deserves recognition and encouragement. Where an editor is a nonMILHISTer and receives an award, we could we could follow-up the award with an invitation to join the project. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I would like to gauge the support (or lack thereof) and your views on this proposal. Please note your views below.

Supports

  1. Sounds very reasonable and constructive to me. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes, I agree with this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Agree - this seems like a good way to attract new contributors to the project.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Seems reasonable to me, assuming that (as Nick mentions below) we can come up with a mechanism for identifying the reviewers involved in both successful and unsuccessful reviews. Kirill [talk] 11:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposes

  1. I'm not comfortable with only rewarding GA nominations which end with the article being promoted. A common concern with the GA process is that articles which don't meet the criteria often end up passing reviews. There's also a long running problem with low-competence editors turning up and mass reviewing articles, generally passing them all. As such, editors who fail GA nominations can't be overlooked (even for technical reasons) if we were handing out reviewing awards, and to do so would leave us exposed to criticism over biasing the GA process. I'm all for thanking the regular reviewers we can identify given the current technical limitations, but including them in the regularly reviewing awards doesn't seem a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    Hi Nick, the intention was always to pursue the development of a bot or script that can identify all MILHIST GAN reviews (positive and negative), not to rest on our laurels with what we were able to get out of the existing tools. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    If that could be done I'd support this. In the interim, I'd suggest awarding the regular reviewers we can identify with the WikiChevrons as a token of appreciation for their efforts (all other things being equal, these people will also be failing articles as well as passing them). Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, this seems a sensible caveat, we most certainly want to include all reviews if we are going down this path. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. I'm not against it, but it shouldn't be the first step; we need to solicit opinions from WT:FAC and WT:GAN, at least, and get their assent. Various people at various times have been strongly against a culture of giving rewards for reviewing articles. It's never caused a problem that I know of within Milhist, but now we're going to be intentionally reaching outside our project. I don't expect a hostile reaction, but it would be polite to ask first, and to attempt to deal with whatever concerns reviewers have. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    Hi Dan, haven't we been doing that by counting FAC and PR for some considerable time? In what respect do you see GAN as different, or are you saying we should have consulted in the first place? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    Everyone so far who has reviewed at A-class has been a member of Milhist, so even if they've also reviewed at FAC, we were giving awards to members of our own project, and AFAIK no one has ever had a problem with that. Now we're considering giving awards to people who don't consider themselves part of our project, and my position is that it would be polite to ask reviewers in general if they have concerns before we do that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, I get what you are saying, and I have no issue at all with consultation, but I suspect handing out gongs to non-MILHIST people has been going on for some time. For example, ErrantX isn't a MILHIST member, and after doing an ACR last quarter, has just received an award. I haven't been through the archives, but a quick look at a random selection - April to June last year indicates my suspicions are dead on (Ealdgyth and TheLongTone aren't members either). I'd be very surprised if it hasn't been going on for yonks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Other views

  • To avoid the problems mentioned above, it might behoove us to have some level of scrutiny about the quality of the reviews. Such as how the WikiCup and WP:WGA generally require reviews be at least 1KB long in order to "count" in their competitions. Also, maybe we consider giving out a lower award for just GA reviews, such as the Good Article Barnstar which is given out pretty commonly between GA reviewers. —Ed!(talk) 17:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    • G'day, Ed, regarding quality control...this is an interesting point and probably needs further consideration. Would you wish to see this applied to all reviews, e.g. ACR, PR and FAC as well as GAN? I guess, cards on the table, I'd be a bit concerned by this caveat as I think we should try to keep the reviewing awards process as simple as possible. Currently the process of tallying and awarding is pretty time consuming as it is, expanding it will make it more so; if we start adding subjective judgements as well, it gets even harder, I think. I'm not wanting to shoot down your idea, but I think we need to consider it from a couple of angles. Thoughts? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • In truth it's not strictly enforced in either instance, instead it's more of a safeguard against rubber stamping. As long as its apparent the person put some effort into reviewing, it's not as important if they wrote 900 bytes worth of comments. —Ed!(talk) 01:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • While I still support the idea per above, it is just possible that we're trying to reinvent the wheel. There already is The Content Review Medal of Merit designed for exactly the same purpose - as an award to FA/FL/GA/PR reviewers (all except ACR, which is quite well addressed by MILHIST itself). Maybe that's the way to go?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As I said earlier, I don't have a strong view either way on this (that might change, who knows) so for now I'll restrict myself to a few observations. First off, I've always had a healthy respect for the GA process, even though I came to it after I discovered ACR. I was one of the people who help introduce points for successful GAN (and FAC) reviews to the monthly article-writing contest years ago, which had previously just awarded points for Start/B/A-Class. We certainly don't restrict entry in the monthly contest to people who have raised at least one article to A-Class (or Start/C/B, the other project-focussed assessment levels). OTOH, I think we should do everything we can to encourage participation in ACR, but whether that means we should exclude people from these awards because they only did GA reviews is another matter. It would be great if non-MilHist editors who reviewed some of 'our' articles at GA were encouraged to join us by such awards, as Peacemaker suggests. In my experience, however, very few MilHist GANs seem to be reviewed by non-MilHist people. I wish it were otherwise, because it'd be great to get more outside scrutiny of our articles, even at the risk of them missing out on an SME review; they can get that if they progress to ACR, which kind of brings us full circle. Tomobe03's suggestion of recognition for MilHist GA reviewers using a general non-MilHist award makes sense, although we've already co-opted CRM into this series, so it might have to be something else. Anyway, just my thoughts -- take with the proverbial grain of salt... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ian, there were 17 nonMILHISTers that reviewed MILHIST GANs in Jul-Sep. They included one that did 12, one that did four, and another 15 editors that did one or two reviews. On the whole, 36 MILHIST GAN reviews were done by nonMILHISTers, or 12 a month. On that basis, under this proposal there would have been two additional editors receiving an award (one CRM and one stripe). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have submitted a bot request, so we'll see how that goes in addressing the issue of negative GA reviews and automating the tallying process. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ancient ACR nom

G'day all, I've been using Article alerts to check on promotions etc to maintain the Announcements page, and I came across this old one - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent. Appears to have not been looked at? I was thinking it might be best to administratively close it as no consensus and then let the nominator (who is apparently still editing) that they can renominate it. Thoughts?

@Peacemaker67: Yikes, I would be happy to review it once it's renominated/if the nomination is reinstated. How did this one manage to stay hidden for so long? Cdtew (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
No idea. I am pretty sure it wasn't on the Announcements page when I started helping out there. I might ping the nominator and ask if they want us to refresh the nomination now or if they'll bring it back later? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the nominator didn't list this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review, so it was unfortunately not noticed by the coordinators or anyone else. From skimming the article it looks like it may have A-class potential if the nominator wants to check over it and renominate. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The nominator appears to still be active, although they've only made four edits in 2013. In this regard, it might be easiest to just ask them if they are still interested in the review. If they are, the current review page could just be transcluded on the A-class review page, with a short explanatory note from a co-ord stating that the review has been re-started. If the nominator isn't interested in pursuing the review anymore, perhaps the review page could just be deleted and the article's talk page adjusted (e.g removal of "A-class=current") rather than recording it as a "fail"? Obviously, that would require admin intervention... Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there life beyond the ACM with Diamonds?

G'day all, this idea is a bit tongue in cheek, but also serious. No doubt this has not been an issue in the past, but given we now have two very productive project members with at least one ACM with Diamonds to their credit (and others pursuing them), should we be thinking about placing a cap on the Diamonds (at say 29 groups) and have something further to work towards? The A-Class Cross? The Grand Cross of the A-Class Medal? The A-Class Medal of Honour/Honor? The Merit Cross of the A-Class Medal? Is this worth thinking about? Have I gone completely boonta? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, you might be crazy thinking I'll progress to the next stage anytime soon but not, I suspect, Hawkeye -- in which case perhaps we should call it the A-Class Medal with Plutonium... ;-) Seriously, I don't see why we shouldn't be thinking about this now, we thought of Diamonds long before they were awarded. I'd say A-Class Cross is the way to go if we want the next four stages 'ready made' as it were (ACC, ACC with Oak Leaves, ACC with Swords, ACC with Diamonds) -- or perhaps that way madness lies...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
And I thought I was taking the long view... But I like A-Class Cross (and the expansion potential). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of a cross as well, however I wold prefer to save that as the penultimate high score, such as it were. If you wanted to discuss life beyond the ACM with Diamonds I would suggest that we first consider the obvious answer: Chevrons. It's already a fundamental part of our project as a whole, and I do not think it would be too terribly hard to come up with a design that incorporates Chevrons into the exist ACM w/Diamonds. As an example of what I'm thinking, take a look at File:USMC-E9-SGMMC.svg - it's US centric, I realize, but the idea of the eagle globe and anchor inside the chevrons is what I'm driving at - we could add the chevrons to our existing ACM w/Diamond award and automatically get three extra tiers out of it, with the final and penultimate award being the A-Class Cross. If we do adopt this idea though I would suggest either forgoing a background and adding the Chevrons around the exist ACM w/Diamond award, or if you wanted to add a background, using black instead of red since I think the black would better complement the gold {as is the case with File:MCPON.png). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
We could just go with what Ian suggested, then have a Grand Cross as the piece de resistance? Haven't thought about design issues as yet. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I like Ian's idea as well. As far as using the Chevrons, I'm not sure that would be the best approach from a visual design perspective; currently, the ACM awards and the the Chevron awards have rather distinct visual appearances, and creating a version that combines elements from both would probably create confusion between the two award types. Kirill [talk] 11:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If I may butt it here, moving forward I would recommend something more neutral. I personally find the series X-Award with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds a bit too close for comfort in comparison to some of the awards bestowed by Nazi Germany and it could be offending??? I am not very creative here but an ACC 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, etc. is a bit more neutral. Just food for thought! MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, I've noticed that myself but I think oak leaves and similar embellishments appear in several nations' honours systems. If we're talking potentially unpleasant connotations, didn't Hitler himself receive the Iron Cross 1st Class and 2nd Class (albeit from Hohenzollern Germany)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right; I did not fully think this through to the end. How about a project internal variant of the series of Wikipedia:Service awards. A combination of X articles at A-class level plus Y months/service would limit the inflation of awards over time. Again I am only brainstorming here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, that's all we're doing. I still quite like the idea of ACC with those four gradings, for the symmetry with our ACM system, although thinking of the design I note that the ACM already utilises a Maltese Cross, so I'm kinda scratching my head as to how we come up with an even more 'cross-like' design for an ACC... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not against the cross design variant for the award. What I tried to add to the discussion is to link both quality content contribution and service time contribution to the eligibility for the award. The current award system requires 3 A-class articles to qualify to the next award. What I am suggesting is to mandate both, X articles of A-class quality plus Y months of service before the next higher level of the award gets handed out. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of different cross styles we could use as the basis for an ACC. The Australian honours and awards system uses several, as do the British and Canadian ones. In fact if you search for Cross of Valour you see various crosses. I'm not sure about MB66's suggestion re: time served between awards, as I think it might be considered unfair to hold one editor back from recognition despite having met the article production criteria aspect, given editors have widely varying work rates. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not fully convinced here. There is no cap on the number of ACMs one can receive. So in theory a contributing editor can keep collecting ACMs, one for every three A-class articles, this is kind of automatic. The ACM is therefore a progress indicator. This is not for me to decide but continuing this concept by introducing an ACC will only be just that, a progress indicator, even if the bar is raised to 5 articles per level (or any arbitrary number). Again, if the coordinators decide to introduce a new award class, my recommendation would be to honor a combination of quality articles contributed, time of service and even considering reviews conducted. This would give due credited to those editors who not only create high quality content but also have shared their experience by mentoring others by reviewing other peoples work. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of increasing the degree of difficulty to five for the next level. I have to say I reckon the time criteria is very subjective. If you use the self-awarded service awards (which are based on a combination of time and edits), I meet the time criteria for level 6 (6,000 edits and 1.5 years), but the edit criteria for level 10 (20,000 edits and 3.5 years). Pretty wide time disparity if you ask me (ie two years). If we want to go down this track, maybe we could have criteria that are either time or edits? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
How about implementing some exponential curve. It should become increasingly more difficult to achieve the next higher level of the award. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe incrementally, 4 for each the ACC, 5 for each ACC with Oak Leaves, 6 for Swords and 7 for Diamonds? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Incrementally was what I had in mind but the numbers are open to debate. ACM is awarded for 4 groups of three articles, ACM with Oak Leaves for the next 5 groups, ACM with Swords for the next 10 groups and we haven't determined for how many groups ACM with Diamonds should be awarded, but it seems to me it has to be more than 10 (12? 20??) So then shouldn't the ACC groups all be more than whatever ACM with Diamonds becomes? That's kinda why I said this could get a bit mad, simply because the number of A-Class articles needed to reach ACC with Diamonds if we increment in the same fashion as (but starting over and above) ACMs will be damn high... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, good point, Ian. Now I get what you are saying. That makes sense to me, and might fit with MB's idea as well to some extent, although I am thinking he is thinking exponentially, rather than incrementally. Still, what about capping it at 20 groups for the ACM with Diamonds, and dropping it back to 4 groups for the ACC, 5 groups for the ACC with Oak Leaves, 10 groups for the ACC with Swords and 20 groups for the ACC with Diamonds. We are talking a total of 117 A-Class articles to hit the top of ACM with Diamonds, and another 117 articles for the ACC with Diamonds. At which point we could make it another 30 articles (or something) for the Grand Cross. Madness is taking its toll... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: As a first step to putting something in place for this eventuality, would you please note the number of additional groups you believe the ACM with Diamonds should top out at?

  • a total of 39, ie 20 groups (60 articles at the ACM with Diamonds level) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • G'day, 60 articles seems like a lot (although, I'd probably struggl to get six myself...). I wonder if perhaps that might be setting the bar a bit high. Perhaps 15 groups of three (45 articles?). I don't really have a strong opinion on this, though, and I'm happy to support whatever others think is appropriate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with AR here. Both in terms that 60 articles might be setting the bar too high and that I don't have a strong opinion about this as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: , at the risk of doing this to death, I believe we have a consensus for a ceiling of 15 groups for the ACM w/Diamonds. I'd like to put that in place as policy as a first step to deciding on what comes next. Any dissenters? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Kirill [talk] 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm down with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
And me. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I have amended the open ceiling of ACM w/Diamonds to reflect the consensus here. I will start a new thread regarding the next lot of awards. Thanks to all who commented. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks great. Thanks, Peacemaker! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Canon de 194mm GPF article

The article with this headline is just wrong in many ways:

1. There was a gun designed by Filloux with a 194mm calibre. Some 200 barrels were ordered in 1918, half intended for field guns using a carriage similar to the 155mm GPF and half allocated to the 50 St Chamond SPG ordered with the 194mm gun.

2. The Armistice in 1918 resulted in the cancellation of the 194mm field guns and 100 194mm barrels were delivered in 1919 for the SPGs.

3. I emphasise that the SPG which used the 194mm gun was designed and built by St Chamond not Schneider. Schneider did build a small number of SPGs to carry the 220mm gun - these were unrelated to the St Chamond SPGs.

4. Most of the content of the article on the St Chamond SPGs is just wrong. There were 25 SPGs armed with the Schneider 280mm howitzer and 50 armed with the 194mm GPF. All of these were mobilised at the start of WW2 but most of the 280mm SPGs were destroyed by their crews during the German advance.

While we're talking about SPGs - where are the articles on the US SPGs? i.e. the Holt 55-1, Mark I (8 inch howitzer), Mark II (155mm GPF), Mark III (240mm howitzer), Mark IV/IVA (240m howitzer), Mark VI (75mm/105mm), Mark VII (75mm), Mark IX (8 inch howitzer/155mm GPF).Mark X(4.7 inch gun/155mm howitzer) as well as the Christie SPGs.

Charlie Landships (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you see something wrong please be bold and jump in and edit the article to correct it. Likewise, Wikipedia is permanently a work in progress, so you might like to create articles on those missing topics. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok - I'm a bit hesitant to paddle in the Wikipedia pool. I wrote articles on the Saint-Chamond and Holt SPGs for the Landships II website (http://landships.info), http://landships/landships/tank_articles.html?load=tank_articles/St_Chamond_SPGs.html http://landships/landships/tank_articles.html?load=tank_articles/Holt_SPGs.html I wonder if these are close to what's required for Wikipedia? Charlie Landships (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Very close indeed. If you own the copyright to that wording and are prepared to release it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL (see the links at the bottom of the editing window) it would work well with some minor tweaks. That's a very interesting article by the way - I had no idea that there were any self-propelled guns at all in World War I, much less a reasonably well developed force of them. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the articles so I guess I own the copyright. The content of Landships II is already released under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License except for explicitly noted exceptions. I'm not sure whether to write the SPGs up as separate articles for each vehicle or as an omnibus article as it is in Landships II. The article on the Holt SPGs is bit more problematic as an omnibus article because it covers a number of different vehicles. There were also a number of SPG prototypes based on the Renault FT tank chassis with the 75mm Mle 1897 gun, however, none of these went into production. As well as Holt, Christie built a number of SPGs - the 155mm GPF gun carrying SPG was recommended for production in 1922 but never produced. The article on the Christie SPGs in Landships is not good and needs more research. The Schneider SPG with the 220mm gun was an impressive beast but very little is known about it even though a few survived into WW2. Charlie Landships (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If a gun actually went into production then it probably deserves an article of its own. Planned guns might be grouped together under something like National self-propelled gun proposals of WWI. I used the information from your website to build articles on quite a few WWI guns like the 15 cm Autokanone M. 15/16. Let me know if you'd like help creating or expanding articles on these guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Claimed neutrality / issue with GA standards raised at village pump

Gents don't have much time as am on cse but came across an issue raised by an IP at the village pump after the IP posted on my talk page. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Neutrality. Not really the place for the issue to be discussed and may need some attention by the co-ords. Probably best if I stay out of this discussion though. Anotherclown (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of absence

FYI, I'm going to be travelling overseas for virtually all of November and won't be checking in. I imagine that Ian would appreciate some help with the Bugle in my absence Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Nick. I will see if I can help out, although things are getting pretty hectic in real life (moving interstate again shortly). Where are you headed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
If there is any way I can help out with the Bugle I would be more than happy to do so. Have a good trip Nick, and good luck with the move Rupert. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm travelling to Rome, Athens and Istanbul. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, John, should be ok (happens every 2-3 years for me), although last time the removalists lost a case of my books... Good luck on the trip, Nick, sounds like a good one. My wife and I plan to travel to Greece and Turkey when the kids are old enough...the problem is we keep adding new ones, so have to keep putting it off. ;-) Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
To anyone who'd like to help out with the Bugle, that's always appreciated. This month, with Nick's absence, it'd be great to get at least one book review from someone. Also op-eds, which we like to run every issue if possible, are always in demand. One subject that I'd be interested in seeing is reflections/observations by a serving or former soldier (or perhaps a group op-ed by a few of them) on what, in that capacity, editing at MilHist means to them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ian, what's the deadline for Bugle submissions? I could contribute a book review, but I'd have to finish the book I'm reviewing first. Cdtew (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Ian/all, I might have a go at the op-ed; its actually been something I've thought a bit about before and already have something that might be suitable (with some tweaking today). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Clark, there's no deadline for Bugle submissions per se because we don't have a set time for despatching each issue. Generally we've sent it out about a week before month's end but this is mainly because we're chasing up an op-ed from somewhere. Ideally, because each issue covers the previous month's activity, we'd like to get it out in the first week of each month -- however we'd planned to do this gradually so if you can complete your book review in the next week or so, it'd allow us to despatch NLT mid-month, and then we can aim for a week earlier in December and be sweet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, I have added something here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2013/Op-ed. Apologies for the length, it somehow became a "three-phased operation"... (some of you might understand the this pun) ;-) Anyway, please let me know what you think. If anyone can suggest a suitable image, that would be great too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

With a preliminary phase as well... Anotherclown (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
An excellent op-ed btw. Anotherclown (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Tks Rupert, just the sort of thing I was hoping for... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

AN thread

Other coordinators may wish to read, comment or follow up on: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Illegal use of rollback. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

October contest tallying etc

G'day all, RW issues will get in the way of my taking this on this month. Appreciate someone else stepping up (or stepping back up). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Tomobe03 (thanks Tom) and I have tallied the results, and I've added the blurb to the November edition of The Bugle. Given the results, would someone else mind making the awards? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sitting here at 23:46 on a cold night in Pucka with just James Boag for company I was about to try and work out how to do this, but I think Ian's already done it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
So I have... Sorry to hear about the cold night but you could have worse company than Boag... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
No worries at all, I've been in colder, less inviting places where the locals are far less friendly! (its weird though because yesterday one was at risk of heat exhaustion going for a trundle, now one could lose an appendage to the cold doing same... Anyway quite right about Boag, it could be XXXX or something equally provincial (said by a Queenslander). Anotherclown (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_46&oldid=1232551741"