Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Notification of absence (November)

G'day all, I'm going to be very busy with RW stuff for almost all of November. If someone could keep an eye on WPMILHIST Announcements, especially the GANs (as they tend to get neglected), that would be great. I find a daily check on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts (after the bot runs) is helpful for keeping everything up to date. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm back on deck... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Paid Editing Parallel Proposals has a list of the current discussions and voting concerning paid editing. I've been invited to lead a discussion. I'd appreciate any thoughts anyone has on paid editing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus to any of those proposals; all could be closed as failing. I'm not sure if you'd want to get involved, Dank, given the high level of drama at the moment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This is certainly a hot-button issue. Arbcom has gotten burned by taking on some hot-button issues over the last few years, and I'm not smarter than they are. Still ... when it gets to the point where no one is closing the fifth simultaneous vote and discussion because they don't want to get involved in a hot-button issue, then it's probably time for someone to at least deal with that part of it, if nothing else. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

FA articles goal met

Now that the MILHIST project has met the defined target of 750 FAs described on the project's main page, should that (or any other) particular project target be redefined and how?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the next logical target would be 1000 FAs? Kirill [talk] 11:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Me too. I would also take this opportunity to point out that more than 400 A-class articles are not accounted in any way in the target achievement progress bars (except in terms of "B-class of better" proportion). I don't think that's an especially serious problem, but a potential project contributor might get a slightly different impression of MILHIST activity if those were included either separately or together with GAs. Since the project encompasses an ACR process, maybe it would be a good thing to advertise it a bit more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tom, can you link to that result? Your comment has confused the crap out of me. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, yes and no. There are Category:A-Class military history articles and Category:AL-Class military history articles containing (right now) 396+27 articles. Looking at the WP:MILHIST page (in editing window) it may be determined that the A/AL articles are included in B+ progress bar, but not really anywhere else. I thought the ACR process might warrant some "advertising" in the project targets too. For instance, placing an arbitrary goal here just for an example needed for graph to work:
Incidentally, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/A contains 473 entries, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Statistics indicate substantially less. I trust the statistics are correct, especially because the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase indicates way less than 750 FAs - perhaps some sort of updating is needed there? An alternative way to "advertise" A-Class articles, removing a need for the fifth bar, would be to bundle those together with GAs:
As I said not really a major issue, I just thought this might be an improvement over the existing situation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at progress bars at WP:BORA, I thought I figured out a possible source of the confusion: Unlike at WP:BORA, the GA bar does not include FAs or As. Once an article is promoted by FAR, it moves to the FA bar, but if it is promoted by ACR, it drops off the chart here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll note that the Content under review section of our Open Tasks page hasn't been revised to reflect the promotion of several featured topics and the consequent adding of those topics to the showcase. Which is missing a bunch of articles as well, BTW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Back to your original point, Tom, I have always wanted an ACR progress bar, but the general consensus has been that it will fluctuate as and when ACs get promoted to FAs. Personally I would still like to see us introduce one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November Bugle

Hi guys, following on from offers of assistance per Nick's Notification of absence above, one thing someone could do for me is double-check that we have all the Featured and A-Class content recorded on the articles page. One way to do this is by eyeballing edit history of the MILHIST announcements template for the previous month (i.e. October) and checking for removals owing to promotion of ACRs, FACs, FLCs and Featured Picture Candidates. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, I've checked all A-class articles/lists; all FLCs and all FACs. I think one was missing (Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano), so I added it. I haven't checked featured picture, though. Unfortunately, I probably won't get to this today as I'm a bit busy at home today. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
G'day, I checked Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2013 and I don't think there are any project-related FPCs for listing, so I think this is done now. Happy for someone to double check my work, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry mate, I did look for FPs myself yesterday and found none that were (identified as) MilHist-related, so that's the double-check right there -- tks for that and your earlier effort! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Leave of Absence

Guys, for reasons I didn't foresee (and that were unforeseeable) back when I ran for the position of coordinator, I am going to be taking an extended leave of absence from Wikipedia. It's nothing life-threatening or tragic or anything, just changes that are of the vastly more time-consuming variety. If it is proper, appropriate, and/or beneficial to MILHIST, I will tender my resignation as a Coordinator. I will try and pitch in when and if I am able, but will likely be away for extended periods of time for the foreseeable future. I appreciate everything everyone in this project has done for me, and the encouragement I've gotten in my work here. Cdtew (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You'll be missed. Give me a holler if I can help with anything, I'm just up the road. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Clark, I hope all is well. Sorry I missed this until now. I don't think it is necessary for you to resign. I'd be more than happy for you to stay a co-ord and contribute whenever you get a chance/have the time. I appreciate the work you've done. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Crumbs, I missed this too, till now -- yeah, no need to resign, Clark, there have been other cases where coords have had to seriously cut back on their contributions but we've generally found it fine for them to retain their position and if they find time to help out, then that's great. Take care and cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I should be grateful if the co-ordinators would consider making a link from existing Wikipedia articles to the Memorial History Website on the 70th Infantry Brigade at www.newmp.org.uk/70brigade

The Website is run using Wiki software and is under my editorial control. Links to Wikipedia articles on the Brigade and its constituent units would be very welcomed.

John L Dixon

70brigade@newmp.org.uk

31.53.201.147 (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion that might be ready for closing

G'day, if there are any uninvolved co-ords out there, the discussion here might be ready for closing: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Arbitrary break. While I didn't comment there, I did express an opinion on the talk page of the article related to the discussion, so I can't really close it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I did comment, so not me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been accused of not being objective in a number of the "discussions" in this area so I'm going to have to recuse myself as well. Sorry I cannot assist here. Anotherclown (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I've also ventured an opinion there. Just for future reference (never done that before), how does one close a discussion?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You close a discussion by adding the archive top and archive bottom tabs to the section where the straw poll, or discussion, or whatever method used to find consensus is, and at the top of the now closed section you list a short finding in favor of the majority, citing relevant policy and guideline material when possible, along with a summary of the action(s) to be implemented. On that note, while I would love to close this, I am in part the reason why the section was created in the first place (going back to the admin noticeboard post that started this whole mess a month or so ago), which makes me a very involved editor, so I am obliged to recuse myself. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I commented too, so not me either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion so far at WT:MIL has been helpful, and I think it's likely to be convincing to most WPians, but I think it's a mistake to think of a discussion at WT:MIL as having the same force as a discussion at, say, WP:NPOVN. I'd recommend we start a discussion at WP:NPOVN, link this discussion, keep the discussion at NPOVN short (everything that needs to be said has already been said), and ask for someone not affiliated with MilHist to close it. If people at NPOVN agree, and if there are future problems, ANI is one route to go, which is the main reason I'm bringing this up ... I don't think they'd treat a discussion at WT:MIL the same way we do. - Dank (push to talk) 14:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could take this to WP:NVOWN, get very few responses, leaving no clear consensus, and that would be an excuse for someone as aggressive and unrelenting as RoslynSKP to use as leverage in order to pursue their battleground attitude against MilHist, particularly Jim Sweeney. I was of the mind that WikiProjects were here to provide a proving ground for these situations. I've certainly taken a few "our Wikiproject came to a consensus" stabs from other editors who claim to have come to an internal consensus, although I argue it's visibility was too limited, but it's often pushed regardless. I think in this matter coords can't deny that the position taken by Roslyn is that they take articles "hostage" through tagging and such and are unwilling to release their hold however much evidence people offer. It's already been through ANI, as TomStar notes, and the editor in question simply filibusters their way through ANI with walls of text about being victimised, etc, never citing or mis-citing wiki policy, until everyone lacks interest; 24h later it's archived – out of sight, out of mind, old habits continue. It's certainly a game strategy, at the very least, and their cold shoulder mannerisms are not exactly team-play when it comes to working with Milhist.. some of the above people have been accused of taking sides when they get involved, particularly coords, which is rather disconcerting. There is no hint of WP:DGF to allow us to WP:AGF.
Moving the motion from MilHist to NVOWN, though I understand the reasons behind it, feels like passing the buck and could simply allows more trouble to develop in the Roslyn-front. Some members have already shifted the focus from a clear consensus on a small matter to a stonewalled debate on a wiki-wide scale. I personally think this has two parts: the current long-term dispute between Roslyn and Jim, and the wider issue of Ottomans vs Turkish. The dispute needs to be settled, we have consensus by a mile, removing the POV tag takes away Rosyln's assumed right to intimidate Milhist and allows for a bit more stability on the article with regards to the current wording. As for the wider implications, we could leave that to broader consensus such as NVOWN, bearing in mind WP:CCC, though I don't expect much to come of it personally.. unlike the previous Nazi or German issue, this has fewer people interested; I think we also need to keep an eye out for canvassing if this goes to NVOWN, there are a few editors in this matter who seen rather.. "fanatical".. about the "Ottoman" thing, despite their complete lack of reliable sourcing or ability to support their claims that "Turkish" is somehow derogatory. We're dealing with too many personal "politically correct" views and not enough hard facts for my liking. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a situation calling out for an uninvolved admin IMO. RoslynSKP's conduct is unacceptable, and many attempts at trying to resolve it without use of blocks, etc, haven't worked. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this new incident proves that the proverbial shit has hit the fan: Talk:Charge at Huj#Edit waring due to persistent reverts. The edit history of that article is the latest victim of many where RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney have come to blows.. this is pretty ridiculous, made more the worse by Roslyn's selective interpretation of policies and consensus. I think a serious RFC/U is in order given the persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND position this editor is taking and the disruptions being caused across more than enough WWI articles. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all I was under the impression the consensus was as per WPMILHIST to use Turkish where b)continue the use of "Turkish" over "Ottoman" where context is clearly in favour of this term. Just to clarify my understanding of that is correct. As RosylnSKP has taken to changing Turkish to Ottoman at Charge at Huj, the article was created using Turkish [1] The change started here [2] with the edit summery consensus for use of colloquial term for Ottoman Empire does not extend to other articles they then started a discussion at Talk:Charge at Huj#Edit waring Quote That consensus was quite clearly to do with one article - it did not and does not relate to any other article on Wikipedia. This is confirmed by the agreement on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that status quo ante bellum would apply. The ANI status quo comment I believe is just a fudge/attempt to sidetrack things, as it did not involve the Huj article and they never bothered keeping the status quo anyway (TomStar81 was dealing with that).Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the correct place to resolve MilHist content disputes. There is little than we can do about editor behaviour. However a good start would be to close the debate, thereby establishing a consensus on the content. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly this is nothing to do with the consensus, that editor is simply taking the piss and trying to see how far they can push us. I think an RFC/U needs putting up, as the comment Roslyn posted there and the fact the edit was made recently rather than long before the consensus are evident that they are trying to circumvent MILHIST as a "body" that aims to help all articles in its scope conform to certain standards. This represents a very WP:OWN-like attitude of the content disputed. I think it's unreasonable that as soon as we free one article from the grips of Roslyn's siege they move directly to another and the process has to begin all over again. They know that wiki is bureaucratic and discussions take a long time to process and are easy to break up with tiresome rants. The only solution I can offer is an RFC/U that focuses directly on the editor and their editing behaviour, taking the focus away from the content disputed. That way they have to answer for themselves and will have a lot of questions to answer under public scrutiny. If they fail to comply with community standards they should be blocked.. I am astonished that they lack a block log now, but I don't think that will last. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I have notified User:RoslynSKP of two instances where thy have made 3 reverts within 24 hours, at Charge an Huj and Desert Mounted Corps. Because of this, I think an RFC/U should be opened not only to review the editor's recent behaviour, but to ask whether a 1RR or 0RR sanction should considered, as this constant war editing between Roslyn and Jim, with "POV" tags unnecessarily, childishly and pointedly being slapped across various articles just because they can't agree between Ottoman or Turkish is disruptive and represents bad faith. I don't think anyone will ever agree to a wiki ban or topic ban, nor would I motion for it, but a restriction of their revert and even tagging abilities would go a long way towards preventing further disruptions. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a complete oversimplification of the various disputes. According to the first sentence of WP:POV Desert Mounted Corps is POV because it relies too heavily on one source when many are available. While Anzac Mounted Division is POV because of the unbalanced treatment of the names of the British Empire/Ottoman Empire and the 5th Mounted Brigade/light horse and mounted rifles units. They are quite different, although they are both POV problems, because of the question of biased or unbalanced editing. Until these articles are written from a neutral point of view the POV tags should remain. The Charge at Huj, is evidence of an alarming push to replace "Ottoman Empire" with "Turkey" in articles to do with the First World War, even though the Ottoman Empire continued in existence, until after the end of WWI. --Rskp (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
@User:RoslynSKP; I have no time for more of this bollocks, so I'll be frank. If you actually learned to present an objective and civilised argument, you might have gotten somewhere. But as it stands, you have little respect for the "politics" of wikipedia or your fellow editors. Your constant and needlessly harassive attitude towards Jim Sweeney, in particular, suggests that you're more interested in "winning" arguments than bringing legitimate concerns to the attention of MilHist for debate. It is also evident that whenever a coord became involved you jumped at the opportunity to accuse them of "taking sides" with Jim. In short, you have worn down the community's patience, no longer have a good reputation, and most people are evidently bored with your pedantic rhetoric. If anything, you come across as a loose cannon with serious ownership and battleground issues. Your use of tagging is not only excessive, but clearly pointed, and highly exaggerated behaviour. No one really gives a shit about the tags you want to "enforce" on articles because you do so whilst only offering one solution to allow removal of the tags: yours. This false dichotomy, offering only two solutions, yours or no one's, is completely contrary to how wikipedia functions, through consensus and discussion. Hence why I consider you a "hostage taker". You have a poor track-history of trying to get your own way, and it recently become so disruptive, spread across so many articles in one go, that I called the !vote in order to break your assertive hold over them. Conclusion: you'll just have to accept it. If you can't, the door is labelled "Log out". Ma®©usBritish{chat} 08:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I also have some concerns over RoslynSKP comments at Talk:Ottoman Empire#Ottoman/Turkey dispute which have nothing to do with improvements to that article, but appear to be some type of forum shopping or an attempt to circumvent the recent consensus gained. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if it's WP:FORUMSHOP per se, as the !vote has been closed and processed as permitting "Turkish". Said editor may certainly approach other relevant wikiprojects on the matter, though WP:CCC does state that "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." It should probably be noted that the consensus at MILHIST was something like 11:1, if numbers mean anything, with about 3 editors expressing a concern for the use or "Turkish", albeit with no evidence whatsoever to support their "derogatory word" case. With that in mind, even if all 3 or 4 of them get together at the WikiProject Ottoman talk page and decide "Turkish" is inappropriate, they can't simply overturn MilHist's consensus completely if we're uninvolved in the discussion – Roslyn cannot take one project's consensus over another and simply cherry-pick the one which favours their position. It's as I stated above, Roslyn hasn't a clue how to approach the wider wiki-community objectively, without pointed motives, in order to seek a genuine consensus. I'd simply sit back and see how this plays out, Jim; expect fireworks. I think Roslyn will soon spiral out of control again, and the next time this issue flares up I seriously think admins need to get involved, RFC/U with sanctions imposed, blocks applied, etc, until Roslyn gets the point. Such a history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT needs beating down with a stick, as it's clear that Roslyn is prepared to be disruptive at this stage. Milhist coords are clearly aware of it, and some of those are admins, I don't know if they're turning a blind eye or feel too involved/biased though to act. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course this has continued today at 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, Charge at Huj and Desert Mounted Corps. All very tiresome. Anotherclown (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Marcus. Might be time for ANI. Some sort of sanction is clearly necessary to get Roslyn to get the message, assuming of course that she actually wishes to edit WP in a non-disruptive manner instead tendentiously. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Skip ANI. We were just there, and if it didn't work then its obvious it needs to move on from there to place where more firepower can be brought to bare against the problem. I say arbitration, but thats me. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No, you are right Tom (I've been out of the loop for most of November). ARB is the place for this. It might well result in someone who has been a good content contributor being topic banned, but if she can't pull her head in, it may be necessary to stop the disruption. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Do we have someone experienced in creating ArbCom requests? I looked over the template, but it looks fairly complex and involved as to the specific procedure, otherwise I'd be more than willing.. but it clearly needs to be handled properly, as Roslyn seems the type of editor who will try to WikiLawyer their way round any inconsistencies from the start, in addition to their standard gaming and filibusting tactics. Probably better to have someone who knows exactly what they're doing set-up the case with an introduction to the issues at hand and then let others chip in as witnesses, then everything should run smoothly. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
As luck would have it, both Roger Davies and Kirill Lokshin have arbcom experience, and the latter is not standing for reelection in the arbcom elections, so we could tap Kirill to fill this out correctly for us, or at the very least walk us through it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
True, but we don't see them around MilHist a great deal, of late, perhaps due to having other priorities. We probably need someone who is very active in the project and who can get this case off the ground before it becomes too stale for them to accept. I imagine it will take weeks to get through anyway, in the interim someone needs to make sure that Roslyn is restricted from this continued disruptive editing until the outcome of the case, else it only serves to undermine the case by getting people angry. Some kind of 1RR/0RR sanction is definitely needed, as they don't hesitate to make insta-reverts in bad faith against MilHist consensus, and keep getting away with it because no bugger will block them. I'm sure it's some kind of OCD they have, because this behaviour is certainly not normal. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 07:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request filed

I read through the template instructions and filed the Arbitration Request, its at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ottoman_Empire.2FTurkey_naming_dispute. For goodness sake please weigh in there, we badly need to convince these guys to take the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

...And bring evidence to, I am a little too new to this issue to provide a lot of evidence and we will need more if we are gonna convince them to take the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I'm trying to put together a statement this evening.. given the 500 word limit I have to contain my usual wordiness, so I'll have to draft then edit something offline first, as well as dig out the links from page histories. Will try to get something up either later today of tomorrow, but should be this weekend. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
And done.. 2-hours of my life that I'll never get back. I hope other MilHist members pull their weight there too.. especially coords.. there has been enough shouting, it would be disappointing if anyone decides they can't be arsed to finish this 2-year marathon. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

December Bugle

Hi guys, next month is the last issue of the Bugle for 2013. In the op-ed for December last year I wrote a wrap-up of 2012 as I saw it, which, for those who missed it, can be found here. Be great to get a different coord's perspective on the highlights of the past year, or even a few coords'. We'll aim to get December's issue out by mid-month at the latest so if anyone wants to draft something in their own space over the next week or two, just let us know about it here, and/or drop a link to it in the Newsroom's op-ed section. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I started something here, if you guys want to add to it that'd be great (we can turn it into a group piece and cover the bases such as it were). I'm sure everyone remember the year a little differently, so getting all our input in the op-ed would give it a richer, fuller flavor so to speak. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, be great if a few more could contribute bits from their perspective. I'm happy to add in stats of ACRs and FACs per last year's, just before we publish (which is still planned for mid-month at this stage, so you have about a week)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Updating, I've added Tom's contribution to the draft December Bugle op-ed page -- pls add anything further there, and soon as we'd like to get the issue out in the next couple of days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

I've added an edit notice and an FAQ section to the ANZAC Mounted Division article and talk page, respectively, but I could use an extra set of eyes to check over the material and spell check it for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Tom, I took a look and made the following change: [3] Thank you for putting that together. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS update?

In an ongoing review of the editing between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney I have discovered that an apparent contributing factor to the lack of a resolution is that our current MILMOS is silent on the matter of defunct nations. In order to undertake a multilateral approach to solving the rskp/Jim Sweeney conflict I feel that we should look into this line of thought to reach a consensus for naming and update our milmos accordingly to address the issue. Of course, it take consensus to amend the milmos, so I would need feedback from the rest of you on whether you feel that this is worth our time and effort. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

G'day Tom, I see your point, but believe me, this is a step into the unknown I don't think we want to take. Editing Balkans articles means I deal with something related to this nearly every day, and it is a mixed minefield... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
We don't necessarily have to come out in favor of one specific style for all applicable articles on or related to the defunct nation in question, as we demonstrated with the ships pronouns during the "she" vs "it" issue. In that specific case, the milmos was updated merely to reflect that the project held no strong opinion on the matter, but mandated that the article had to be internally consistent and that the terms mustn't be switched out for the hell of it without a good reason. There is no reason why we can't adopt a similar phrasing for use in this situation, although having long studied WWII I can appreciate the fact that everyone holds a different opinion on how a nation should be referenced. In the case of WWII, its common for Americans to refer to German as "Nazi Germany", but to refer to Japan simply as Japan and not the "Empire of Japan", which is what the proper name for the country should be. In either event we can feel it out here before we consider moving forward with it, as finding consensus among the fifteen of us is unlikely to be as hard - or dramatic - as find consensus among the estimated 1100 total members of the project :) In short, whatever happens, happens, but if you don't try, you'll never know... TomStar81 (Talk) 11:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ironically, we don't have a lot of conflict at MilHist. :) I'm personally in favour of a ruling along these lines, saying to leave the articles as they are, and not change from one to the other. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't be fair to only find a consensus amongst 15 coords.. not because coords would make bad decisions, but because the current coord tranche isn't demographically representative of all the international conflicts where there are such instances of national vs empirical naming conflicts that need settling – you're mostly Aussies, Americans, Canadians and Brits, which presents a massive risk of bias in favour of Western World sources and resulting terms. As AusRupert notes, it could be a minefield, as there have been a ton of empires, and in the case of Roslyn's argument, they claim "Ottoman" is required only to cover the WWI period, not before or after.. having to cover different periods for different conflicts and nations is never going to be an easy task. MILMOS should be more focused on styling guidelines, not specific terminology for so many areas of history, IMHO. Naming conventions should be along the lines of WP:ENGVAR practices – favour the country in question, use reliable sources for more controversial terms, and "first come, first served" if the applied terminology isn't widely challenged. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I favour "Ottoman" in that debate but only because it will make it harder to use anachronistic terms in place of British empire, in Great War articles....;O) How about first come, first served with nomenclature and if someone objects, let them write their own page and then use the best one?Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
"Ottoman Empire"' is reasonable for the entire period 1453-1923. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
"Wouldn't be fair to only find a consensus amongst 15 coords.. not because coords would make bad decisions, but because the current coord tranche isn't demographically representative of all the international conflicts where there are such instances of national vs empirical naming conflicts that need settling..." Forgive me, I misworded my statement here. Finding a preliminary consensus among the fifteen of us is unlikely to be as hard as gaining consensus for a change like this from the group as a whole, but the greater whole of the project would still need to be consulted in a larger consensus building discussion before any amendment to the milmos is made. Accordingly then, my comment should not be interpreted as cutting out the contributors, rather it should be taken as a testing the water in the pool first before telling the poolside people its safe to swim such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to say that to take only one example in my two years on WP, Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and its dozen archive pages shows what can transpire when we go down the track of trying to even agree on the principles upon which these decisions are made. This article was move banned for a year (which has only just expired) by ARBCOM due to the ongoing disruption etc. It is only one example. Try looking at ARBMAC if you want more info. I think anything we put in place would need to be very limited, along the lines Marcus has suggested "favour the country in question, use reliable sources for more controversial terms, and "first come, first served" if the applied terminology isn't widely challenged". Regards. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah okay, I follow. I think it would be best done in steps. First by throwing the floor open to all members to discuss the idea of such a section being added to the MILMOS, simply to see if it's going to be popular before going to any further trouble – many members may share the concerns AusRupert has above and it would never make it off the drafting table. If the theory receives positive feedback and ample input, take favourable ideas from that discussion to produce a draft, maybe amongst coords, and throw that out as a draft for suggested revisions to be made to, before procuring a preliminary final to be adopted by formal consensus. The more transparency there is throughout the process, the better the chances of a widely-accepted format which covers the main ground, and allows for more controversial terms to be discussed with sourcing presented before anything is committed to the final version. In some cases it may be necessary to omit a guideline due to too many differences of opinion, and instead to note that there is no set standard but rather the need still exists to conform to other policies such WP:RS, WP:V, etc when creating or revising an article. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. We start small, with our group, because these guys are usually vets who've been involved in discussions over issues like this. If they think an amendment will help then move forward, otherwise this wastes away and eventually dies here. That having been said, any attempt we make to word this is gonna have to be wide enough to cover any applicable nation that no longer exists and narrow enough that we can enforce it, so if we get consensus for an amendment it will likely be worded something to the effect of "maintain the status quo in the article unless there is consensus for a change in terminology." TomStar81 (Talk) 00:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
To avoid accusations of POV, in controversial cases we should use the official names used at the time wherever possible, in my opinion. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

  • We have a grand total of 16 coordinators, so approximately 8 of us in favor of a course of action will be construed to constitute the need consensus unless a reasonable or unforseen issue can be brought forth to oppose the consensus.
    • Current Talley For/Against/Neutral/Abstain: (3/0/0/0)

Just to get a feel for moving forward with this I'm putting this to a straw poll to see where the rest of you stand on this matter. Any definitive action on this proposal will occur only when we have a clear consensus for or against moving forward with this, at which point we can work on it or let it die, respectively.

  • Conditional Support - this needs to be worded in such a way that it neither interferes with nor prevents people from using commonly established names. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I would support a move to tighten this up a bit, but for me to support any actual changes, they would have to be limited, along the lines of Marcus' suggestion. I would want to see the following form part of the approach: a) favour the country in question, b) use neutral descriptive titles based on reliable sources for more controversial terms, c) and consistency with what is in place unless there are issues of POV and/or the usage isn't widely challenged on good policy grounds by the usual suspects. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support per Peacemaker. —Ed!(talk) 15:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Military historian of the year

It's still a little ways off yet, but as a reminder our Military historian of the year award should launch and wrap up sometime between now and the end of January. If I may I would like to suggest that we open the nominations phase this month and have a two week voting period next month to hand out the award. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

and a related query, are we going to have a newcomer award this year? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Tks for the reminders, guys -- I think basing the schedule on last year's should be fine. As to Newcomers, I guess it depends on their being a few potential worthy/qualifying nominees. We'd be looking at people who've come to the fore (in some fashion, not necessarily only as article writers but obviously related to the MilHist project) in the past year or so -- and I think by its nature it's not something anyone qualifies for more than once... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That is all agreed, just a reminder because we had the award last year, maybe it is an "as required" thing, not an annual thing? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Heh, sure, I was making a general statement about re-noms, not anyone in particular... ;-) Yes, we had a strong field last year partly I think because it was inaugural and we could be more elastic about who qualified as "new", i.e. it wasn't really restricted to people who gained prominence in the previous 12 months alone, from memory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we opened nominations for this award today last year, and commenced voting on the 22nd, so if we want to replicate that schedule this year we'd best get moving (perhaps noms from the 15th and voting from the 22nd, as that gives a week in between anyway). If we're agreed on this schedule (or an alternative) then Nick and I can announce it in the Bugle that's due to go out in the next coupla' days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO, we definitely should announce it in the Bugle. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy with Ian's proposed time frame. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Me too. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Same here. Kirill [talk] 18:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
All right, that's done -- admittedly a little later than I'd planned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Away for a bit

G'day all, sorry to do this to you, but I will be away for a bit due to moving house, etc. I might be without internet for a couple of days, or a couple of weeks. Not sure. Anyway, if someone could watchlist my talkpage and respond to co-ord type questions, that would be most appreciated. Thank you, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Likewise. I hope that your move goes well. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, everyone, I'm back but my net connection is terrible so I'm not sure how active I will be for awhile. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

An editor called John has decided to remove the British flag from Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he has decided that showing the British flag offends his POV. The presence of flags in the infobox has never been used to convey equal importance. See, for a\example, all the flags in World War II. Could someone please enforce our standards on NPOV and put the article back as it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted based on the archived discussion you linked on the talk page. I suspect it will take more than this, though. Intothatdarkness 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As one of Hawkeye's friendly talk-page stalkers, I just noticed evidence of this dispute via John's post there. I was going to weigh in at the article talk page but will do so here. Firstly, a statement: I don't think we should be using little flags in infoboxes anyway, so I'd prefer to see them all go. Secondly, a query: is the dispute simply about a flag or is it about making any mention of British involvement in the infobox? What if, for instance, "Britain" was mentioned but all the flags were removed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The impression I got from the user's comments was somewhat ambiguous, but it struck me that they might complain about any mention of Britain in the infobox. I could, of course, be wrong. I'm also not a fan of flag stuff, but that's another discussion. Intothatdarkness 21:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
If you're not a fan of flag stuff, why did you revert the removal of the flag? There isn't any strong consensus that I could see in the archive one way or the other. --John (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Because it's the method that article's using to document involvement in the infobox. Intothatdarkness 23:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As this is now being discussed on the article's talk page, I'd suggest that further comments on the matter would best be made their in order to keep the conversation in the most logical place. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

A user called EnigmaMcmxc has decided that the Alsos Mission did not participate in the campaigns in France and Germany. Could someone keep an eye on the article and make sure he does not reinstate his change? That would be great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes sir —Cliftonian (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
No, a user called EnigmaMcmxc disagreed with the article and presented reasons why. Rather than discussion, he was simply reverted and essentially told to shut up and read the article. Having read through the article, the Alsos Mission is a tedious link to the claim that the Manhattan Project - where he made the edits were made (diff and diff - participated in the campaigns the Manhattan Project infobox alleges (the invasions of Italy, France, Germany, and the occupation of Japan). The article provides no evidence to support this, other than talking to some scientists, collecting ore, and briefly waving Geiger counters over some ruins. That, does not meet the definition of the word participated never mind support the assertion that they participated in the military campaigns to invade and occupy the above mentioned areas.
If I am not mistaken, this is the wiki: there is suppose to be discussion over points exactly like this, not simply revert them, tell someone to read the article, and ask other admins to do the same.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
This is called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The Manhattan Project article (and the Alsos Mission article) provide ample information supporting the claim of participation (ie the Alsos Mission's presence in the theater of operations during the period of operations). Talking to some scientists, collecting ore, and briefly waving Geiger counters over some ruins definitely counts as participation in the campaigns, although of course the Alsos Mission did a lot more than just that. You may find the facts boring, but the rest of us do not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Please stop putting words into my mouth: where did I state I find the facts boring? I questioned how the article presents its information, and the way you have conducted yourself (i.e. "read the article" as your initial replies and the sarcasm in your first post here).
To the layman, the Manhattan Project was about developing and dropping atomic bombs. So right off the bat, the infobox lacks inline citations to verify information that is likely to be challenged. If one person who is 'bored by the facts' and 'cant read' thinks this, I wonder how many others coming to the article have and will so too? Of course, reading through the article one finds out that the project was much more that this.
While the article provides fascinating information on the activities of the task forces assembled to provide assistance, talk or grab personal, run around behind the lines, find ore, and inspect bomb damage. It all seems a far cry from being supporting evidence to suggest that the "notable engagements" the Project and its personal took part in were the invasions of Italy, France, Germany and the occupation of Japan. It would seem more in line with what the infobox was intended for and what the article actually describes and provides evidence for, to replace the links to various invasions with the links to the actual missions the project undertook, for example: Operation Harborage and Operation Peppermint etc. Such a move would be more accurate, be supported by the article, and would be less likely to be challenged.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
You are the one who described the article as "tedious". Infoboxes do not have inline citations; they are a summary of the article. See WP:INFOBOXUSE The links are to the campaigns, which are most appropriate. I hope someone will revert your ill-advised and ill-considered change to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually Enigma described a link as tedious, not the article. I have commented at Talk:Manhattan Project and I recommend that any further discussion takes place there. No offence, but this is a content dispute and discussion should take place amongst all contributors there. There was no need to make this a co-ord matter. Ranger Steve Talk 23:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Pedantic perhaps but did Enigma in fact mean "tenuous" rather than "tedious"...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thread which I think could be closed by an uninvolved coordinator

Could a coord who wasn't involved in the recent arbitration case against Rskp please review WT:MILHIST#Name of empire? I think that it should be closed as it appears to be an attempt to reopen the Turkish vs Ottoman issue again. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Do I count as uninvolved? I closed the last discussion on MILHIST, but wasn't involved in the Arb case. Cdtew (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it needs to be closed but also a rough period set in which to consider the discussion too early, per the Arbcom case. They didn't specifically state she can't discuss the matter with editors, only not to change articles, but this is obviously way too soon. I think fron next June/July, personally, for reasons stated in the thread. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
@Cdtew: I don't think that makes you involved for something like this. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I closed it since Rskp agreed to wait until later next year, we don't need an admin. if there has been no trouble to warrant one. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Marcus, I think a coord that wasn't involved should still close. You edit conflicted my closing of the issue, which I have made the official close on the matter. You're involved, and I don't think you can set arbitrary deadlines like that. Furthermore, on the deadline, I think that would be unhelpful. As a lawyer, there are several types of requests and motions that can be made asking a judge to reconsider a ruling based on new evidence; many of these, unless they have a deadline set by a rule or statute, can be made in theory at any time in the future; in practice a judge will often let you know if they think the issue you're bringing before them has been "improvidently raised" (meaning: wait a while longer). I prefer that method, because in theory this user might surprise everyone with some very persuasive argument and evidence in the near future, and if so, why would the community desire to wait to effectuate a change that may have a groundswell of support? Cdtew (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Your deletion of my comment whilst retaning Nick's was fucking disgraceful, mate. Don't EVER meddle with my posts again unless they violate Wiki terms, understood? I have been a coord, you are not a lawyer nor a judge here, your role is to coordinate, not override people! Take a trout and stick it where the sun don't shine but don't play "Mr Lawyer" here, it's very bad form. What you prefer is NOT an overriding decision, you're not Judge Judy here, there is no "official" and I won't be talked down to like that again. Not be you, nor anyone. You have no authority as a coord, only responsibilities. I expect an apology, and fast. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
@MarcusBritish: I think you're out of line, and a little too enraged right now. If you hadn't attempted your close in the first place, as an involved editor, Nick's comment would have been cut off by my close, which has some legitimacy. Roslyn never explicitly agreed to your deadline; she merely agreed with Nick's suggestion to close (at least that's my reading of it). I didn't see that his comment came in after your close, so I removed his too; fair is fair. I will apologize solely for missing that Nick came in after your attempted close; but after the vile, disrespectful, and frankly childish rant above, I won't be giving you anything more. Cdtew (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Very well, but take heed, stay out of may in future.. you can't cite a single policy that prevents me from closing closing that thread, as there was no major controversy in effect, so I do apologise for dancing in your lime light. You were out of line refactoring my posts, not once, but twice, then reverting. I call that a 3RR. Don't rub your job titles in my face, I couldn't give a hoot if you're President of the US, and I won't headbutt you back for disrespecting my posts. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Marcus, you were out of line: involved editors should not close discussion threads and you attributed a highly specific commitment to Rskp on a topic directly relevant to their ArbCom sanctions which they never actually made (this could realistically have led to Rskp being sanctioned in the future for violating the "commitment" if it had not been removed or corrected). My comment edit conflicted with your closure, which I presume is why it remained. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Nick, ArbCom did not sanction that RSKP "never" discuss the matter "permanently", they request of yours was ignorant of Wiki collaboration.. nothing is permanent here, only indef. I have gone through the entire ArbCom case from open to close, know it inside-out.. Cdtew there didn't lift a finger to present evidence, he has no right to scrub other people's comments as that is refactoring, if the purple box is so damned important he could have move it outside the box at best. Pig-ignorance does not bide well with me, neither do sanctimonious lawyers and judges for that matter. I have no intention of letting someone flaunt their profession at me unceremoniously like that, and I know for a fact nor would a veteran editor like you. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Guys, chill please, take a breather. Cdtew probably should have discussed with Marcus before clobbering that close but at the same time Marcus should not be closing a thread he's been involved in. The worst thing about this is that two editors I respect are having a go at each other because of a third party's precipitate actions -- try not to let it get to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Marcus, your comments in your edit summaries are disgraceful, crude, and unnecessary personal attacks. I've never done a thing intentionally to offend you, merely tried to do the right thing to maintain some semblance of peace. I apologize if I handled that close indelicately, but to be fair your close edit-conflicted mine, and was inappropriate, which you must see. Beyond that, you've decided now to spew your venom at me rather than Roslyn. To wit, you've now said the following:

  1. "Step down a a coord, boy, you're doing a piss-poor job and are too aggressive, pretentious and sheriff like." (here)
  2. "moving cmt outside the "purple box" for the big-shot lawyer and his 10-gallon ego" (here)
  3. "Take a trout and stick it where the sun don't shine" (above)

I won't be talked to like that, I've never talked to you like that, and I expect an apology from you. These attacks are PERSONAL, and are against Wiki policy "mate". Cdtew (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Like.. whatever. Your job is like your knob, don't try to force it down my throat and I won't have reason to feel offended, Wiki isn't a place to promote your real-life job and claim it trumps other people's edits, as you did, you don't know me how dare you make attempts to "outrank" me? Your continued reversions of my posts was WP:BAIT, I think. If you don't like me, that's fine.. the feeling is mutual. Court adjourned. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
See, that's the problem; I don't know you - and I don't not like you. You performed a bad close, I corrected it (admittedly without any tact), and you blew up in the most uncivil way possible. It wasn't bait; it was ending the discussion! What's the point of closing a discussion if the same people discussing it can just continue adding comments? I wasn't lording my job over you, i was explaining the rationale of my close. If you hadn't improperly closed, that would have been clear. As it was, I had to edit my comments to also explain why you shouldn't have closed. You're right, I don't outrank you, but at least I'm not the one who's a comment away from an ANI notice for incivility. Cdtew (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh so it's veiled threats now. Knocking your gavel are we? Go right ahead, Judge Dredd.. I fear nothing. Do it. What's going to happen? A few days blocked? Me and Malleus could go for a pint and laugh about it, maybe? You have a bigger chance of dying of cancer than I do of a site ban for a dispute with a prig like you. Clearly let your job go to your head. You are God and the sun shines out of your arse, it seems. And I can't do right for doing wrong, huh? Lemme go shoot myself.. would that make you feel better? Don't wind me up, seems you don't know how to follow your own "last word" advice, yer'onor. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, folks, let's all try our best to keep things friendly. This whole affair with Roslyn has drawn some unwanted attention to our project, and I don't think we want to provoke more of the same by having more conflicts on the same topic. I would urge everyone to step away and not continue this argument; at the end of the day, we're all here for the same reason, and there's no reason to fight amongst ourselves. Kirill [talk] 05:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

...yeah, sorry about that. I should've put more thought into how I managed that affair, but it was my first time at arbcom and I can safely say that I messed quite a bit of that up. I suppose I owe it to everyone here to apologize for the unwanted attention, since its coming here almost entirely as a result of my actions. For my part in the unwanted attention fiasco I would be willing to resign if that would help us move on and forward to better things. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Tom, I don't think there's any reason for you to resign. More generally, let's not get caught up in blaming each other or trying to get each other sanctioned; going down that path will lead to nothing good. We've always had a reputation as a project with a collaborative atmosphere and a friendly, courteous approach to disagreements; personally, I don't want that to change, and I'm sure that all of you feel the same way. Kirill [talk] 05:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for more bad news but I have just added a thread about Roslyn SKP at the Admin noticeboard for what I believe is a breech of her ARBCOM restrictions [4] Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've apologized to Marcus for my actions last night privately, but I also want to publicly state that I don't have any reason to question his integrity, nor do I think he was trying to do anything underhanded or untoward. First, there was poor communication on my part. If I thought Marcus shouldn't have closed the discussion, I should have mentioned that to him and asked if he cared if I replaced his with a neutral close. That being said, his close (and his subsequent post-close comments) were neutral enough on the issue, and wouldn't have likely inflamed things the way they did when I intervened. Second, I did what I thought was a positive thing - knowing how this issue has blown up in the recent past - by deleting Marcus' (and later Nick-D's) post-close comments, something that in retrospect was out of line on my part. Things devolved pretty quickly from there, and in large part because I got defensive. Mea culpa. Cdtew (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Should voting for military historian of the year be extended?

Given that voting seems somewhat slow this year, should the period this is open for be extended? The number of voters seems pretty low, especially in comparison to the strong response to the coordinator election. I'd suggest adding an extra week. Thoughts? Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I put an extra day on it over last year because I was a bit late starting it but I agree it seems a bit less enthusiastic in general than last year. I don't mind either way, as far as announcing the results in the next Bugle goes, an extra week won't hurt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
While I think the consensus is there on the No. 1 spot, I'd prefer more clarity around 2. and 3. Support a week extension, seems some are suffering from some post-Xmas meh. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no concerns with that. Spt week extension to encourage greater participation. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the candidate "Mongo" to "MONGO" on the list as usernames are case-sensitive. Not that it seems to have given an unfair disadvantage, if no one has noticed the clerical error until now then clearly no one has wanted to vote for him yet. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just posted the extension as there appears to be consensus here. Thanks all for your opinions. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day all, I've closed these now with this edit: [5]. Hopefully this isn't too controversial as it seemed best to do so given the extended period had elapsed. Happy to revert if others disagree. Anyway, a couple of questions. Firstly, do we have an uninvolved co-ord to tally the results and hand out the awards? And secondly, Nick and Ian, would it be possible to publish the results in The Bugle? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
That was the idea... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the only uninvolved coords are Ed!, The_ed17, HJ_Mitchell, and TomStar81. Cdtew (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll get to it later today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: There's a tie for second place. Should I award two people with second place (no third place), two with second and four with third place, or have the two fight to the death as a tiebreaker? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
two second place (no third) would be my pref. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think two second places with no third is the traditional way in such situations in the real world (not sure if there is precedent for that here on Wiki, though). What does everyone else think? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree that that makes sense (i.e. two seconds and no third). Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all, I've sent out all the awards. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, Ed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder that we also need to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY with the awards. Kirill [talk] 06:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
And probably add the Newcomer award, now that it has become a fixture? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oct to Dec 13 review tallies

Username PR Oct–Dec 13 GAN Oct–Dec 13 ACR Oct–Dec 13 FAC Oct–Dec 13 Total Oct–Dec 13 Awarded
Dank 12 0 22 22 56 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Anotherclown 0 11 16 1 28 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 2 2 12 3 19 Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hchc2009 0 1 7 3 11 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Cdtew 0 0 2 1 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
ErrantX 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 2 0 2 28 32 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Ian Rose 0 4 2 8 14 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 1 0 3 2 6 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nick-D 1 1 2 5 9 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney 0 0 2 0 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Parsecboy 0 1 3 4 8 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Auntieruth55 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 1 19 3 8 31 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
23_editor 1 0 1 2 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Jimfbleak 1 0 1 1 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nev1 1 0 1 1 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 3 3 3 0 9 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Piotrus 0 1 1 1 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Kirk 0 0 3 1 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

G'day everyone, I've started to tally the Oct to Dec 13 review contributions. I think I got everything, but I may have missed one or two peer reviews. Apologies. (If I have missed one, please let me know and I can adjust). As in the past, I only tallied PR contributions for those that had done at least one ACR. Is someone in a position to do the GAN and/or FAC tallies? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

FAC done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
GAN done, NB only listed GANs, have not yet solved the unlisted GAN issue. I am planning to make personal awards to those not listed above but that did five or more MILHIST GA reviews. There are four editors not listed above who did a total of 33 reviews. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
And tallied. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I've awarded these now (except my own). Thanks Nikki and Peacemaker for helping with the tallying. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to award Rupert's but I've clean forgotten the cutoff between Content Review Medal and Chevrons -- is it 15, or higher? Point me to where it's permanently documented if we've done that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
chevrons...15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3. I don't think we've formally documented this as a change, but we implemented it last quarter with the intro of the listed GAN reviews. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
15 rang a bell... Damn, I just missed out -- recount!! ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

February backlog reduction drive

G'day all, I've moved the draft backlog drive page to here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/February 2014 backlog reduction drive in preparation for the start. At this stage, it is scheduled to start at 00:01 UTC on 1 February 2014 and run until 23:59 UTC on 15 March 2014. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: is everyone happy with these dates/the format of the drive? Additionally, Ian and Nick, would it be possible to advertise this drive in The Bugle? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy all counts. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Kirill [talk] 05:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
And it'll certainly make the Bugle... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Time to announce that the drive is live. The instructions on how to create a worklist need to be clarified as they need to be unique for each contestant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

MarcusBritish

It looks like that Marcus was blocked indefinitely. I understand that his personal conduct had some room for improvement in the situation leading to his block, but nevertheless he was a coordinator and active member in the project. Can something be done to ease the tension? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The block summary says "Arbitration Committee block: Please contact the Committee", and I don't see any other information, so I don't know what to say. One correction: he used to be a coordinator, and was still an active member of the project. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
A sad turn of events. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I mean, regardless of how you feel about the users involved, this review - which I imagine triggered the block - contains lessons from which we can all learn. Still, though, what was the basis for the block? I don't see how discretionary sanctions could be stretched to apply in this situation - but perhaps I'm ignorant enough of ArbComm policies for this not to make sense. Cdtew (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Marcus has offered an explanation on his talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Before you believe his explanation, I have posted the message that he sent to me off-Wiki, on my talk page, to explain why I am retiring from Wikipedia. Prior to him sending that to me off-Wiki, he had made racist statements on-Wiki and threatened to out me. Since the block occurred, the off-Wiki harassment has continued, including sending me my home address in an apparent threat. The statement on his page is simply not true. This is a pattern he has had, having previously threatened to harass an editor off-Wiki, see here. GregJackP Boomer! 12:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What a mess! MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The comment referenced above has been removed from the talk page, and it looks like admins are on it. No reason to collapse one section, and this whole issue is now being handled elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that I'd say handled exactly, but that seems to be how things are done here. Intothatdarkness 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Look, I've gotten into recently with Marcus (see above), and I've never had any interactions with GregJack (that I can remember), but I'm stunned by the absolute lack of transparent process that went into both of these blocks. Is there a discussion or other formal process going on (other than the users likely arguing their case with ArbComm by e-mail) that I'm missing? This reeks a little much of the wild west, and an admin's (and Arb Comm members') attempts to maintain peace without process. Cdtew (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That was my concern, too...especially with the first block attributed to ArbComm. Intothatdarkness 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, it's a little more complicated than that, and ArbCom are handling discussion of Marcus' block. There's not an awful lot we can can do; it may be opaque, but transparency sometimes presents more problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If what has been posted (and later redacted) as a copy of a message from Marcus is genuine, and there seems to have been no suggestion then it wasn't, then ArbCom have acted correctly here and we should be grateful for them for handling the matter: it's certainly in Marcus' interest for them to not be managing it publicly. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nick, as far as I understand it, ArbCom are still investigating. I don't know anything more than you, but it's probably best if we leave them to complete their investigation and talk to Marcus about where he goes from there; discussing it here isn't likely to help MArcus or ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point HJ. I just wanted to respond to the notion that ArbCom didn't have solid grounds to handle this off-Wiki: IMO they do. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any additional information about the status of the investigation? The whole thing does seem unfortunate. I know he was getting trolled a fair amount on his talk page starting about a year ago... Not an excuse, but prehaps a contributing factor to his frustration. In any case, the Arbcom block seems rather opaque. @Roger Davies: will there be an Arbcom case or motion forthcoming? I was hoping to resume collaborating with Marcus on some American Civil War regimental articles sometime soon... Mojoworker (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm advising Marcus on his communications with ArbCom, which are continuing. Beyond that, I don't know anything more (what ArbCom will decide to do or not do is up to them, and wil presumably be communicated to Marcus when they've decided). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Limited activity for a bit

G'day all, as some of you will know my wife and I were expecting. As the little one has arrived, I will probably not be very active for a bit. Apologies for this. If someone could look after the Feb-March backlog drive, I'd be most appreciative. It is pretty much set up, it just needs advertising and any questions that arise might need responses. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! That's wonderful news. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
:) - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
=) Congratulations Rupert! And well done —Cliftonian (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant news! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Cliftonian - As I understand these things, having been told so by the wife, AR had nothing to do with it. Congrats to Mrs AR and yourself. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Congrats, Rupert! Enjoy your sleepless nights. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Some things are more important for sure. Don't forget to look after yourself as well mate. All the best AR. Anotherclown (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, Jim, I assume Rupert had something to do with it, it's just that Mrs R. did all the hard work... ;-) Congrats no matter what! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations! Cdtew (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Congrats Rupert! I'd say that calls for a celebratory drink; we really must get all the coords in one place at some point! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. Both Mrs Rupert and the little one are doing well, except for a lack of sleep. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Freedom from Fear (painting)

Can an uninvolved coordinator close this ACR? I'm involved, but there is a consensus that the article does not fall under the Milhist scope. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We should also probably decide what to do with the related Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), which passed ACR in 2008 but isn't in our scope either. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced that the latter article is really out of scope for us, given the amount of information regarding the 1943 War Bond Drive it contains. I tend to think that significant home front activities of this sort are legitimately part of our scope, regardless of any other consideration; and, since Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) is effectively the only extant article on the drive, we should continue to include it, at least for the time being. Kirill [talk] 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm a newer hand, but I tend to disagree with Kirill. I'm of the opinion that home-front connections aren't militarily significant; the one exception to this (in my mind) is recruitment drives, which is why I think Howard Chandler Christy is a MILHIST article. Cdtew (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that aspects of the home front doesn't necessarily have a significant connection to the military per se, but I would think that we would want to include it as part of the overall history of the war in question, independent of its (lack of) military significance. Kirill [talk] 01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I tend to think that if people want to nominate their articles at MilHist (within reason), and reviewers are willing to review them, then there's no harm in it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WWI task force talk page

Would it be possible for the MILHIST co-ordinators to consider following up on what was discussed earlier about re-establishing task force specific talk pages such as for the World War I task force? I raised this recently at WT:MILHIST and had mentioned it back in December on Kirill's talk page here. The archived co-ordinators discussion is here. Kirill's reply to me here suggested waiting a week or two. I held off a bit longer, but now that the current backlog drive is focused on this topic and there are a number of WWI-related items at WT:MILHIST, might it be an idea to go ahead with this? I'm not sure how it would it work in practice though, as people will probably continue to post at both locations for a while until they get used to having a separate talk page again. While I am here, one of the things I was hoping might happen is a newsletter-type thing, or dedicated page or section in The Bugle for WWI-related items. Showcasing the work being done in this area, and reaching out to the editors working in this topic would help generate interest and may lead to increased collaboration as people become aware of work being done in other areas of the WWI topic. I was also thinking of personalised approaches to particularly active editors in the WWI topic area, asking if they would be willing to talk about the work they do. Hopefully a sense of the larger picture may then emerge, helping to identify areas that need particular work, and areas that are particular strengths. I know some of you may already have a mental impression of this 'larger picture', but having that laid out more clearly would help others. The other thought I had was that a number of people have lists of books they have, but they tend to be orientated to military history in general - would a listing of available resources on WWI be helpful? Apologies for the length of this post, but I'd really like to see a space carved out for more strategic considerations of how to co-ordinate activities in this topic area, and would be willing to help out with whatever is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There did appear to be support for reopening certain project talk pages during previous discussion, and given that we are trying to focus our resources on World War I topics due to the impending 100th anniversary of the start of the conflict this might be useful I agree. I also like the idea of using the Bugle as a means of drawing more attention to these efforts, although I say this secure in the knowledge that it would be other editors that would have to do the work that would entail (so really its up to Ian and Nick if they have the time to do this - I am happy either way). IRT the suggestion about books etc we used to have a Logistics Department but this fell into disuse. There is also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources which currently already has a section on World War II so I think we could fairly easily add a section on World War I and then encourage project members to list there books there. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Further we could then link the new section of the Resource Exchange to the (rather undeveloped) "Resources" section on the WWI project page (see here [[6]]). Anotherclown (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've made a start on this here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared_Resources#World War I if anyone else is interested in adding some of the books they have access to. Anotherclown (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What do folks think to the idea of running a contest aimed at bringing important WWI-related articles up to GA/A/FA standard, with the possibility of tangible prizes (like Amazon vouchers or similar)? It's something that's been rattling around in my head for a while, and it might serve a dual purpose of recruiting editors to the area and improving some of the more important articles in the topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this is where we probably will need to head in the future to be honest and I am not at all opposed to the idea. That said I seem to recall that in the past something like this might have drawn the crabs from the "no paid editing" brigade. I might be wrong. Anotherclown (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm in favour of this, and would be happy to chip in if WMF-type funding isn't available. I used to conduct an annual article competition on a military history forum I ran about a decade ago (now defunct) where the prize was a $30 book voucher and it was always quite successful. Something like a $30-$50 Amazon.com voucher should be uncontroversial, I'd hope. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd support a prize of about this magnitude, but how would the winner(s) be decided? Would there be a points system set up beforehand, or would there be nominations and voting at the end to decide the winner? I ask because collaborations, both incidental and deliberate, are likely to be common. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Since there's some support for this, I'll elaborate on my thoughts a little.
  • We could ask WMUK to fund prizes out of a grant (for anything under £250 GBP, their process is very lightweight).
  • I thought we might have multiple winners; the main criteria would be of "importance", and anybody who succeeds in getting a very important article up to FA should get some sort of prize.
  • We should have a judging panel of a few writers and coords (perhaps even an outside expert or two if we can find somebody) to decide how "important" a given subject is, perhaps using the standard top-high-mid etc, but judging its importance to WWI rather than MilHist as a whole. Top-level articles (other than World War I itself) might be articles on the individual fronts, crucial battles/engagements, top commanders from the main combatant nations, the Treaty of Versailles, etc. Below that would come second-tier commanders, less important battles/engagements, articles on the role or contribution of individual nations, etc. And below that would be most individual biographies, and other WWI-related subjects that didn't, in themselves, have a significant impact on the war. Obviously we'd flesh this out at a late date.
  • We'd need to decide what level of contribution merited what sort of prize, but we could have intangible prizes like barnstars (and perhaps a special centenary-themed version of the chevrons) alongside the vouchers.
Thoughts? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea, but some real thought need to go into how to score the contest. Some sort of importance rating would be essential so that one "vital" article like Battle of the Somme or Jutland or even, gasp, World War I isn't outweighed by lots of less important, more easily written articles on, say, individual ships, (for a totally random example!). The WikiCup uses a bonus system tied to the numbers of other language Wikis to gauge importance that has the great virtue of being objective, however skewed it might be by random factors. It should also favor FAs heavily over GAs.
Based on my experience with Battle of Kursk, a lot of time would required to get such a massive article with so many interested editors to any sort of consensus so a month or two would be too short, IMO.
Length should also factor into things as it's not a strictly linear relationship between the time required to write an article and its length. I'm not greatly concerned about attempts to pad length if we use a bonus per 10K of written text as it's really hard to stretch an article by that amount without some concerned editor intervening, much less any reviewer(s). I can get easily get more specialized article like individual ships to GA status in under 10K, forex.
Also how to divvy up any prizes between multiple editors is a concern as people will want their share to reflect their actual work. Objectively measuring this is going to be a pain as mere edit count is a non-starter simply because people make their edits differently. I tend to save in paragraph-sized chunks while others save far more frequently. Maybe word count could do if we treat every change as a positive number, but how can we calculate that with a bot? I'm not at all sure that using the WikiCup system of giving full credit to every colaborator would work with a "concrete" prize at stake.
Some sort of bonus should also be awarded for good or featured topics as I see real value in getting a group of articles relating to a single theme like Battles of the Isonzo or Nations of the Entente Cordiale all to GA level or better. Thought to ponder, n'est-ce pas?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with most of that. Counting interwikis might not work because the increased interest in WWI topics over the centenary years is likely to lead to the translation of all sorts of articles into all sorts of languages, but it's one factor we can use. It's probably going to be impossible to objectively and consistently measure 'importance', but I wonder if there's a way of marking an article according to its importance to a task force (specifically the WWI task force)? That would be a start, but I suggested having a judging panel precisely because it would better to have an impartial group of people decide these things. As to divvying up the prize for collaborations, that's probably a bridge to cross further down the road—the prize is just a bit of an incentive to draw people's attention, but hopefully not the b-all and end-all. Good/featured topics are also worth recognising, I agree, but again, we should cross that bridge when we come to it. Getting something off the ground and refining it later is a lot better than trying to cover every eventuality and ending up with nothing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Signpost's featured content section

Hello everyone, would anyone have an interest in writing for the Signpost's featured content section. It's not (necessarily) too time-consuming; while I'd like to see original content, the summaries can be copy/pasted from the articles in the interests of saving time. Anyone willing to take the leap? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping with articles and lists if you're short-handed; I don't know much about images/portals/sounds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey HJ, we'd love to have your help! The page is listed each week in the newsroom, and it's made much easier when you use WP:Goings-on. It's all pretty similar—you list the new content, give the nominator, and summarize what it's about. Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Campaignbox question

Hi, I have been undertaking a gradual cleanup of the articles dealing with the New Zealand wars. The New Zealand land wars campaignbox, which appears on all those articles (including, say, East Cape War, needed fixing to transpose the last two wars in the list: Te Kooti's War, which ended in 1872, was the last of the wars, so should go last in the list. I edited the template accordingly, and also noticed it lacked the V-T-E links at the top, so I modified the name/title sections of the template to create those links.

However the campaignbox as it appears on those individual articles remains unchanged. Is there a timelag before the changes take effect, or have I done something wrong? Many thanks. BlackCab (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be working correctly for me. You might need to purge the server cache so it works for you: WP:PURGE. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's all good now. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Back from wikibreak

Apologies all. Had to drop everything with no notice. Back in town now, and back into it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back! - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A-class reviews in need of attention

Hi folks, we have three ACRs that have been open for over a month and need the attention of another reviewer or two to get things moving towards closure:

I'll try and take on at least one over the next few days, and if anyone has time, please do see if you can chip in on one ore more of them! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Feb-Mar drive?

Guys, was anyone planning on finalising this now 15 March has come 'n' gone? Nick and I have been holding the latest Bugle over so we can report the official results. I mean, I think all the points are tallied now and I could probably close it off myself but I was hoping to concentrate on some other things today... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, yes I'll start finalising this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, done: the results were as follows:
  • Sturmvogel_66: 3,160 pts --Barnstar of Diligence and Gold Wiki
  • Wild Wolf: 2,393 pts -- Working Man's Barnstar and Silver Wiki
  • Dana Boomer: 2,225 pts -- Working Man's Barnstar and Bronze Star
  • Jim Sweeney: 894 pts -- WikiChevrons
  • Lineagegeek: 762 pts -- WikiChevrons
  • Dumelow: 508 pts -- WikiChevrons
  • AustralianRupert: 402 pts -- Three Stripes
  • Anotherclown: 365 pts -- Three Stripes
  • Gavbadger: 240 pts -- Two Stripes
  • Chris Troutman: 221 pts -- Two Stripes
  • Molestash: 207 pts -- Two Stripes
  • Ian Rose: 110 pts -- Two Stripes
  • Inkbug: 59 pts -- One Stripe
I've awarded everyone except myself. Can some else please take care of the honours? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I'll award you if you award me, Rupert... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
G'day, Ian, done now, sorry - not sure how I missed that. Perils of typing with a baby on my knee, maybe...or just getting senile in my old age. Apologies, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Hi all, I've featured a former coordinator, Parsecboy, in an article for the Signpost. Please check it out and give me feedback if you have the time! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, and you've scooped Ian and I :) Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops. ;-) Keep up the good work, Nick! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits?

I have been trying to add assessments to several articles by User:Bwmoll3, but he keeps reverting my edits, so these articles lack an assessment. Can this be considered disruptive editing? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If the reviewer fails to review the article, then why bother rating it at all ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Giving an article a rating and completing the checklist are two separate tasks. It is not necessary to complete the checklist at the same time as giving the article a rating; the list can be completed at some other time. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
How can one 'rate' the article if you don't review it against the checklist ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If it really bothers you that much, simply complete the checklist yourself. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the articles. If you want to rate them, then do it properly or not at all. Hence the reverting I did. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who wrote these articles. There is no ownership of articles here. The matter here is adding a rating and B-class checklist to these pages. It is standard for WPMILHIST articles to include both. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, I can write it and rate what I wrote ? Oh wonderful. Again, if you don't rate the article against the criteria in the checklist, why do it at all ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You also may want to review the criteria for your ratings when you make them. {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Introduction] Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point. Rating an article and completing the checklist are two separate actions. It is not necessary to complete the checklist at the same time as the rating, it can be completed at another time. There is nothing in WPMILHIST policy which requires the checklist to be completed at the same instant as the rating. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you are missing the point. How can you arbitrarily "rate" an article without using the checklist? What criteria are you using the rate the article? Clearly it is not what is outlined in the link I provided. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
When evaluating an article, you complete the checklist to determine if the article meets the requirements for a rating. So no, you can't actually "rate" it without doing the checklist. You can slap the checklist on the article without completing it, but that's not the same thing as rating it. Intothatdarkness 16:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That's precisely what he's doing The IP user is rating the articles without reviewing them against the checklist. Why I reverted them. Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I know. I was actually agreeing with you that the IP's doing it all wrong. Intothatdarkness 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
An article can be rated as start without filling in the B Class check list. I can see no valid reason for reverting the IPs edits. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't consider that to be rating, though. That's more adding to the B-class backlog that occasionally causes some excitement. And from looking at a couple of them, it wouldn't really be that difficult to change the question mark fields to no if you're intent to adding some sort of rating template. But whatever, I guess. Intothatdarkness 17:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Why was the 10th School Group rated Start Class? Why was it rated at all. If you're going to add the checklist, fine, but why the rating ? None of the criteria were checked? Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that the IP user has decided to restore his ratings over my objections. Fine, I'm not going to bother to revert them this time, just leave them. From now on I simply won't create the talk page, as it's clear that they aren't being rated correctly. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
So this is being discussed again and hopefully can be resolved. JDanek007Talk 23:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Returning Soon

Hi all, sorry I've been off the air for nearly 6 weeks. To make a long story short, it turns out that what was supposed to have been a two week or so remodel of my house has ballooned into a nearly two month circus of structural integrity issues, electrical issues, hazardous material concerns, piping problems, and outdated equipment complaints. As a result of this the internet at my place (and the TV and all the other interesting things that I usually take to in my free time) have all been in a near constant state of deactivated quarantine for the last month and a half. I'm told that it should be all back together again sometime in the next week or two, at which point my family and I will be forcibly evacuated for one last round of hazmat cleanup which I am hoping will mark the official completion of the house work so I can finally get back online again. Long story short, I should be back again sometime around mid April (I think). TomStar81 (Talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a bit of a nightmare... hope the remaining steps all go well! You can always watch Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House and cheer yourself up when it's finally done... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've got the net at a hotel for the next week or so, beyond that its now maybe the end of April or perhaps the first part of May before I'll be back to 100% on here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks

G'day all, back in 2010 EyeSerene suggested this as a topic for further discussion (and it has been up above since then). Is there any interest in developing something for MILHIST? I work a lot with foreign military ranks, and if we were able to get a consensus, I would be happy to put whatever we decided into a guideline. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/House of Lancaster needs attention

Hi folks, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/House of Lancaster could do with some more input. It got bogged down a while ago on issues that I think are now resolved, so it would be great if one or two more people could review it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've copyedited in the last day or so and will add my review (which I expect to be broadly supportive) tomorrow, but some of those who've already reviewed but not declared may want to revisit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I just don't have the subject matter expertise, so all I could add would be a c/e and doing the usual toolchecks, probably best done by a reviewer with some subject knowledge. I have made a MOS comment about table accessibility. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Template drive?

I was wondering if we could orgainize a drive concentrating on making sure each military topic/military history article has a WPMILHIST template and completed B-class checklist on its talk page. (Currently on the main talk page, some users are complaining about the way an editor is adding templates and checlists to articles and a drive of this kind might solve this.) Wild Wolf (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 review tallies

Username PR Jan–Mar 14 GAN Jan–Mar 14 ACR Jan–Mar 14 FAC Jan–Mar 14 Total Jan–Mar 14 Awarded
Dank 4 0 19 15 38 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Anotherclown 0 2 8 1 11 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 1 0 8 0 9 Ian Rose (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hchc2009 1 2 9 7 19 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Parsecboy 0 1 12 4 17 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Nick-D 0 1 7 3 11 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 0 15 9 4 28 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 0 1 4 0 5 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Ian Rose 0 2 5 5 12 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell 0 0 5 0 5 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 0 0 6 2 8 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Zawed 0 6 2 0 8 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 2 1 2 20 25 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 0 0 1 2 3 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Redmarkviolinist 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
ÄDA - DÄP VA 0 0 2 0 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Piotrus 1 0 1 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

G'day, all, I have started tallying the Jan-Mar 14 review contributions from all reviews closed in this period. I have only done the ACRs at this point as I don't have much time to devote to this task as I used to. At this point, I'd like to float an idea. Recently, we have been recording and awarding review contributions across the spectrum of reviews (peer, GAN, ACR and FAC), but this process relies upon manual tallying which is subject to human error (I'm sure I've missed a few, although I try not to obviously), and additionally relies upon people having the time and desire to do so. In my opinion, this is not a sustainable process and I would like to suggest we scale it back down to just recording contributions to A-class reviews. Of course, reviewing at PR, GAN and FAC is greatly appreciated, and I'm not trying to denigrate what people do there, but ultimately ACR is the only forum that we - as Milhist - ultimately own. At this point, it is time that I placed my cards on the table. For some time I have been thinking about retiring from Wikipedia and I am planning for this to happen some time over the next six months. I would like to create a system that will be sustainable when I'm not here. Now I'm not precious, I know that there are many fantastic editors here who are more than capable of filling my shoes (probably better than I myself fill them!), but equally I don't want to leave them with a system that will suck more of their time, which they may prefer to spend creating content. As such, I would like you all to consider my above proposal. Of course, if people disagree, please feel free to start tallying the PRs, GANs and FACs, and then we can hand out the awards. Now that I have dropped that hand grenade, its time to log off... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that, AR. You will be sorely missed around here. BTW, I actually didn't do any reviews in that period, the four I have done were all 1 April onwards, since I've been back on deck properly. But as far as your suggestion is concerned, I'm open to that. It is a big job doing GAN, FA and PR, and I don't know what benefit we gain from going outside our own specific assessment processes. If we were to reduce the scope, we should reduce the numbers of reviews for each award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Peacemaker, off the top of my head, the reviews I tallied for you were offered in late 2013 but the ACRs themselves weren't closed until early 2014, hence why they appear in the Jan-Mar 14 list. (The four from 1 April onwards should appear in the Apr-Jun 14 tally if they are closed in that period). If I've got the tally wrong, please accept my apologies. I will try to take another look. (BTW, I'm very liberal with what I classify as a review. I usually offer credit even for a single sentence/post as I think doing so encourages further involvement). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, after plucking the shrapnel out of my head following the retirement announcement -- which will leave a big hole in the project but I know you must have good reason -- discussing review awards seems trivial by comparison... I will offer my opinion, however, which is that if our purpose here is to improve WP's coverage of military subjects then we should be concerned with review processes -- and rewarding reviewers -- outside our strict purview as well as within, so I'd like to see us continue tallying PRs, FACs and (since we just agreed to not long ago) GANs. Obviously the tallying doesn't happen by itself so I guess those of us who favour it will need to put our money where our mouth is... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't say it better than Ian. You've done so much, and no one is expecting that kind of output forever, but I'm wondering, what's the benefit of disappearing? You've earned, and received, a position as a (young) elder of the community; why not sit back and enjoy that? I'm open to talking about this any time, privately or publicly (with anyone thinking of retiring). - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Echo Dan's offer to talk anytime... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, thanks for the kind words and sorry for the drama. It's been something I've been thinking of for some time. I've very much enjoyed my time here, and worked with a lot of fantastic people I'd never have met without Wikipedia. I have learnt a lot about writing in the process and am very grateful for the lessons you have all taught me. That said, I need to move on. I want to spend more time with my children and, having recently been published offline, I want to devote more time to the book I am writing. That said, I have a goal to bring all 60 Australian World War I infantry battalion articles to B-class (at least), and I haven't quite achieved that yet. There is still one to go – the 28th – so I am at least here until I get that done, although I will try to stick around until the next co-ord election. Anyway, regarding the review tallying, if we are of the consensus to keep the current system tallying PRs, GANs, ACRs, and FACs, then that's cool and I'm happy to help out until I go. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm about halfway through the GANs, will update when I'm finished. If someone could do the FACs we'll be sweet. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
GANs done. Quite a few busy GAN reviewers that didn't do an ACR, including User:Seabuckthorn who did 21!. I'm going to make my own awards to those that did 5 or more. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It's probably only fitting that I do the FACs, hopefully within the next day or so... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, FACs that closed in Jan-Mar are done. I've only tallied reviewers who also looked at ACRs (in other words were already in the list above) -- apologies if I missed anyone! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian and Peacemaker for completing the tallies. I've handed out all the awards except mine, so if someone could do that, we can rule a line under this. I handed out the awards based on the following schedule: chevrons 15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Done and tks for doing all the rest, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:WPMILHIST Announcements

Something seems to have messed up the formatting of Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, but I can't figure out what. Could someone with a non-jetlag addled brain take a look at it? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Doh. Bracket creep... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Been there, done that ;) Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_47&oldid=1232551887"