Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

A Couple of Point for the Coordinators

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: With July winding down I have a couple of point here that we need to look at:

  • Is anyone updating our announcement template? I went looking for the ship hulls discussion and its apparently been archived for some time, and I am sure that there are other instances of that in the template that should be looked at and removed.
  • No one has looked at Portal:Flodden and suggested a course of action for the material there yet, we really need some feedback if we are going to move on that front.
  • We are proximately 6 weeks out from next round of coordinator elections, which means the time to start warming up the engine for that locomotive is now. We could probably stand to put something in The Bugle this month to remind people about that, and if anyone has any suggestions for people thinking about running we would do well to invite them to consider the idea at this point. Along with this comes two additional points for consideration:
    • Should we link to or run the Coordinator Specific academy pages for the membership to read through in the lead up to the election, and
    • Should we maintain the current number of Coordinators? Last year we reduced the number from 15 to 12, but it wouldn't hurt to look at the matter again to see if 12 works or if we could reduce the number further.

If anyone has any feedback on these points, or if anyone happens to see something important that I missed but that should be looked at now, feel free to bring it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd just state that I think that with the advent of Milhistbot (Thanks again Hawkeye7) we could probably get away with ten coords. There was some discussion here last year, and I would support a reduction to 10. PS. I've done a couple of years, so I'm going to rest on my proverbial and concentrate on content production for a bit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
With regard to the announcement template, most of the list-of-articles-type content is being updated by Milhistbot, if I'm not mistaken. The section that isn't is the "current discussions" list, but we haven't really used that over the past few years in any case. What do people think about removing that section from the template?
With regard to Portal:Flodden: the user who created it hasn't edited since then, and the portal is obviously unfinished. Under the circumstances, I would suggest simply nominating it for deletion; I don't think there's any point to us trying to complete building it.
In terms of the coordinator election, are we talking about 10 coordinators plus the lead, or 10 including the lead? Note that we currently have 12 plus the lead. Kirill [talk] 14:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be in favor or retaining the section for those rare times when we have a discussion or an event (like coordinator elections) that we need to broadcast to widen the participation field in order to find consensus, but thats me. Agree that Flodden is probably a lost cause, and should be nominated for deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we've used the news section in the template for stuff like the elections in the past, so I'm not sure there's much value in retaining a second section there. Kirill [talk] 18:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
10 plus lead, Kirill Lokshin. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator Election 2015

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We appear to agree on the number of coordinators for this upcoming tranche as 10 and the lead, although if anyone disagrees there is still plenty of time to discuss the matter. As for the dates, we have a few options:

  • 14 days nomination, 14 days voting, which we used way back in the day, however this does lend a perception that the process drags, or
  • 10 days nomination, 10 days vote, which is what we did last year and it worked out fine.
  • a new day nom/day vote scheme.

In light of last years...interference, there us also the matter of whether we want to put page protection on the process this year or not. Preemptive protection is bad, I know, but nothing says we can not discuss the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say 10/10, and I'm against pre-emptive protection, if we get any disruption we have admins on hand who can protect it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Peacemaker67--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think last year went okay, so let's make it 10/10.
  • I also have no prob with 10 coords plus lead, but suggest we be flexible depending on how the final votes tally up.
  • Lastly, like PM, I'm going to take a break from MilHist coordination (my first since being elected), partly because I'll be travelling for the first month or two of the next tranche and will probably want to concentrate on content afterwards. I'm happy to continue as co-editor of the Bugle if people are okay with that, though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Be sorry to lose you as a coord, Ian. You have been an absolute stalwart as lead this year. Re: The Bugle, are you kidding? Please help keep it running, it continues to go from strength to strength, and you have been an important part of that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Very kind of you, PM, especially coming from someone who always seems to have been there whenever something needed doing this past year. I think we can afford to have a few experienced coords take a break now and then, though, because good people are always coming to the fore in this project -- must be something in the water... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh, it does go quickly doesn't it? Yes, there was some nonsense last year but we dealt with it and I'm sure we could if it occurred this year. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Election pages

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've set up the coordinator election pages for 2015, they are currently sitting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2015. An extra set of eyes to make sure everything got punched in correctly would be appreciated. Also, if anyone wants to start penciling in whether they will be running or not for the upcoming tranche then please do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for setting that up, Tom -- something I can take off my list before I go! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've scanned over the pages, and everything looks good to me. Kirill [talk] 11:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Very good then. We will open the nomination phase on September 8, and let that run to September 18, then hold the actual election from September 19-29, as agreed above, to elect 10 Coordinators and 1 Lead Coordinator. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Just a note that the nomination period is now open. Kirill [talk] 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A little help

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I'm contemplating doing something stupid and/or crazy (but in the spirit of BOLD and/or IAR), but I need a little help - a copy edit (big surprise, right? :) If your interested in the copyedit, lemme know. If you interested in the stupid and/or crazy thing (but in the spirit of BOLD and/or IAR), or you'd like to be a part of it, then you can piggyback on the copy edit request. Assuming I don't lose my nerve between now and when I get my 9 hours of sleep I'll move forward with my stupid and/or crazy thing thats in the spirit of BOLD and/or IAR when I get back on here this evening (or tomorrow morning, which every happens first...). TomStar81 (Talk) 16:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I am always around to help with anything that is (in the spirit of BOLD and/or IAR) that's what keeps wiki chugging. --Molestash (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Same here, but you didn't say what you're thinking of doing, other than....it's Bold and/or IAR.  ???auntieruth (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Assistance at The Bugle in September-October

Hi guys, Nick-D and I have been comparing notes and find that we will both be travelling overseas in September and October, so it'd be great to get some assistance on the The Bugle for those months. Of course everyone is always welcome to make contributions but what would be particularly helpful is:

  • On the September and October Project News pages:
  • On the September and October Article News pages:
    • Any coordinator closing an A-Class nomination as "pass" could also write up the blurb for that article -- this is a brief description of the subject plus any interesting snippets from the nomination statement, the June issue gives a good idea of how we do it.
    • Someone could be responsible for writing the Featured Article blurbs -- if an article has already passed ACR this can be as simple as re-using/tweaking the A-Class blurb from the relevant past issue of the Bugle.
    • Adam Cuerden has indicated that he should be able to look after Featured Pictures.
    • N.B. Remember that, as with awards and contest results, the Article News section runs in arrears, i.e. September's issue highlights content promoted in August.
  • On the September and October Book Reviews pages:
  • On the September and October Op-Ed pages:

Other points:

  • We're going to run an interview in the August edition, so there's no need for anyone to organise interviews in September-October. Likewise the Review Essay department is not run every month unless someone has something special to contribute there.
  • Dank has kindly agreed to do some copyediting of submissions in September and October, so if we get volunteers in the other areas mentioned, I expect I'll be able to spare the time to write up a quick From the Editors and despatch via MassMessage as usual.
  • As far as timing goes, we like to try and distribute mid-month (i.e. September issue should go out mid-September) but in practice it's usually about a week after.
  • All the links for the upcoming issue's departments can be found at the Newsroom.
  • Any questions, just ask here. Nick and I can handle this month's issue, but if anyone feels like getting in some practice with the August edition, please don't hesitate... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I hope that you're inspired by the glamorous globe-trotting life which the editors of The Bugle live ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • very cool, getting to do the globe trotting....I'll review a book for that issue if you'd like. Probablysomething on the French Revolutionary Wars, since I'm teaching a course on it this semester....auntieruth (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • not sure who is actually in charge of the Bugle this month, but I've written up a review essay. Draft is here. 16:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just checking in on my travels, this issue is looking really good -- a great team effort! Re. Featured Content, I generally check through the MilHist Announcements history for articles, lists, etc, that have been removed from the lists of reviews by MilHistBot during the previous month -- just double-check they were actually promoted and not archived -- and, per above, if an article has already passed ACR you could even re-use/adjust the A-Class blurb from the relevant past issue of the Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll get Featured pictures this week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I lightly copyedited everything currently in the newsroom, including the writeups of the A-class articles. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Checking in again, we still need Featured Content (articles, any lists or topics, and pictures) plus if someone could write a short From the editors bit in Project News introdcing this month's content plus a word about the election, I'll be happy to make the actual dispatch via Mass Message (or perhaps Ed could if he spots all's done before I do...!) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Took a stab at the from the editors section. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Ian, I can't help right now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Shit, Ian Rose, that was a blast from the past. I nearly had to reteach myself how to do it. :-p Anyway, the edition's out. Adam Cuerden, there were two FPs in there; I hope there weren't any more? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Just woke up in Ljubljana to find the Bugle delivered to my (virtual) doorstep. Tks Ed for despatching and to all you guys for putting it together! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Delivery Hiccup

Below is the version of the Bugle deleivered within the last 24-hours:

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

Unfortunately, while we added all the right content, we forgot to double check the links: the Op-Ed on this one goes to August and not September. Can we fix this, or would doing so require another run? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am correcting this with AWD, have a look if it is correct now MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that I fixed it. I may have screwed one or two updates up MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@MisterBee1966: Thank you very much! I thought I got them all ... next time I'll have to use find and replace. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@The ed17: Afraid you got completely the wrong month's FPs - those are from September, we wanted the ones from August. I've fixed it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Actually, that was me and my bad. I'm not use enough to the bugle to know when to start and end the FP content (not yet anyway), but I tried my hand there to help. In this case it appears I gambled and lost :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 20:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@TomStar81: No matter. I was slow getting to it, because I've been a little ill. Can't be helped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment and task force project

It's self-created of course, but I've been plugging away at the unassigned and unassessed. Just wanted to point out a couple of things. There are a lot of books, art work, and plays, and I'm adding them to films, because there is no other reasonable TF. Memorials also includes museums. I'm trying to add the check list too, and fill it out when I can, if the article is beyond a stub. auntieruth (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Seconded, but remember that our TFs aren't meant to be comprehensive, only if members care about that topic. I do believe that there is a tag for no TF that would probably be more appropriate for books, art, etc. than film.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Haven't done that gnoming work for quite a while, but there is a tag for no task force. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

July contest

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've verified everyone else's entries but if someone could check mine... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've tallied and written up the results in the upcoming Bugle entry here. Could someone pls just check my arithmetic and perhaps make the awards if I got it right...? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Question(s)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I was heading over to the membership page to take a look our active contributors list for potential coordinator candidates and noticed that its apparently updated manually from time to time. Is there a way to automate this process either using an existing bot, existing scripts, or MilHistBot? It would be useful to the project as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

and an automatic welcome message for new members would help too. I usually check one a week and welcome people, but that depends on how much time I have (and if my grey matter sparks up). Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft articles

I noticed that Mad7744 (talk · contribs) has created many unsourced articles in the draft namespace of Wiki. Is this encouraged? Many of these articles are also lacking Wikipedia:Notability. Should we take action? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not encouraged and because they don't have AFC banner, they won't be deleted under G13 and will likely be stagnant and have to be taken to MFD to get deleted. Also, since there's no WikiProject tags, no one here would know if those pages are up for deletion anyways. Pages like Draft:Melvin H. Georgius also have very vague and unclear references so it'll not be easy for others to follow up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

August contest checking

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've checked all of the entries bar my own. If someone could check them, I'll tally, award and write up the spiel for the Bugle. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done this. Apologies if this was taking a liberty as a non co-ord. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rupert, we're a bit light-on with Ian away, so I'm sure no-one will be bothered! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Traudl Junge

Does anybody know if Traudl Junge was an 'Arbeitsmaid' in 1940? I have a fine photo from that date sent by Traudl to a gentleman in England. She sent the photo and letter from Australia in 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpotrichoides (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So, uh. Elections?

Hi all, I've just noticed that there appear to be no elections yet? Or at least I haven't received a talk page message and don't see a banner notice at the top of project pages? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • FYI, the banner is still inviting nominations instead of votes. We should probably tell folks that the voting stage is underway, and if we're sending out an automated message, I'd say the sooner the better. Even if it's just a brief blurb and a link to the election page.

    Anyway, I'm sorry to be bowing out of this amazing team. I just don't have the spare time for Wikipedia that I used to, and the time that I do have for it seems to be largely spent on non-Milhist things. I'll always be happy to help if you need a pet admin/oversighter/Commons admin/OTRS person. Just drop me a talk page note or an email (or use any other method you have of getting hold of me—some of you have my Facebook and Skype details, and some of you might even have my phone number). And of course, I'll keep the Milhist pages on my watchlist and try to check in when I have something to contribute. Best of luck to the next tranche! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

How does anyone even manage to vote in these? The standard of candidates is so high that any of them would be great. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Its the terrible tyranny of choice, and it is always interesting to see who votes for whom and on what grounds. @Kirill Lokshin: I don't think we necessarily need to send out an automated message inviting members to vote as we did invite the project members to vote in the newsletter, however we could do a pass about 48-hours out from the end reminding people that we are coming down the home stretch such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Given the relatively low participation, I'd suggest sending out a note in the next day or so rather than waiting until the end, as folks may only be participating during the weekend and may not see a subsequent message until the election is over. Kirill [talk] 23:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
+1. I'll send one now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
And done. I copied the message from last year and used my own signature; I hope that's alright. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

MILHIST SWOT analysis or "chucking a dead cat on the table"

IOT to inform the planning process as the next co-ord team (whomever they may be) attempts to help move the project forward this year I thought a brief / crude SWOT analysis might prove instructive. I've made a start below but essentially I was hoping this would be a "group think" activity so if you wish to participate pls add any thoughts you might have under the appropriate heading. What we do with it after that I guess is up to those elected. (Yes a bloody sore back from spinal surgery = lack of sleep, and an under-utilized brain from being off work = me needing something to do, which results in this at Sparrow's Fart in the morning. Note that none of this is an undertaking that I'll fix any of these problems, hence the cat...). Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Strengths

  • Relatively large membership (on paper).
  • Core of productive, knowledgeable, and capable editors able to work collaboratively on a range of topics.
  • Diversity of contributors allows project potential to access a wide range of high quality resources to strengthen content.
  • Well developed / long standing administrative processes and project infrastructure.
  • Reputation for high editorial standards.

Weaknesses

  • Increasingly limited engagement of majority of members in project activities (for instance voting in elections, participation in backlog drives, A class reviews, reduced discussion on project talk page)
  • Interest / willingness to undertake administrative tasks continues to fall on an increasingly smaller number of long-term contributors, concentrating corporate knowledge.
  • Fundamental weakness of Wikipedia due to reliance on volunteers with their own interests means our editorial resources are often focused on more obscure topics at the expense of those that are more vital.
  • Limited C2 / allocation of defined administrative duties ("troops to task") resulting in some actions which used to be completed regularly now only getting done infrequently or not at all.

Opportunities

  • Potential to leverage off site-wide editorial and administrative resources or those of other projects IOT gain efficiencies and decrease the burden on our own resources (encourage increased use of peer review and GA?).
  • Further reduce administrative overhead IOT allow greater allocation of resources to content development.
  • Further codify lessons learnt and mentor newer editors in running of the project IOT to retain corporate knowledge (completion of the Academy articles?).
  • Promotion of the development of vital articles through collaborative efforts IOT leverage large membership (but does this require incentivisation due to apathy?).
  • Potential to make use of large membership base to complete "mandrolic" administrative tasks if they can be sufficiently motivated (likewise for other crowdsourcing initiatives).

Threats

  • Due to nature of subject there are a potentially infinite number of articles within our scope, requiring the attention of an increasingly scarce number of editors and risking the decline of standards, and an increase in undetected hoaxes etc.
  • Continued decline in involvement of members in project administrative activities risks further reducing quality control mechanisms.
  • Risk of key volunteers becoming indispensible, resulting in project failure when they move on to other things.
  • Likelihood of inevitable failure of Wikipedia as a whole in the medium term.

Discussion

  • Hmm... Thought provoking. It would also be interesting to get your take on what you'd consider our center of gravity to be as a project. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Good question. Its a bit nebulous but I'd say the ability to maintain a collaborative editing environment will be fundamental to continued success (not sure if I'd pass the TEWT with an answer like that though). Anotherclown (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • On the last point, even if the English Wikipedia dies, I can't imagine a future in which Milhist doesn't wind up inhabiting whatever follows Wikipedia. (I don't usually engage in futurism, but I don't want people to lose motivation worrying about the health of Wikipedia.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Fair call, I'd say many wouldn't agree with me that it is a fait accompli anyway, whilst if WMF is right the future will see computers automatically writing our articles for us (although I cannot think of a single tech initiative they have developed that has actually worked so I'm fairly dubious of that one!) I was probably over reaching in my threat analysis at any rate. I'm hopeful that what we are doing will survive in some form otherwise I'd be mad to continue doing it. Come to think of it... Anotherclown (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Anotherclown: I'm working at the WMF now, and AFAIK there's no plan for bot-created articles to take over for volunteers... that idea mainly seems to stem from Wikidatians and Gerard M. :-p On tech initiatives, in my personal (not WMF) opinion they've had some gigantic missteps but have actually come out with useful things recently. Did you hear about Content Translation, for instance? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Gday Ed, sorry I seem to have de-railed myself and unintentionally headed into the territory of offending people. Will switch to radio silence for a bit and try and get some gonk. Anotherclown (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Anotherclown: You haven't offended me in the slightest; I hope my comment didn't come off as angry! I was just explaining things the way I see them. Things like content translation or (surprisingly?) the visual editor actually work and work well now. It's far from where I'd like it to be, but I think things are changing for the better. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
            • Good to hear Ed. I was writing that after about 48 hrs without sleep so was starting to lose my mind (I've never performed well without my beauty rest, once did 5 days straight once without food or sleep and was hallucinating by the end... seeing all sorts of things that weren't there...) I'm sure that there is a lot of effort going on at WMF and much of the site infrastructure and functionality that we take for granted now has no doubt been the product of considerable hard work. Unfortunately though we often only hear about the things that haven't gone according to plan (like most things in the world I guess). Anotherclown (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I want to reflect on volunteers working on "special subjects". Yes, volunteers edit where they prefer, and that is actually a strength as well as a weakness. One of the huge "special subjects" of Milhist has meant that en WP is a high quality reference on some classes of 20thC capital ships. That wouldn't have happened without a handful of editors being keen on such things. My only contribution to that was as a reviewer, but there are plenty of Milhist editors that could say the same. I don't think we need to get too wound up about not having Milhist vital articles at FA. An example from my part of WP is Tito, a level-4 which is currently C-class and subject to continual disputation. The number of reliable sources on him, quality biographies, execrable hagiographies as well as character assassinations are legion. Just getting your head around everything there is to know on Tito during WWII is a massive task that would need its own special group to work on it for many months, let alone his whole life.
Without blowing too much smoke up my own fundamental orifice, what I think would be good would be for people keen on certain subject areas to put together something like Operation Bora for their "special subject", listing key articles to cover the subject adequately, and showing progress. This is a much higher level of focus than any taskforce, which are just too broad to get any sense of common effort. In many cases they are small intersections of two or more taskforces. I mean, look at Operation Bora (Yugoslavia in WWII) then consider that the relevant taskforces are the enormous Balkans one along with WWII... New editors with a similar interest could chip in on the less complex articles to build knowledge and skills, opportunities to collaborate will arise organically, and people get a sense of a team working on a "special subject". Despite its obscure topic area, Bora has seen active collaboration on that basis, with several FAs and A-class articles heavily reliant on collaboration between two or more editors. Milhist could put a navbox up linking to these "special subject" pages, and if people had new ones, they could just be added by the coordinators. One that MisterBee1966 works on is the bios of Knight's Cross recipients, one that Tomandjerry211 works on is WWII US half-tracks. It only takes one dedicated editor to drive a "special subject" but others who are interested can drop in to try before they buy, and see how articles develop and progress through the classes, as well as get stuck in. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree to what Peacemaker said. To add to that, I believe that our project and Wikipedia in general has two main focus areas: First, attracting new editors and retaining old contributors, and second maintaining and encouraging a quality system. I also think that anyone contributing and/or wanting to contribute regularly wants his or her work to be valued and acknowledged. Wikipedia can be a very hostile environment, especially for those who are relatively new and who happen to edit in someone else's subject matter area of expertise. Here we run the risk that our well established editors hide their WP:OWN behavior behind our best practices and procedures. Guiding and consulting new editors, and rewording them for the contribution, is the challenge we are facing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Re PM's cmt - just to clarify I certainly do not begrudge anyone working on special subjects, ultimately as volunteers we are going to edit what interests us and that is just a fact of life (I do exactly the same thing, indeed I'm sure many editors would say most of my contributions have been in a fairly narrow subject area of interest mostly only to a relatively small number of people that inhabit a large island at the bottom of the world...) I think your analysis of this as both a strength and a weakness is spot-on though, and it potentially represents an opportunity for us as you highlight. However, I do see some issues with our vital articles potentially being neglected as a result though, as this probably reduces the overall value of Wikipedia as a resource (it is probably also a threat to our credibility as well, but that is a good thing in my opinion. It needs to be really obvious to our readers that Wikipedia is unreliable.) Anotherclown (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, Ac. In terms of vital articles, in nearly four years I've never had a sense of what ours are, and I believe we would benefit from making it clear on the Milhist page. Is there a way we could do that? Maybe by taskforce or level or something? I'd assumed Tito was vital (and it turned out my assumption was on the money), but most people wouldn't know which Australians were vital, for example. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Many projects have an importance or priority indicator in their respective talk page template; see {{WikiProject Biography}} as an example, while ours {{WikiProject Military history}} doesn't. I don't know or recall if this has been discussed before, but if we had such a tag, a high rating would probably be a good indication for a "vital article". MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work on something other than the interminable backlog of un-categorized articles, btw, if there is something specific (and within my area of experience). I'm also prepping for a class on the conspiracies associated with the French Revolutionary wars, so might identify a list of articles, and assign them to my students....auntieruth (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Keeping a watch on ACRs for passing and awards

G'day all, it would be great if we had a system for ensuring that ACRs ready for passing and handing out of ACMs could be streamlined and an effort made to ensure it is not always the same 3-4 coords doing that work. FAC can be frustratingly slow to promote at times, but Milhist should be looking to reward effort on our best articles in a timely way once they have met the requirements. One possible idea would be to allocate each coord one month each year when they are responsible for checking the ACRs every couple of days, and the pending awards every week, or something. Any other ideas? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Per my waffle above I like the idea of allocating all the co-ord tasks, that way as you say it doesn't rely on the initiative of the few to get things done and can take into account periods when someone is unavailable due to RL commitments, travel, etc. I wonder if a task matrix could be drafted of all the ongoing tasks (and even the one offs per year - e.g. drives) and then the co-ords could volunteer for each task and at the end we see what the delta is and work out where we go from there? Anotherclown (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with a list and work the matrix up from there. Feel free to add tasks as you think of them:

  1. checking ACRs and listing them for closure when they meet requirements
  2. checking and closing ACRs 24 hours after they're listed
  3. checking the awards page and supporting/awarding nominations
  4. checking monthly contest articles, tallying points and handing out awards
  5. tallying quarterly review and handing out awards
  6. welcoming new members
I don't see reviewing at PR, GAN, A-class and FAC as an obligation for coordinators (or for anyone), but I also don't want anyone to think that people who are reviewing but not closing aren't doing their fair share of the work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Reviewing certainly isn't seen that way by me, but in this case I feel we need to focus on what all coords are expected to do as part and parcel of the role rather than things that are effectively a mutual obligation for every member of the community. Listing ACRs is pretty simple, and closing is so simple these days (since the advent of Milhistbot), it's not exactly a major burden. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
We're perpetually short on reviewers, so I generally review whether I want to or not, because our system won't work well if we can't generate three supports within a month. I'm not sure how I feel about being handed extra chores; I already volunteer a lot of my time for this project, and I'd like to start volunteering more time for FAC (and possibly A-class?) for other history wikiprojects as well. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll make this offer: if someone else will volunteer to review all our PR, A-class and FAC articles for a month (other than AR and AC, who already cover A-class and a lot more), then I'll be more than happy to skip reviewing for that month and do all the admin coord chores. It can be a prose review or any other kind of review, as long as it counts as a support (or oppose) at A-class and FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd also observe that some editors more than pull their weight with GAN reviews, which hasn't been mentioned here so far, and if everyone who nominated an ACR averaged close to two reviews at that class for every nominated article/list, we'd have few issues with the numbers of reviewers. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)
Absolutely ... GAN reviews aren't less important, I'm just saying that PR, A-class and FAC is what I do. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Back to the task list. Some suggestions:

I'd add that neither of these tasks are included above in the Coordinator tasks lists of the handbook either so I propose to adding them there if there is general agreement. Thoughts / cmts? Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

    • G'day, AC, yes I think it would be a good idea to add these, so long as it is made clear that it is not a requirement for co-ords to do them. We don't want people to feel like it is a chore that they are compelled to do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd like to see a narrow list of tasks that coords are expected to do by dint of being elected. I think it is easy to get coord duties mixed up with the general tasks all active Milhist members should undertake. Reviewing, for example, which isn't a coord task per se, is a task all project members need to undertake if the system is to work. I know most coords do more than their fair share of reviewing, but strictly speaking it isn't a coord task. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, so just to be clear, it looks like you're rejecting my offer above. This is the last I'll say on the subject until after elections. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Gday. Not rejecting, somehow missed it. From my perspective this was never about handing anyone chores, when I mentioned the task matrix I was suggesting we ask the next round of elected co-ords to volunteer for tasks we include in it. It was more of a way of ensuring we have allocated (through individuals volunteering) co-ords to the recurring tasks so that we can ensure they get done, rather than leaving it a bit more to chance. From my point of view I have no issue with anyone's level of contribution. With in our own capacity we all give what we want / are able to give, in the areas we feel we are best able to / are most interested in and that's quite ok with me (there is really no alternative anyway). I sincerely apologise if I gave any other impression than that. I agree though that we are probably best holding the rest of the conversation until after the election. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry for the confusion, it's my own doing, because I changed my mind halfway through this conversation ... I'm actually going to use this discussion as a jumping-off point to talk about something unrelated, after elections. I'd like to ask everyone's indulgence: pretend for a moment that what's going on here is that there are some who want all coords to pitch in on a set of coord tasks, with no credit for any reviewing work they do, and that I don't see myself having time for that as long as I'm covering almost all of the FAC, A-class and PR articles, so I'm offering a compromise: if someone will cover my reviewing chores for a month, then I'll do one tenth of the total yearly workload from the coord task list (preferably compressed into a month or two). Suppose that's the conflict we're having (and arguably, that's at least part of the conflict) ... is anyone willing to help us out with this conflict by volunteering to cover my reviewing duties for a month, doing whatever form of support/oppose reviewing you're comfortable with? - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
              • G'day Dank, sorry I overlooked this. Yep, I'd be happy to pick up your reviewing load for a month if you did all the coord tasks that month. Let's see if the idea of rostering each coord for a month gets up. We'll be one month short, but I think we could make that one December or something, and we can all muck in that month. I'll start another thread so it's clear what I'm proposing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

New Academy article - "Asking for help"

Gday. I had a few spare minutes so I have drafted one of the missing Academy articles (pls see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Asking for help). Could some of you guys pls look over it and make sure you are happy with it? If you'd like to make changes / additions of cse feel free to do so. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well done. I'll have a look this arv. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Have made a few minor tweaks, looks good to me. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Cheers for those, they look good. I've now moved it across to the Academy page. Looking through the list of outstanding articles I think some of these may be a little redundant and are already covered by some of our existing courses so we may be creating unnecessary effort in trying to create new articles on all of these. For instance "Routine Coordinator tasks" seems to be covered adequately by a section on this page itself. Also I wonder if the one on reference templates is necessary. There is scope to cover this a little more in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references I'd say. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, also I think "Developing consensus for a major initiative" is probably redundant to Wikipedia:Consensus. Thanks for your work on "Asking for help", AC. All the best, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I've removed the redundant ones from the list now but will revert if there are any objections expressed post this of cse. Any chance anyone is interested in writing some of the remaining missing Academy cses? The low hanging fruit looks mostly gone though... Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll stab myself to do Unit names and abbreviations and Ranks and abbreviations if there are no takers for these, although I'd propose combining them as I see it as a similar issue. Any objections? Anotherclown (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I intended to bring up after the coordinator elections conclude, but seeing as how its kind of jump started itself here I'll point out that the entirety of the academy pages we have need to be rechecked an updated. Not a few of the academy's page have information and advice that has been render obsolete due to shifting tides here, and as a result they all need a thorough check to make sure that all the information is still accurate and useful. I know for a fact that the main page and the maintaining article courses have obsolete information in them, I doubt that the working group article has any use since the working groups have been out of use for some time, and the A-Class toolbox has more than 4 links now, and that's all just for starters. Like I said, I was gonna bring this up after the next tranche took office so that we could get to work on the material as a new group, but I suppose now is as good a time as any to start thinking about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Gday Tom. Sorry for the delayed response, I got sidetracked with RL. Yes you are of cse correct (its something I noticed going through them too), we should try and get something organized to review the current Academy articles in addition to writing any that are outstanding. Happy to hold off on further discussion until the conclusion of the election though so we can hopefully get everyone involved. Anotherclown (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW I have now written a draft for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Unit names, ranks and abbreviations (combining the two as per my post above). I'd be grateful if anyone would have a look at it and make sure you are happy with it / that it reflects an accurate understanding of the current state of play etc before I move the link over to the Academy page. Happy to discuss any changes you might think are req'd of cse. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Great work, AC. I had a read through and it seems good to me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As there do not appear to be anymore opinions about this I have now moved it over to the Academy. Happy to discuss further / make other changes though still of cse if there are any saved rounds. Anotherclown (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

guidance needed

I want to use a pic from the German article on de:Henning Alexander von Kleist in Henning Alexander von Kleist and it is not in Commons. Is there any way I can move it to commons from the German wiki? auntieruth (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Commonshelper is a good tool, or see also WP:TRANSFER. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator Election concluded

Our coordinator elections have officially concluded, with the results as follows:

  • Sturmvogel 66 34
  • AustralianRupert 30
  • Peacemaker67 28
  • Hawkeye7 26
  • TomStar81 26
  • Dank 25
  • Anotherclown 23
  • Auntieruth55 23
  • Nikkimaria 22
  • MisterBee1966 21

Congratulations to everyone who made the cut, and thanks to everyone who turned out to !vote! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've updated the coordinator page and the notification template. If you received this notification, all is working as expected. Kirill [talk] 00:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirill; I'll try not to let the power get to my head!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Congrats Sturm and all of you! I guess we could wish for a few new faces in there as well but I for one didn't find the time to solicit potential candidates. Anyway this tranche could do the job with their eyes shut, so coord duties are in very good hands... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikiconference USA

Is anybody planning on attending this, here in DC in a couple of weeks? I'm toying with giving a presentation on why we're so successful; the shortest in Wikimania/conference history: "I blame the Australians!" On a slightly more serious note, if anyone has thoughts on a presentation, speak up; we can probably whip something into shape with a mild amount of effort. I've got relatives coming that weekend, so I won't be able to attend all three days, but I figure we can at least arrange a meet up since I've only ever met Kirill in the flesh.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be there, of course. I'm happy to help arrange a MILHIST meetup in one form or another, but I suspect that most of us aren't in the area? Kirill [talk] 02:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I'll be there! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points for this Coordinator Tranche

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Welcome to all new and returning coordinators. I have a few points that we need to consider moving forward, and I'm sure you guys have some points to add as well, so lets get'em up here for discussion:

  • For starters, as I noted above, our academy needs an update and overhaul to get things current. As I noted above, some of the information is no longer valid, other courses have what would now be considered bad or incomplete advice to editors in a certain area.
  • Along those same lines, I think we could do with a dedicated academy page for how to set up the coordinator election pages, covering the tally box, template notifications, and the use of the media delivery service to get the word out. That latter one could be spun out into its own course for those who will in time inherit the responsibility of publishing the bugle.
  • We were discussing the idea of maybe putting people on assignment to cover the ACR areas, which has its own section above. If we are resolved to move forward with this how do you want to proceed? Along the same lines, we reserve the closing of ACR pages to the coordinators, so do we want to grant milhist bot a place as an actual coordinator for the project, or just let it be?
  • Would it be possible to put a little more responsibility on the MilHistBot vis-a-vis tracking and adding ACR awards and pinging the coordinators about the open nomination?
  • I'd be interested in sending out a notice or survey or something of that nature to the milhist members to get a feel for where the community stands and what they think we should prioritize in the next 12 months. I know that the signpost has an anonymous feedback tool that we could look into if we were interested in getting feedback from the community without having it trace back to anyone in particular.

Does anyone else have anything that we should look at here moving forward? I'd be interested in hearing about it, all the more so since we have 12 long months to work with and on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts, in no particular order:
  • As far as I know, the Signpost's feedback tool only works for yes/no questions, so I'm not sure how useful it would be for something along the lines of a discussion on priorities. Having said that, I'm not sure that we particularly need the anonymity; I expect that project members would be perfectly happy to respond to a normal on-wiki poll of some sort. We would still presumably need to come up with different ideas for people to respond to, unless we want to make it entirely open-ended.
  • I don't think we need to formally list the bot as a coordinator; from a public-facing standpoint, we wouldn't really want it presented as someone for members to approach for help and such. (On a terribly pedantic note, a coordinator has to mark the review as passed or failed before the bot will do anything, so I'm unconvinced that what it's doing is properly considered as "closing" the review.)
  • As a first step towards updating the academy courses, it might be useful to quickly go through them and sort them into those that are still more-or-less valid (but may need minor improvements, etc.) and those that are significantly out of date and need to be rewritten or scrapped.
Kirill [talk] 02:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The Bot doesn't need to be listed as a coordinator, but will only respond to requests to promote articles to A-class from someone in the co-ordinators category. I will go through and update it to reflect the current list on the weekend. I'm not an admin, so if your talk page is locked, I'll leave a request. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Kirill's suggested approach with the academy pages, suggest we ask the new tranche if they will nominate a month during which they will look after ACR closures, and suggest Milhistbot could ping the coords when it adds an award nom. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • From my point of view:
  1. I agree with the thoughts advanced above about moving the Acadmey articles forward again (and Tom's ideas about some of the other topics which should be included are very good - as I said earlier I think retaining corporate knowledge is a key threat to the project so this looks like the solution to me).
  2. IRT how the year is going to pan out I'd like to see some sort of planning timeline developed with key activities etc and think some sort of "opt-in" task matrix for co-ord tasks would be useful as well (per previous discussions above).
  3. As much as it is horribly boring work we probably need to organize a backlog drive. Are there suggestions for the best month to do this? Anotherclown (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  1. re backlog drive, I've been thinking about that. I cannot keep up on the backlog for unassessed/untasked articles. For a while, it was manageable, but one day a couple hundred articles appeared (I don't know how), all created 2–3 years ago and now, new articles show up in the dozens. auntieruth (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
We've held successful backlog drives in various different months. I think we worked out what months might be best maybe last year... I'll search and see. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Backlog drive (15 October to 30 November?)

G'day all, there being no time like the present, does anyone see major issues with a backlog reduction drive so soon? I reckon six weeks gives people flexibility so they can contribute when they have time. Views? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Six weeks sounds about right; any later than that and we would have issues with the month of December, and we all know what that is about. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: does anyone oppose? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
sure, why not MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Are we targeting a particular subset of the backlogs, or will we just have it include everything? Kirill [talk] 07:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd say everything, then have a more targeted drive early next year. What do you think, Auntieruth55? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I've started a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/October 2015 backlog reduction drive, could someone take a look? I'll create the worklist page too. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't muck around! Thanks for sorting this. Yes I think its a good idea to crack on with this ASAP and 6 weeks sounds good. I just wonder if we are missing an advertising opportunity by timing it to start before the next edition of the Bugle? I guess we could get around that with a mass mail out (no idea how to do them though). Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that Anotherclown makes a good point and we should advertise it in the Bugle first. Can we expedite it's publication enough to make it before the 15th?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if a mass mailout would be more effective than the Bugle in this instance? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
that works. perhaps just add a column to the reviews? I've done hundreds, and it just fades away eventually. auntieruth (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Will do. On the topic of mass mailout vs. Bugle, I think a direct invitation via mass mailout might be more effective for something like a drive. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
divcol added to the MHA assessments section of the worklists page. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means (divcol MHA assessments section of worklists). If I've been supposed to be keeping track of assessments, I've not done it. My bad? auntieruth (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that I have added columns to the worklists page for the upcoming backlog drive, because you indicated that you have done lots of them. This way it won't be one long single column list. We don't normally record assessments, but if you join the backlog drive you can, and that accrues points! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've added my name to thelist. It occurred to me it was probably like the guild of copy editors backlog attacks so I went hunting for it. I've been attacking the backlog in assessments/task force. fixing what I can. It's a massive backlog. I don't know if that should be added or not, but seems to me that it'sbuilding up faster than I can knock it down. auntieruth (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to including other areas, the ones I put in are just the "general drive" ones we've used in the past couple of years. Given the 2.5K needing assessment, and the 600+ needing task force assignment, I reckon they'd be good additions, maybe at 2 points per article assessed or task force added. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: any contrary views? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Category 9 is currently "Assessing articles listed at WP:MHA" (5 points) which I think covers the articles "needing assessment" doesn't it, and not just those that get listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests? I think that's how we've do it in the past. That said there is currently no progress bar to reflect it so we could probably add that. The suggestion re the "needing task forces" addition for 2 points sounds good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No, in the past 3 years it's just been assessing at MHA. These articles are those that have not been improved by a specific editor then brought to MHA for assessment, but merely haven't been assessed after creation. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok - then I a little confused by what is meant by "In this regard, 5 points are offered per article you assess against the B-class criteria during the drive." Regardless, I agree that if they weren't already then articles in the unassessed category should be included in the drive as well but I'd say there really is no difference b/n assessing them and those listed for assessment at MHA, so they should both be 5 points as well (not 2 points as proposed above). Anotherclown (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Noting that the September 2014 drive had a 10th category: "Unassessed military history articles" (5 points). Perhaps we could use this as the template? Anotherclown (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we want to focus just on assessing articles, including filling in missing B-class checklists, or do we want to do that and all the other stuff, which generally means writing enough to satisfy one or more of the B-class criteria?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My mistake overlooking the Sep 14 drive. I'm interested in what Auntieruth55 reckons, she's been doing a lot of gnoming lately. With these drives, in some cases we might be trying to do too much, and perhaps we should narrow it down to make the biggest difference we can to what matters most. What about tackling only three? 1. those needing assessment (2.5K), 2. those needing B-Class checklists completed (~500), and 3. those needing task force assignment (~600), and allow people to claim all three if they do all three on the one article. Of course, articles that look B-Class will still have to be done through MHA. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: any other views on narrowing this drive down to just three areas? If this is going in the Bugle, I'll want to get on and trim the page down in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I see more benefit in a broader drive (i.e. the 9-10 categories we currently have) but will of cse support a more narrowly focused one if the others are for it. I get bored doing the same thing over and over again and I imagine others do too so a drive which only includes three categories might not actually result in more reduction in these areas. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see the benefit of both, actually. We get a lot of articles in the unassessed/unassigned categories that need a basic review, boxes, general comments. Sometimes I do comments, sometimes I don't. Things appear in there seemingly overnight that were written 2–5 years ago, but have not been assessed. I think it depends on what we want to accomplish. However, given that there are likely to be say, 5-10 of us working on this, perhaps it would make sense to tackle a few categories, rather than all of them. I'm not likely to do much content/citation work on anything that isn't related to European wars 1750-1850, and others probabl have areas where they can do stuff similar to that. auntieruth (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that we should just focus on assessments and maybe improving B-3, 4, 5 as they generally don't require specialized knowledge or sources to upgrade. B-1 and 2 can generally only be dealt with by somebody upgrading the entire article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd support that approach. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: in the absence of any other views, I think we should go with Sturm's suggestion, dropping serials 1. (criteria B1) and 3. (criteria B2) from the scoring list. Any repechages? I need to get it ready for advertising in the Bugle. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks reasonable to me as well. Kirill [talk] 22:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Concur with this suggestion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes there seems to be support for this so I'm happy to go along with it. Anotherclown (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think we have a majority, I'll start trimming it down. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm late to the conversation, but to be honest I think it might be a mistake to concentrate on just a few categories. (I believe) that the reason the backlog drive was set up as it was in the past was to encourage broader participation by tackling all aspects of the B-class criteria. In its current configuration, the drive may only appeal to a few people. I believe that the key goal of the drive is to encourage participation in the project, rather than simply reducing raw numbers in backlog categories and its success should not be judged by whether we have a positive reduction in x, y or z category. I know this sounds counter-intuitive...but that's my opinion. Anyway, apologies for being a nay-sayer. I will of course support the consensus by taking part in the drive. (I'm sorry if all this sounds overly negative. To be honest, my depression has been worse recently, so maybe that's where this is coming from...anyway, apologies). I certainly appreciate the effort you have all made to try to revamp the drive, to try something new. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, Rupert, everyone's opinion is valued here. We actually only ended up removing two categories plus the photographs, so it is not too much of a reduction. I'm keen to see how we go with this drive, and perhaps we can focus a bit more on b1, b2 and photographs on the next drive. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you're feeling bad AR, you can talk with me anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I think the Bugle is still waiting on FPs, and the backlog drive starts tomorrow. Could someone who "has the technology" send out a mass message about the drive? Perhaps just use the blurb I did for the Bugle? Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: - I don't have the tech but I guessed at how to do the FPs (I bit late I know). @Ian Rose and The ed17: - gents are you able to do a quick sanity check then dispatch The Bugle for this month pls? We had wanted to get it out before 15 Oct due to the start of the Backlog Drive but we don't seem to have quite made the deadline. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Didn't have time to make a thorough check but spotted a couple of things to tweak and have now despatched -- tks everyone for your sterling efforts while Nick and I have been away, you can keep it up after we get back as far as I'm concerned...! That said, I expect to be back on deck mid-November so should be able to do more with the next issue than just send it out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Jul-Sep 15 review tallies

Username GAN Jul–Sep 15 PR Jul–Sep 15 ACR Jul–Sep 15 FAC Jul–Sep 15 Total Jul–Sep 15 Awarded
User:23 editor 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Anotherclown 8 0 25 3 36 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Auntieruth55 0 0 1 2 3 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:AustralianRupert 4 4 30 5 43 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Ceradon 1 0 1 2 4 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Cliftonian 1 2 1 4 8 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Cplakidas 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Dank 0 5 16 8 29 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Dudley Miles 0 0 5 2 7 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:EyeTruth 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Freikorp 0 1 2 0 3 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:GermanJoe 0 0 1 1 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Harrias 1 0 1 0 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Hawkeye7 2 0 3 0 5 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009 6 0 2 6 14 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose 5 0 7 5 17 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Jonas Vinther 5 0 2 0 7 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Keith-264 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Lingzhi 0 0 1 1 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Maile66 0 0 1 1 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Maury Markowitz 0 0 3 2 5 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Molestash 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Nick-D 1 1 7 1 10 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria 0 1 14 20 35 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Parsecboy 4 0 7 0 11 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Peacemaker67 2 0 7 0 9 Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Simon Harley 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Sturmvogel 66 31 0 2 1 34 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:The_ed17 0 0 1 1 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Tomandjerry211 13 0 6 0 19 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:TomStar81 0 0 2 0 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Ww2censor 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Got a start on this - anyone care to fill in GANs? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki, what's the best way to find the Milhist GANs? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The method we've been using is outlined here, although it isn't quite accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Gday I've gone and tallied this using the method suggested, hopefully I got them right. I added my own GAs - not sure that's really right. Is someone prepared to verify I didn't fudge my figures pls for the sack of transparency? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day, mate, thanks for this. I was half way through myself...seems laborious. Anyway, 8 GANs for you matches my tally. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There used to be a way of doing it using the assessment logs, but the search screen doesn't recognise our project anymore. I've asked about it, but got just *crickets*... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, can you spell out what isn't quite accurate in the procedure for tallying, and I'll amend it? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in while we have a rare spot of rain on the Dalmatian coast... Unless I misaunderstood what Nikki meant, the potential for inaccuracy is as stated currently, i.e. it depends on people doing the correct thing and listing new Good Articles at WP:GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There's that, and also it only counts passed GANs and only counts those listed as Warfare (not History or other potentially relevant topics). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Despite its lack of precision, I think it is worth it. There are several members of this project that work very hard reviewing GANs (Sturm is a great example, having reviewed over 570 GANs), and it is just as important that they get recognition for their work as it is for Peer, ACR, FAC reviewers, IMHO. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that recognizing these reviews is important, I just wish there were a way to recognize all of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether there is potential for a bot to do this work. Is that theoretically possible, Hawkeye7? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be possible to track articles that become GAs based on the assessment class change itself, but that would require either parsing the assessment logs or going through the related changes for the assessment category, which I suspect is more difficult to implement than looking at the GA page itself. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've handed out the awards (bar mine), so if someone could do the honours, I'll add something to the Bugle. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

September contest

Could someone check my September entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest? Then I'll tally, award and do the October Bugle bit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Checked now. Was I supposed to score? I've no idea about the contest, as I've never entered. Anotherclown (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Also the scoreboard currently says: "End of September 2014 contest". Should that be 2015? Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day, mate, no it hasn't been updated since then. I used to update it monthly, but I don't think it gets updated anymore. To be honest, I truly believe the running tally should be discontinued. A never ending contest doesn't make much sense to me. A yearly one, maybe... but I think last time I floated this idea there wasn't much support. To be honest, I think we should just do away with the table all together. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm updating it now, just so we can make a decision based on current conditions. It does create a fair bit of work, but there is no award for say 1000 points or 5000 points, so I'm not sure it is worthwhile either. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course, it only creates a fair bit of work if it is left for a year (there's a mea culpa in there). Perhaps, if we chose to keep it, coords could volunteer to tally, award and update the log one month a year, and we could create awards for 1000 points, 2500 points and 5000 points? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, we are in a position to potentially switch the points table to a year-long tally, starting in January 2016. This would mean that we could award consistent performance across the twelve monthly contests with an overall winner. I'm thinking something like a yearly "Milhist Cup", or something similar. To achieve this, I would propose that (at the end of the December 2015 monthly contest) we award the editor with the highest running tally in the current points table with the 2015 Milhist Cup (or whatever) and then start a yearly competition from there. I think that this would add more context to the points table, and provide a reason behind the co-ords updating it every month, rather than the current situation. If there is no support for a yearly tally, then my vote is to do away with the table altogether and reduce the workload of the co-ord tallying the contest results. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I could get behind that. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this idea, it's far better than mine. We could easily work out the points just for 2015, by tallying the twelve contests. It's probably Parsecboy... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
G'day all, I have a knock up of the barnstar/cup in my sandbox here: User:AustralianRupert/Sandbox. And the image of the cup is here: File:Milhist Writers' Cup Trophy.png. To be honest, I am terrible at graphics, so please accept my apologies. If anyone else can do better, please do! Anyway, obviously we still have to get further opinions on this before implementing, but I thought I would play around with something. Please let me know what you think. Once we are happy with it, I can turn it into a template so it can be substituted (and we can link to it on the contest page, which will make it easier for future co-ords to find/award when/if the time comes). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea! For the image, perhaps we can superimpose the chevrons onto File:GUMUS.png or File:Trophy.png? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
G'day, I like the GUMUS version, but can't seem to superimpose the chevrons in any manner that looks even half way professional. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I had a play around with the GUMUS template and came up with something that is a bit better than the first attempt, but still probably sub par. Anyway, I've created it into a template now, which can be found here: Template:Milhist Writers' Contest Cup. This will allow us to substitute the barnstar. Are we happy to award this at the end of the December contest (probably to Parsecboy...) and then initialize the main points table to be a year-by-year thing? (I would propose also recording the recipient on the Awards subpage, like we do with Military Historian of the Year, etc.) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Rupert, but I could ask the fellow who did the A-Class Crosses to have a look at it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
That would be great. Even if he could just smooth out some of the lines, that would be most appreciated. The file is here File:Milhist Writers' Cup Trophy.png. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

October Bugle reminder

G'day all, just a reminder that the October Bugle is also a combined effort, so could everyone chip in with the bit they signed up for. The Awards and Contest sections are complete, and I've added a comment to the editors' bit to highlight that we had two members get their first ACM in September. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I started the book review section - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2015/Book reviews. Not sure if its 100% as I've never done it before. Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Looked pretty good to me, AC. BTW, I noted the suggestion elsewhere to get the Bugle out before the 15th to advertise the backlog drive so if you guys can put it together and ping Ed and me say the day before, then one of us can despatch in a timely manner. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've listed the Featured Articles and A-class articles that were promoted during the month, and written blurbs for them all. Can someone please take a quick look at what I've written and give it a quick copy edit if necessary? Also, can someone else list the featured pictures, portals, topics etc. I don't think there were any featured lists. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Copyediting done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I promised a review, and it's on my sandbox. Not sure how to drop it in. auntieruth (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: - Thanks very much for this, I've placed it in as the review essay for the month. Pls see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2015/Review essay if you wish to make any changes to it before publication. Any chance there are some suitable images which could be added? Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
How about a picture ofmy dissertation nd a stack of the books I've cited? auntieruth (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I've copyedited this as well (except I ec'd on Ruth's last change, sorry). I think I've got everything added so far to this edition. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
no problem Dank. Thanks for your input! auntieruth (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
IO can do pictures in a day or two. Poke me onmy talk page if there's any problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
ok, I'm done. added a couple of pictures. finished eds. auntieruth (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added another book review; I'd be obliged if somebody could look it over for any issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I wrote another book review, which can be found at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. I'm not sure if you want to add it or hold it over for next month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I reckon hold on to it for the November issue, Hawk. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've now prepped the drive pages per the above discussions, and have added a blurb in the Bugle. I think it is about ready to go out, excepting maybe the FPs, Adam Cuerden? Could someone who knows it better than me take a look and ping Ian to press the red button if it's ready? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Father's visiting, but I'll try to find some time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I've gone through and cleaned up the front page and the header (I removed the interview redlink - I'm assuming we aren't having one this month?). Also I added a by-line for the OPED which seemed to be missing [1]. I'm assuming it was omitted by mistake (pls revert if I'm wrong). I also made a tweak to the project news page [2]. Otherwise, minus the FPs this looks ok to me if people are happy with my changes. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: - I've added the FP's now. Could you pls check I got it right? I used the ones for September for October? Link here for convenience. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC Input

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Can I get some feedback here? This was settled before, but apparently not to one editor's liking. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

closed now, so perhaps he has figured out that he's losing. I'd challenge the whole section on WP:Verifiable, too. auntieruth (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Co-ord participation in the Backlog Drive

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - Just as the boss generally mucks in and helps clean (some) of the gear, it might be good if the troops saw more participation from the co-ords in the Backlog Drive. I'm certainly not suggesting that its a responsibility to participate, just that it might help to spark some interest in it if we are seen to be leading from the front with it. At the very least its probably not a good look if we cannot even get much participation from amoungst our selves for our own drive... For sure though I understand that we all have our own priorities / interests, not to mention commitments in real life as well, so even if you are only able to do a couple that would still be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course. And we might also encourage editors who regularly patrol the stubs to actually go ahead and assess them, rather than putting them up on the assessment list for others. I'm reluctant to make this suggestion myself given the editor(s)' previous reaction to this. auntieruth (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day, yes, most certainly. If we could all sign up and even just do maybe even just five assessments (or whatever interests us), it would go some way to promoting the drive. Anyway, I've got a hideous flu at the moment and I'm off work for a bit...so I'll try to do a few today. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's efforts so far, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

help with James F. Amos biography

Good Day, Thanks for your help. I would like to garner support to revise the living biography of James F. Amos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Amos) who retired as Commandant of Marine Corp in fall 2013. I am happy to make revisions myself but I don't want to get into edit war or cause problems. We need to remove the media garbage from this webpage; it's irrelevant to his service to the Marine Corp. Any allegations were unsubstantiated and we should not be documenting them in Wikipedia. The following sections in the biography need to be removed entirely: "Conflict with Marine Corps Times", "alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases", "Resume controversy". By allowing these sorts of media driven topics to dominate a military service personnel's record on Wikipedia, we are mistakenly degrading the value of Wikipedia. We cannot allow Wikipedia to simply be an extension of media by approving any topic that is published in a newspaper. Citing a bunch of Marine Corp Times articles is not appropriate. We must be held to a higher standard.

All leaders face scrutiny in the media but we should draw a line and focus on the meaningful events of person's career.

Can we please proceed with removing the three sections entirely? I can do that, or maybe one of you with a better reputation on wikipedia. I am just an end-user not a contributor. I have been stunned for a few years that this living biography was not improved previously. It's graded as a "C" . Let's improve it! Thank you very much, signed, Usa usa 123 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)USA USA 123.Usa usa 123 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, thank you for your interest in the encyclopedia. I think this would be best posted on the article's talk page. That would potentially allow you to try to develop a consensus there (amongst regular editors of that article) about what should be included in the article. As co-ordinators we have no more say about content than any other editor. If you can outline relevant policy-based arguments about why these sections should be reduced or removed, then you may be able to establish a consensus to adjust the article's coverage (I'd potentially suggestion WP:UNDUE may be as a start, but equally I think you will need to provide some coverage of these things to satisfy all perspectives). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No associated task force seems broken

We are missing the articles A-G on the "not task force" section. These disappeared yesterday while I was working on them. auntieruth (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure they weren't just tagged to a task force? The category is small enough that someone could go through the A-G articles fairly quickly. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure Hamish did it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Problem seems solved now, but no, it was a matter of 10 minutes and no one could go through several hundred articles that fast. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the position of Coordinator Emeritus

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We've currently two Coordinators Emeriti, and it is possible (although unlikely) that the position may be awarded to others at some point in the future. Given concerns raised when Roger Davies was originally nominated to be the second Coordinator Emeritus for the project (and in specific relation to the desire at the time not to have the position become some sort of automatic promotion when a lead leaves office) I have been thinking it might be a good idea to establish some kind of criteria for the position, nothing too formal or too high-set mind you, just some general guidelines that can be applied to the position. At a minimum, I think the following could be attached to the role at no consequence to the position itself:

  • A perspective Coordinator Emeritus should have a unique skill set or otherwise be judged valuable enough that the project considers the person's role in the system to be vital to the project as a whole in some way, shape, or form.
  • To be nominated for Coordinator Emeritus, the coordinator must discuss the matter to determine if the editor in question meets the first criteria for elevation to Coordinator Emeritus. If consensus emerges from within the group that the editor's retention would be beneficial to the project as a whole they should reach out to the editor in question to determine if they would be interested in hold the position, citing the reason(s) given for consideration of the title Emeritus. If the editor in question is agreeable to the proposal that he or she receive the title Emeritus then the coordinators may add such a motion for promotion to the upcoming coordinator election page for community input on the proposed addition of a new Coordinator Emeritus.
  • The position may be held for as long as the given editor wishes provided that the editor in question continues to assist the project in a meaningful way. Active editors who hold the position but have not edited for the project for at least one year may have their emeritus status removed without prejudice to reappointment if it is shown that they have assisted the project in some way, shape, or form in the last year.

Under these rules then our Coordinator Emeritus position would only be offered to editors who remain passive in the project and who possess a skill set judged to be important enough to the coordinator corps to merit retention. In the case of our two current Coordinators Emeriti, Kirill Lokshin would still hold his title as he has computer (coding?) capabilities that we rely on to help the project as a whole, while Roger Davies may end up having his pulled since I'm not sure if he has any specific skills that we lack (although he has a few edits within the last year related to the project). Any thoughts on this? Is it worth pursuing, or should we let this lie? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I'm not sure I'd want to be that prescriptive. IMHO the emeritus position should be for active editors (they might well be active elsewhere in the Wiki universe rather than in the day-to-day of coord duties, like Kirill), who have been lead coordinator for at least one tranche, and who would be a good ambassador for the project in the wider Wikiverse. As far as "retiring" an emeritus goes, Kirill still steps in to answer questions and help out with curly issues, but I haven't heard from Roger since I joined the project nearly four years ago. I think the position of emeritus should be reviewed every 3/5? years or so after appointment, immediately prior to and separate from a coord election. I don't see it as a gold watch, but about having made a really significant contribution to the project in the past (in order to be appointed) and still showing an interest today (to be retained) might be the minimum expectations? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the active editor criteria and the minimum 1-tranche guideline. I like the idea of ambassador bit as well, and I do agree wholeheartedly that Kirill is and remains active with the project. Roger is a little harder to vouche for at this point, as you've noted he doesn't much contribute to the coordinator-tasks, but based on his contributions he has done some work on milhist articles, and at any rate this proposal is still in its infancy. We can hammer out more specific details if people like the idea of some sort of emeritus guidelines, but I do agree that what you and I have here is at a minimum a place to start. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It is true that Roger is a semi-inactive editor. Lately most of his activity has been related to ArbCom, where it has been highly controversial. That having been said, Roger founded our project, which remains one of the most successful on Wikipedia by a variety of measures. The position of Coordinator Emeritus was created for him in recognition of that, but there was also concern that the process of electing ccordinators could cause the project to run off the rails. Roger may be semi-inactive on Wikipedia, but he's still around, and can be dragged in if there's a crisis. Later, when Kirill was elected Coordinator Emeritus, the main concern was that the honour would diminished by becoming a routine appointment of the retiring lead coordinator. Especially as many people considered Kirill to be Roger's sidekick. With the passage of time, things appear a bit different. I personally feel that Kirill has become a model Coordinator Emeritus. The fear that honour would become tarnished by routinely being conferred has not happened. Nor has our election process been compromised, although elections have generally faired poorly on Wikipedia. In sum, I see no need for change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I think you might have mixed up Roger and me here. I was the person for whom the position was created, and Roger was the second person elected to it (after having succeeded me as lead coordinator). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Aaarghh. That's right! This is why we need you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Kirill was first, then came Roger. After that we've had no more Coordinators Emeriti, although if the pattern of promotion from Lead Coordinator to Coordinator Emeritus had continued it would've have likely been Parsecboy, then Dank, then Australian Rupert, then TomStar81 (maybe; it was the first time I hadn't sought reelection), then Nick D, and lastly Ian Rose. That makes 8 possible candidates under this particular scheme, although as you can see only 2 of those 8 were confirmed through community processes to officially obtain the position. I'm ok with retaining the status quo if that is what it decided, I just want to make sure that there is some sort of check or process to ensure that we a some kind of guideline for adding and/or removing coordinators emerti. Don't want us to be accused of have just handing this out on whim or that the project has a despotism-based process for joining or leaving the emeritus community. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mass page move

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: As any FYI, Necrothesp (talk · contribs) has apparently undertaken a mass move of several of our high ranking officer pages with what appears to be no attempt to ascertain consensus for the move. I caught this when he hit General of the Armies and moved the page to General of the armies (which I subsequently moved back since a similar incident in 2011 sparked a 3-week edit war). Is this something we need to look into and/or reverse? I'd be loath to wade into this messy debate again, but no consensus means we're gonna have some degree of conflict over the next few days as people lobby for a return to the old name or support the move and its new title. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

He should submit a RM because it is contested. We can all then wade in or not. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
But he didn't submit an RM, which is the problem. I'd be of the mind to file one colossal RFC or Move Request on the matter, but really at this point I think we ought to entertain move locking the pages to prevent this sort of thing from occurring without any consensus driven input. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
How many pages are we talking about? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Excluding the talk pages, its probably something like 75-100. I mean literally every highest ranking military rank page has been displaced from its original title - you can see that in the contributions tab for the editor if you look. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Correction - its more like 200-250 pages, including talk. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that's pretty crazy. I'm moving back some pages that I have watchlisted, mainly German WWII ones. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll come back to this tomorrow, but its late here and I really need some sleep. I'll leave it in everyone else's hands to come up with a plan to move forward with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@TomStar81: You've really got to give credit to someone who estimates about 65 page moves (most of them utterly uncontroversial by anyone's standards, e.g. Lieutenant General (Pakistan) to Lieutenant general (Pakistan), and many of them not even ranks, e.g. Physical training instructor) as 200-250! That's really what you call overexaggeration to make your case in the hope that nobody will actually check! Or could it be that you've just made a wildly inaccurate statement because you couldn't be bothered to check? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and "I mean literally every highest ranking military rank page has been displaced from its original title". Hyperbole is clearly your strong suit! Literally every one eh? Or two or three maybe?! Good grief... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I guessed pretty correctly then since 200-250 divided by two would be about 100-125 articles, only 35 off your actual total. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, really? So overestimating by at least one third is pretty accurate is it? In what world would this be? And why would talk pages be relevant here, since they're usually moved as the main article is (another example of overexaggeration in order to strengthen a weak case, I fear)? In any case, as I've said, despite your hysterical response only a few could be considered controversial even in your eyes (unless you're in favour of recapitalising all ranks, which is clearly against long-established consensus)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
One can understand the rationale that ranks are not (usually) proper nouns. But the German-language moves are definitely wrong as all nouns are capitalised in German. Opera hat (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That also applies to some other languages, and such a mass move of so many articles was inappropriate. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but rubbish. We decided long ago that all ranks should be lower case unless they are unique positions. At the moment most are, but a few break this rule for no apparent reason (e.g. Field marshal (United Kingdom) is lower case, but General of the Army (United States) was upper case, although Fleet admiral (United States) is lower case; Master of the Horse is about a generic title, not a unique position, so should be at Master of the horse; why should General of the Infantry (Germany) be capitalised? It's not a specific position and it's not even in German.). I fail to see why it is relevant what language the ranks are in, since this is English Wikipedia and if we stuck to, say, German capitalisation rules for articles on German subjects then the articles would look bizarre indeed (and for the record, most of the article I moved were in English anyway). This move was not inappropriate in the slightest since it appears to me, a long-term editor of articles on military subjects, to be completely uncontroversial. And RMs are, of course, only required where a move appears to be controversial, not for every move as seems to be suggested above. It seems to me that the opposition here is from a couple of editors who disagree with or are unaware of the general consensus we have had on Wikipedia for years or who think their particular country should be a special case; that's what's crazy. For those spluttering about all nouns being capitalised in German, let's remember that ranks are usually capitalised in English too, and that's how we used to title articles on them; however, we decided long ago not to do this. I was one of those who opposed this at the time, but other editors won and it now seems mad to have this inconsistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Opera hat is correct as to German ranks. All nouns (even common nouns) are to be capitalized accordingly. The fact this is English Wikipedia makes no difference. Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course it does. Does German Wikipedia follow English capitalisation rules? I very much doubt it. But I'm happy to concede that ranks in German should be left in upper case if that's what editors want; but there is no reason whatsoever why German ranks that have been translated into English should also be in upper case. German capitalisation rules do not apply to them (although personally I'd rather keep them in the original language). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If one is using the original German name for a rank, the proper form is to capitalize since this is how the rank is written on every document and in every source. I should also add that even in German, this only applies to a few ranks such as Oberleutnant zur See, Oberst-Gruppenfuhrer and maybe a few others (Generaloberst im Range eines Generalfeldmarschalls is another good example) The German ranks almost exist in their own Wikipedia-world with unique rules. If you write them in German, they should stick to the original form. If you translate them, English capitalization should indeed apply. More info on this issue can also be found here. -O.R.Comms 14:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"The German ranks almost exist in their own Wikipedia-world with unique rules." A perfect illustration of why for consistency's sake they should be changed, no? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
But it's not simply a matter of a mass page move, it also means potentially changing the text within the articles themselves. When a title is part of a name, it should be capitalized. Major General So and So. So and So was a major general in xxxx. I can find the chapter and verse in Chicago Manual of Style if needed. auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If one is using a German term in its original form for an article it should be kept in the proper form of the isolated foreign words; consistent with the grammar rules of the original language and consistent with WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Major General So and So. So and So was a major general in xxxx." My point exactly. Doesn't matter what nationality they were. So also, Generalmajor So and So. So and So was a generalmajor in... I don't see the fuss. It makes as much sense with German words as with English words. It's even less logical with ranks translated from foreign languages into English. Why should it be "Smith was a general" but "Schmidt was a General of Infantry"? Or indeed "Montgomery was a field marshal" but "Eisenhower was a General of the Army" (or indeed, "Montgomery was a field marshal" but "Cunningham was an Admiral of the Fleet"). It makes no sense. It's utterly inconsistent. And note the indefinite article. Eisenhower was a General of the Army. Cunningham was an Admiral of the Fleet. Not the General of the Army or the Admiral of the Fleet. That would make it a unique position and would make capitalisation acceptable. In this case, it isn't; it's just a rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not mentioned so far, German ranks, like any other foreign words, are also written in italics, an example of this would be Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel. Among other reasons, putting a word in italics is to signal usage of a foreign word (see Italic type#Usage). In these instances, I would expect that the foreign word is represented in its correct native spelling. Therefore, both variants, Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel, and Erwin Rommel was a Generalfeldmarschall, are correct. The suggested variant Erwin Rommel was a generalfeldmarschall would give the impression of incorrect spelling of a foreign word. My five cents. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It is actually extremely rare to write ranks, foreign or otherwise, in italics, especially not when putting them before someone's name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, all the more recent German articles promoted to GA-class or higher use italics. see Gottlob Berger, Hermann Fegelein, Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke. And for featured articles like Werner Mölders or SMS Bayern and lists like List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) this is a must. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually meant in the real world, not the Wikipedia world! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
In the real world, foreign words are usually italicized in English text unless they are commonly used in English (such as coup d'etat) Even then, these words could be italicized as coup d'etat if preferred. I would appreciate it if you would revert the German ranks that you changed, please. auntieruth (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in the real world foreign ranks are rarely italicised, especially not when used before an individual's name (didn't I say that above?). Many foreign words are, indeed, but they are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving Forward

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: So now that we've all had a day to read up on this and hear from the editor responsible for the mass move what should our next course of action here be? I personally favor returning the pages to their original titles, but in the interest of establishing consensus here I would like some input on the matter.

Additionally, to help prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future, should we entertain move protection for these kinds of articles, add some sort of edit notice disclaimer, amend the milmos, or proceed along some other larger line to better anchor the articles where they are? At a minimum, and RFC on the matter would probably be a good idea insofar as it would allow us to gauge what the community thinks about this, but I have no strong desire to back and forth the issue. Any thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs)

Looking at the moves, I get the impression that only a portion of them are objectionable; some of them, while part of the same bundle, appear to be corrections/clarifications/etc. that are either entirely unrelated to the capitalization issue or make uncontroversial capitalization changes. Consequently, I don't think it would be particularly beneficial to revert all of the moves en masse; we can more efficiently deal with the subset that is actually controversial by addressing them individually.
As far as paths forward go, I do think that an RFC (or perhaps several different RFCs), with the results potentially being incorporated into the appropriate guidelines, would help clarify matters here. I think that there are several questions we might wish to consider
The consensus on these will not necessarily be the same, so it may be beneficial to present them as separate RFCs rather than bundling them together. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
For the special five and six star ranks of the United States military, there has in fact been years of consensus built up to keep them in their capitalized form. The talk pages of those articles are indeed full of discussions, counter-discussions, and consensus votes. I saw somewhere below in this thread that they were stated to be "generic ranks", but this is not accurate; they are highly unique and have only been held by a few people in history and will most likely never be held again. The British and European ranks which were moved I don't have that much knowledge of expect for the German titles. As has been repeatedly brought up in this thread, and many others, there is major consensus to keep the German ranks in their capitalized form. This can be seen even in the act of editors, completely unrelated to this thread, immediately reverting the page moves as well as all the comments here. With that said, I think all that remains then is the British titles and some of the lesser European ranks. I actually, in most of those cases, think the page moves were fine. Debates on those should be discussed on individual talk pages to avoid filling this thread with such material. -O.R.Comms 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Good suggestion (although I don't think any of these moves are "objectionable"). @TomStar81: Which articles do you favour moving back to their original titles? All the ones I moved? Including the vast majority that must be utterly uncontroversial even to you (if you actually bother to look at the list instead of making wild accusations)? Frankly, this would be (a) an utterly ludicrous and hysterical response to responsible page moving in line with general consensus and consistency by a very experienced editor, and (b) actually pretty insulting and a suggestion that you know better than I do. If you want to challenge individual moves then do so (I stand by all of them, incidentally), but please don't suggest that I've done anything wrong or that a mass revert should be applied to all my moves. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need for a RfC on untranslated German ranks. It is blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding of German that initial caps of all nouns is required. The moves of the untranslated German ranks were all completely wrong-headed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I think at this point there is fact overwhelming consensus that untranslated German military and paramilitary ranks (especially those of the Nazi era) should stay in their original capitalized form. I lost count after the fifth or sixth editor who agreed. It also just doesn't make sense to do otherwise. To lowercase all the German ranks would go against every source on the subject and, by this logic, we should start going through articles on Hitler and changing them to "der fuhrer" instead of "Fuhrer". Per:WP:COMMON I think this issue is one which has been settled. -O.R.Comms 13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No, not at all, since the Führer was a unique title and not a generic rank. Just as we would commonly say in English "the Queen" or "the Prime Minister" (when referring to a specific person), but "a queen" or "a prime minister" (when referring to the title generically). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No, don't agree, despite having more than a modicum of understanding of German! Particularly German as it appertains to military ranks! There's no more reason to capitalise German words when being used within an English work than there is to capitalise any other words. Nothing "wrong-headed" here! Apart perhaps from the frankly amusingly hysterical, inaccurate and ill-considered responses it's generated from a couple of editors. If you don't like a move then move it back and we can take it to RM if necessary. Honestly, it's very simple. Most of you have been here long enough to understand how page moves work. And no, every page move doesn't need prior discussion. This is quite clear from the guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Please come off your high horse. There are no hysterics, there are no crusades, there is no mass mobilization of editors out to destroy you, you've not been reported at ANI, or AIV, or any other official venue, and therefore there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to remain so openly hostile. Surely you can have a conversation without getting overly defensive at every little reaction, can't you? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Now, I didn't say there were any crusades or mass mobilisation against me did I? I said a couple of editors had completely overreacted. In fact, any hostility or high horses have come from you who started this whole debate, instead of just moving back articles you objected to, claimed they should all have been discussed first and vastly overexaggerated the situation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with changing the German ranks to partial caps. No hysterics. And isn't Army of the Ukraine a proper noun, similar to the United States Army, or Armed Forces of the United States? There is plenty of reason to capitalize German nouns when being used within an English work. I guess tomorrow I have to dig out Chicago Manual of Style and look this up. auntieruth (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
General of the Army of Ukraine would only be a proper name if it was a title reserved for the commander of the army and vacated when he retired. It would not be a proper name if just used as a rank, which appears to be the case (i.e. it is "general of the army...of Ukraine", not "General...of the Army of Ukraine"!). This is also the problem with capitalising Admiral of the Fleet (UK) or General of the Army (US). These are not unique posts held by a single individual at any one time but just ranks which have the appearance of being unique posts (simply because they have "the" in them) but in reality are not. In actual fact they are just as generic as field marshal (UK) or fleet admiral (US), which we do not capitalise. Making a special case for them because they contain a definite article is nonsensical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition): Chapter 11 (1) In German, all nouns and words used as nouns are capitalized, whether in ordinary sentences or in titles of works ; (2)Adjectives derived from proper names are generally lowercased. Exceptions include invariable adjectives ending in er (often referring to a city or region) and adjectives that themselves are part of a proper name. For further exceptions, consult Duden; (3) The pronouns Sie, Ihr, and Ihnen, as polite second-person forms, are capitalized. As third-person pronouns they are lowercased. The familiar second-person forms du, dich, dein, ihr, euch, and so on—once routinely capitalized—are now lowercased. CMS uses the "down" style, as Necrothesp is advocating, but CMS is very clear that German words (and words in other languages that require capitalization of nouns) are capitalized. auntieruth (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you auntieruth, that was my expectation as well. Good to know that this is now confirmed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Leutnant zur See should be capitalized as such (not zur). Ideally, it would be in italics. Even if it is generic rank, it should be capitalized because "See" is capitalized. Same for the others. auntieruth (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Move Index

Just for reference, this is an actual list of the military page moves I made yesterday.

Article move list
  1. Cadet Inspector to Cadet inspector - generic rank
  2. Birinci Ferik to Birinci ferik - generic rank
  3. Division General (Bosnia) to Division general (Bosnia) - generic rank
  4. Fähnrich (NPA) to Fähnrich (East Germany) - getting rid of obscure abbreviation
  5. General of Army of Ukraine to General of the army of Ukraine - generic rank, not a post as it might imply
  6. General of the Infantry (Imperial Russia) to General of the infantry (Imperial Russia)
  7. Generale d'Armata to Generale d'armata - generic rank
  8. Generale di Corpo d'Armata to Generale di corpo d'armata - generic rank
  9. Lieutenant General (Bangladesh) to Lieutenant general (Bangladesh) - generic rank
  10. Lieutenant General (Bosnia & Herzegovina) to Lieutenant general (Bosnia and Herzegovina) - generic rank
  11. Lieutenant General (Pakistan) to Lieutenant general (Pakistan) - generic rank
  12. Master Commandant to Master commandant - generic rank
  13. Military Assistant to Military assistant - generic post
  14. Physical Training Instructor to Physical training instructor - generic post
  15. Praefectus Castrorum to Praefectus castrorum - generic rank
  16. Provost Sergeant to Provost sergeant - generic post
  17. Senior Enlisted Advisor to Senior enlisted advisor - generic post
  18. Technician Fifth Grade to Technician fifth grade - generic rank
  19. Technician Fourth Grade to Technician fourth grade - generic rank
  20. Technician Third Grade to Technician third grade - generic rank
  21. Xue Yuan to Xue yuan - generic rank, brought into line with other articles on Chinese ranks
  22. Apothecary General to Apothecary general - generic rank
  23. Captain of the Guard to Captain of the guard - generic post
  24. Colonel-in-Chief to Colonel-in-chief - generic post
  25. General of the Army to General of the army - generic rank
  26. General of the Artillery to General of the artillery - generic rank
  27. General of the Cavalry to General of the cavalry - generic rank
  28. General of the Infantry to General of the infantry - generic rank
  29. General of the Infantry (Germany) to General of the infantry (Germany) - generic rank
  30. Captain 1st Rank to Captain 1st rank - generic rank
  31. Maestre de Campo to Maestre de campo - generic rank
  32. Master of the Horse to Master of the horse - this article is about the generic post in various countries, not about a specific post in a specific country
  33. Feldmarschall-Leutnant to Feldmarschall-leutnant - generic rank
  34. Chief of Defence to Chief of defence - this article is about the generic post in various countries, not about a specific post in a specific country
  35. Ranks of the AAFC to Ranks of the Australian Air Force Cadets - getting rid of obscure abbreviation
  36. Field Marshal (Sri Lanka) to Field marshal (Sri Lanka) - generic rank
  37. Drum Major General to Drum major general - generic rank
  38. Royal Colonel to Royal colonel - generic post
  39. Air Commodore-in-Chief to Air commodore-in-chief - generic post
  40. General of the Army (United States) to General of the army (United States) - generic rank, not a post despite being "of the", since there was more than one at a time
  41. General of the Armies to General of the armies - generic rank, not really a post
  42. Master Gunnery Sergeant to Master gunnery sergeant - generic rank
  43. Officer Selection Officer to Officer selection officer - generic post
  44. Infantry Weapons Officer to Infantry weapons officer - generic speciality
  45. United States Navy Amphibious Reconnaissance Corpsman to Amphibious reconnaissance corpsman - brought into line with every other USN speciality
  46. United States Navy diver to Diver (United States Navy) - brought into line with every other USN speciality
  47. United States Navy EOD to Explosive ordnance disposal technician (United States Navy) - brought into line with every other USN speciality
  48. Company Sergeant to Company sergeant - generic rank
  49. General of the Cavalry (Austria) to General of the cavalry (Austria) - generic rank
  50. Military Bishop to Military bishop - generic rank
  51. Acting Hetman to Acting hetman - generic post
  52. Appointed Hetman to Appointed hetman - generic post
  53. General (YPA) to General (Yugoslav People's Army) - getting rid of obscure abbreviation
  54. ACOS Operations and Training to Assistant Chief of Staff Operations and Training - getting rid of obscure abbreviation
  55. General of the Cavalry (Germany) to General of the cavalry (Germany) - generic rank
  56. Oberfähnrich (NPA) to Oberfähnrich (East Germany) - getting rid of obscure abbreviation
  57. Stabsfähnrich (NPA) to Stabsfähnrich (East Germany) - getting rid of obscure abbreviation
  58. Stabsoberfähnrich (NPA) to Stabsoberfähnrich (East Germany) - getting rid of obscure abbreviation
  59. Fähnrich zur See to Fähnrich zur see - generic rank
  60. Leutnant zur See to Leutnant zur see - generic rank
  61. Oberfähnrich zur See to Oberfähnrich zur see - generic rank
  62. Oberleutnant zur See to Oberleutnant zur see - generic rank
  63. SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer to SS-Oberst-gruppenführer - generic rank

Which exactly are "objectionable"? Should they all be mass reverted because there was no discussion? Have 200-250 pages been moved? Has "literally every highest ranking military rank page...been displaced from its original title"? No. Three, I think! As for German ranks, there are precisely six untranslated ranks in there! Maybe this will illustrate my points about hyperbole and overreaction. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think for individual article moves, they should be discussed on each particular talk page. That would seem better than trying to discuss them all individually here. -O.R.Comms 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Opt out of notifications

I haven't been on Wikipedia in ages, and recall that there is a way to opt out of project notifications, but can't recall how. Thanks! BrokenSphereMsg me 01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, I've removed you from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Inactive. Feel free to drop in, anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Patricia

I'm assuming at this point everyone's heard about Hurricane Patricia (she's parked on our ITN box out on the front page, in the event that you haven't heard about the storm). Right at the moment this is a non-issue, but depending on how wide she turns there is an outside chance she might sideswipe my city sometime in the next 24-36 hours. I don't much fear for my house in the vent that happens, however the utilities here are another matter. Just in case anyone gets curious, if I end up going dark this week that may be the underlying reason. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Stay safe... Hchc2009 (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It's coming into cyclone season where I am, too. All the best, Tom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Good News! The hurricane dod not swing wide, she swung narrow, so I'm safe from any adverse weather. That's a load off :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Definitely good news! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Students will be creating wikipedia articles

My course this semester (Conspiracies, Spies and Assassins of the Revolutionary Wars) right now has about 50 students. I expect it to whittle down to 30–35 in a week or so. Their writing assignment will be to create (or expand a stub) relating to the topic. I'm putting together a list, but if anyone has an article they'd like to see, let me know. auntieruth (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's great, Ruth. Not my area of expertise, so I don't have any suggestions, but it's a brilliant idea! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: For the sake of clarification, may I safely assume that this is US Revolutionary Wars, or were there additional revolutionary wars covered? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@TomStar81: ROFL!! No, preferably revolutionary wars (such as French, Irish, Dutch, Swiss) in Europe...auntieruth (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ruth, This sounds like a great project. At the risk of telling you how to suck eggs, if you're not already planning to do so, it would also be worth posting notes on the main project talk page, WP:AN and any other relevant boards once this gets going so that editors know that they should be helping your students, rather than biting newbies! I think that there's also a central log of student projects somewhere. Nick-D (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: The Wiki Education Foundation might be interested in helping you out with basic training handouts, etc. I can put you in contact if you're interested! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I think I've got it sorted. Took a while because my contact person didn't see my response two weeks ago. auntieruth (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that would make it harder. Good luck! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You may also want to consider creating the pages in draftspace or as drafts rather than live. People can be pretty rough to live stubs nowadays. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-article assessment categories

We've had a few questions recently about our not-quite-standard category names for non-article assessment classes (e.g. "Military history draft pages" rather than "Draft-Class military history articles"). Stylistic preferences aside, the concern has been raised that, in cases where a task force's assessment categories may be generated either from {{WPMILHIST}} or from the other parent WikiProject's banner, we can wind up with duplicate categories that follow the more usual naming convention (e.g. Category:Draft-Class American Revolutionary War articles). This strikes me as a reasonable concern, so I'd like to suggest that we rename these categories to follow the usual convention:

Thoughts? Does anyone see any problems with renaming these categories? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks uncontroversial and eminently sensible to me. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I see no immediate problem with the rename. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've created the new categories and updated the template to push pages into them. Once the current categories empty out (hopefully within a day or two), we can go through and delete them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Let us know when we can delete them, Kirill. Happy to lend a hand. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like everything has migrated over to the new names, so the old categories can be deleted. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Some templates had to be manually changed but it's all done now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

5 million articles

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: As of this message, we cleared 5 million articles. Now I need help: who had the 1st MILHIST article after the 5 millionth article threshold? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, they gave us the 5,000,000 article and form there I was able to figure it out. Our first post 5 million article was Prosper P. Parker, a biography article. In accordance with the proclamation I issued back in July, Allen3 has been declared the victor, and the awards promised have been handed out accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

November Bugle

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day all, is anyone able to help finish off the November Bugle? I think it is about due to be sent out, but it is not yet complete. I've done up the blurbs for the featured articles and A-class articles that were promoted, but I have no idea if any lists, portals, pictures of topics became featured. Can someone help in this regard? @Dank: Would you mind taking a run through the edition for a quick c/e? Equally, has anyone got a book review that we could add? @NickD and Ian Rose: Are you guys on deck now to write up the "From the editors" section? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ship date formatting

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I spotted that the dates on the article USS G.H.W. Bush had been altered to MDY instead of DMY, undid the edit since almost all of our ship articles use this format, went to leave a message with the user and apparently this is being done on the aircraft carrier pages at the present (see here for the edits made so far). Is this something we need to worry about? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted a bunch of them; it's under control.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just about to say that this is no longer a crisis because we got out in front of it. Thank goodness too, this one would have been a first class doozie to undo. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nazy Germany topic ban

In context of the recent topic ban of Jonas Vinther, I wonder if we need to run a structured investigation into our articles dealing with Nazy Germany? Since a few of his articles have reached GA status (and higher?), it could reflect badly on our quality assurance process. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a list of articles? I put him on my blacklist early on due to lack of, shall I say, "teachability", so I don't have any visibility of what articles he got promoted. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
His user page at one point stated that he was involved in the following articles Gary Cooper, List of German field marshals, List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff, List of people killed or wounded in the 20 July plot, Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday, Hedwig Potthast, MP 40, Julius Schaub, Stefanie Rabatsch, Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville, Sleight of hand, Operation Barbarossa, Erhard Heiden, Gregor Strasser, Leni Riefenstahl, Maria Limanskaya, Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler's bodyguard, Battle of Kursk, Julius Schreck, The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (film), Salon Kitty, Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders, Amber Room, Walther von Brauchitsch, Traum durch die Dämmerung, Pact of Steel, Eurovision Song Contest 2014, Jeremi Wiśniowiecki, Atlantic Wall, Horst Wessel, Ideology of the SS. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The Hitler article is OK - Jonas only had a small role in it. Concerns were raised in the ANI discussion about the Walther von Brauchitsch and Horst Wessel articles, and I have my doubts about the Operation Barbarossa article (mainly due to the relatively limited coverage of the war crimes which were a key part of this campaign). I've just had a look at the List of people killed or wounded in the 20 July plot article, and have revised it to be more neutral so I suspect that all the other articles should be reviewed. Regarding our processes, Jonas' attempts at A-class nominations and FACs weren't successful - largely due to problems around sourcing and balance. The problem is the poor quality of GA reviews. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a look at Walther von Brauchitsch for anything egregious. I note I opposed it at FAC because Jonas was not taking comments on board, but I think it can remain at GA if I go through it and cut out anything that seems over the top. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The major problem with that article is the heavy use of the 1944 "William Hart" source, which Jonas stated in the FAC that he used as it was "written before the knowledge of the Holocaust was public I thought the article would be more neutral". Other editors in the FAC argued that it's an unreliable source, and given how dated it is it seems useless. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about the Atlantik Wall article, especially how the article addresses the forced labor element, or better how the article currently doesn't make it very explicit. It currently reads "The Vichy regime imposed a compulsory labour system, drafting some 600,000 French workers to construct these permanent fortifications along the Dutch, Belgian, and French coasts facing the English Channel" MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at Julius Schreck since I'd never heard of him and it's fine. I also don't think that he actually had that much to do with Battle of Kursk.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I've started a GAR for the Pact of Steel article due to the extremely poor quality of references and citations used; it should never have been assessed as a GA. I've also removed some Nazi propaganda from the article. I agree with MisterBee's concerns over the Atlantic Wall article - as well as the experiences of the French slave workers being passed over, weren't huge numbers of slave labourers from Eastern Europe also used to build the fortifications? Nick-D (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Bugger, I didn't realise there was a problem in this area until now. I think I've even reviewed a few of these articles at ACR without detecting anything so I must be more naïve than I thought. Glad you guys are onto it as some of these are fairly important articles. Anotherclown (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Task force categorization

I think that Template:WikiProject Military history doesn't actually categorize task force articles while template:WikiProject United States does (at least for draft-space). For example, looking at Draft talk:137th New York Volunteer Infantry, using just the military history template, the page shows up in Category:American Civil War task force articles as it should. However, there does exist quality markers and adding in the US template here adds the page to Category:Draft-Class American Civil War articles as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is due to the fact that the template generates categories in two different sections of code: one that generates the main project categories (which include all of the new non-article classes as well as the list-specific assessment classes) and one that generates the task force categories (which only include the original Stub/Start/C/B/GA/A/FA classes). I recall a discussion some time ago about updating the latter to include at least the list-specific assessment classes, but I don't believe this was ever completed.
Offhand, I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't want to have the full set of class categories generated for the task forces as well as for the main project. Would anyone object to adding this functionality? If not, I can implement it in a few days. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it makes sense. It seems like an oversight. That would explain why there some more articles in the main task force that in all the subcategories (because they don't even go into unassessed). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Any other comments? If there are no objections, I'll work on adding this to the template tomorrow. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm for it. There's going to be a number of draft categories to be created though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Still not working — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3F13:1D00:6D45:8B00:EE4C:92C (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:User-Class military history articles

Category:User-Class military history articles is an unusual category here. The rest of Category:User-Class articles is not for WikiProjects like this one is. Most pages there are actually userspace drafts and put into draftspace in other projects (see User talk:Crtew/2011 Ramadi bombing for example). I think this project would be better served if these pages could be moved into the Category:Draft-Class military history articles system, including the relevant task forces rather than separating them based solely on their location. I think if the template were to strike User as a class, these pages would automatically fall to "NA-class" and require "Draft" to be physically put in though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Note the previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 132#Category:User-Class military history articles. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well now I feel stupid. I forgot about that lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Final awards of the year

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We are about ten days out from the end of November, which means that we need to start thinking about our military historian of the year and military history new comer of the year awards. Last year we apparently opened the nomination period On December 7 and opened the voting period 15 December, with the election conclusion and award ceremonies on December 15. Coincidentally, this year the 7th and 14th are both Mondays, so we could rerun the same schedule here and finish the award ceremony on the 21st of December this year as we did last year. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

sounds good. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Its up

I've officially opened up the Military historian and newcomer of the year nomination sections, and will be sending a mass message to notify our contributors that the nominations are now open for the awards. As always, a second set of eyes to make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed would be appreciated. In light of the comments made last year by The ed17 (talk · contribs) I've asked contributors to leave links to the articles/lists/images in question so folks can get a better sense of what the nominated have worked on over the last 12 months.TomStar81 (Talk) 04:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Tried the mass media delivery tool to get the word out, and it appears that the essay we have in the academy was helpful for guiding the process. Lemme know what you think about the message you got, if there was more that could have been said or not said. That way we can standardize to some extent the message sent for the process. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I've switched us into voting mode since we've hit the 15th. I'm also using a different format than last year, if anyone has any feedback on it I'd be open to hearing about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I've closed the sections and handed out the awards, for what should be obvious reasons I did not award myself a project barnstar as an honorable mention for being in the running for the Military Historian of the Year 2015 award. I was uncertain how to handle the nomination for the usual suspects, so nothing was awarded for that group but I did mention it in the awards page (feel free to remove it if you like). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Belrain Aerodrome

La photo du terrain d'aviation n'est pas celui de Belrain mais de Maulan : 77.135.122.37 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulan_Aerodrome


Patrick Gondouin - Belrain - France

[This is probably obvious given AR's response, but: "The airfield photo isn't that of Belrain but of Maulan." - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)]
G'day, Patrick, it appears that there are duplicate images uploaded by the same editor, but labelled differently. Is there a source that proves it is a photo of Maulan, and not Belrain? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible Contributions

I'm heading to Novosibirsk come Wednesday for work, if you will, and expect to have around 2-4 free days there. Is there anything involving milhist I can cover while there? Twomcvms (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about the place, but I just had a quick look at Monument to the Heroes of the Revolution on Commons, and from what I can see there is only one pic of the place, so perhaps a few pics from there? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A, GA, and FA class article suggestion

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've got an idea to float here: Would anyone be interested in perhaps adding a page template to the quality content to remind all editors of certain points that need to be adhered to in these articles? Something like what's below:

We could use this to help ensure that the new or anonymous editors are aware that the need to add sources to articles, and we can include other points that should be observed as well on a case by case basis (ie: for ship articles, that the article need to be written all she/her or all it/its). Any thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

personally, I use shortened footnoting, but I have to say that I often find I have to go into some detail when new editor's suddenly take a shine to an FA I've worked on. It can be frustrating. Not sure about templating them though. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Well this kind of template is intended for use as a page notice, so it would only appear if someone moved to edit a rated article specifically. And the finer details we can work out here first, I'm sure everyone has an opinion on the style to be used. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I kind of like the idea, (alternatively) with a slightly different twist. I would want to paste such a template on the respective talk page who had caused some sort of trouble. Using a template could make it less personal and potentially being perceived as less protective. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I like this in principle, but it should be rolled out across the board if adopted. It might be better to discuss this at WT:FAC initially Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hadn't thought of that to be honest, I figured we just stick with MilHist articles, but you've got a point there in that this could be of much benefit to other projects and articles as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea, but with a few tweaks. First off, not all refs need an access date. Second, while I'm personally not a fan of them, some articles do have LDR as an established style. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that this is a good idea, but I'd suggest that it say that new cites, date formats, EngVar, etc. should conform to the existing style as that way we can avoid the issue of prescribing any particular format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Have you seen the WP:MED example? Try editing management of multiple sclerosis. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_51&oldid=1232551934"