Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/August 2006

Third-party nominations not accepted

KarlBunker

KarlBunker (talk · contribs)

We have been working on the crossbow article together and he knows to manage hot disputes. Wandalstouring 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nomination has not yet been accepted.

Comments and questions

• I thank Wandalstouring very much for suggesting me, but I don't want to accept a nomination at this time. I don't have enough time to spare for this project. Good luck to you! KarlBunker 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

General commentary

SSG Cornelius Seon (Ret)

I'm not running for anything, primarily because I really do not have the time to shepherd this endeavor, and so let me say that I support the incumbents, at least for one more term. Running any sort of operation of this nature is practically a full time job, and I am glad to report that generally they have lived up to the expectations of their jobs, and have improved this project by leaps and bounds.

Comments and Suggestions

1. One thing that does need to be addressed is the fact that when someone posts incomplete information, or may format in a way not to the standards of this or that other person, there have been some who have spent a lot of time complaining about it, rather than using their own effort to complete or correct what ever is bothering them. I have followed the latter advice myself, and find that it satisfies everyone concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CORNELIUSSEON (talk • contribs)

(The above moved from the main page by Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC))

None of the Above

1. As a newbie to the Military history project I don't know anyone well enough to make an informed decision - but I'm glad that there are a lot of people that do, and will be happy to work with the majority's choices. UrbanTerrorist 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
2. I think this project is a very good thing for the Wikipedia, but I vote for none, as I object to WikiProjects being officially coordinated. Wikis are supposed to be open, and WikiProjects should be openly organized and informally coordinated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(The above moved from the main page by Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

A question

I'm assuming I'm not the only one with this question. Should we vote for ourselves, or will that automatically be figured in the final tally (assuming that if you accept the nomination/nominate yourself, you also want to vote for yourself)?--Nobunaga24 06:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it'll be automatically adjusted for (if it makes a difference, in any case). Kirill Lokshin 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote Count

I know that strictly speaking it means nothing, but in the little tabulation of votes in the top right corner, it lists me with having nine even though I have only eight (including my own) below by statement. A glitch? --Harlsbottom 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's manually updated (by a couple of different people, to boot), so it's probably a typo. Please feel free to update it! :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

THANKS to everyone who has voted, and...

If the voting continues in the same general pattern it has so far, we will have some excellent assistant coordinators to assist Kirill in continuing the superior job he has begun in establishing the best military history database on the net. For all those who have voted, thanks! (On a personal note, for all those who voted for me as an assistant, THANKS FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART) I don't think it is too early to toss some ideas out there for the membership's consideration, no matter who wins the assistant slots - I think it obvious the paramount issue is pretty much settled - the membership has resoundingly endorsed Kirill! So what can we do to assist him? I am sure he has ideas, which I endorse in advance - he has always been willing to listen and help, so I am sure his ideas will be geared towards coordinate, compromise, and cooperate! But I offer a thought or two of my own.

I have started asking my peers to assist me in pre-posting edits before I put up new articles. For instance, I am in the process of working on a comparitive military history of archery, and comparison between types of weapons - for instance, how did the legendary English longbow stack up to it's less known, but at least as deadly, counterpart, the Mongol Longbow? (And the Mongol compound bow versus the Hun and Arab compound bow! The chinese versus the European crossbows?) Before I post the new article, not only will Kirill be entreated by me to look at it, but Ewulp's help sought out for general writing structure, Wandalstouring for particulars on archery, and I hope, Llywrch for his general excellence as a military historian. In fact, this whole article was inspired by Wandalstouring who suggested it to me! I really think we need more peer aid, better coordination of pre-posting editing of articles by our own peers. I also think we need standing panels of known experts - for instance, Wandalstouring is a genuine marvel on weaponry. Ewulp is fabulous for taking unwieldy sentences and saving the good ideas out of the wreakage of run-on phrases. Grafikm_fr is well known for his bots and boxes! We have the talent to edit our own work before it goes before the public, which not only can save embarrassment, but time in needless arguments, and more.

Another idea I have stolen from Nobunaga24, is we would like to see standarized assessments of battles, conflicts, et al. Let us assess battles and conflicts not merely in their basic usual east-versus-west historical perspective, traditional-versus-modern, and as Nobunaga24 points out, sometimes there are so many legimate differing viewpoints they could make an article of their own! We should require sourcing so we eliminate much of the original research which passes as perspective, and have a panel to assure that as much as is humanly possible, we legitimately discuss the major known perspectives of any major military event.

Again, thanks to all who have voted, personally, from me, double THANKS for those who voted for the oldwindybear, and I toss these ideas out for discussion. old windy bear 20:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here here! --Dryzen 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dryzen Thanks! You are a really sharp editor - what do you think of my ideas? old windy bear 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitly find it intriguing to say the least. Comparitive works will definitly put elements in perspective for those less knowledgable and will surely bring out some new information for the enthusiats as well. Is there a current discussion page proper to this subject? Either way I will definitly take a look at it, being a passionate reinactor and archer myself.--Dryzen 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dryzen Thanks for your input! I know Kirill monitors this page, so hopefully he will tell us how to set up a discussion page on this topic. I have to give Wandalstouring the credit on this - he set me off to research archery. Once I began, I becme more and more fascinated, and like you, I think a comparitive chart will be a fascinating addition even for those who know archery! If either of us is elected as an assistant, let us committ to this project! I already have 31 pages of notes on it! old windy bear 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Best place for an initial threshing out of the idea would actually be the main discussion page; while a separate page might be worthwhile if this grows to be very complex, creating one from the outset is an almost certain way not to have anyone joining the discussion ;-)

I might suggest making a formal proposal of this idea once the election concludes this Friday; there will likely be a number of major things being proposed, so the discussion page should see a high level of activity and broad participation. Kirill Lokshin 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Thanks my friend! I will follow your direction on this. I think you will find that this comparison page on archery will see a HUGE amount of interest! old windy bear 22:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)