Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Second opinion on scope needed

I need some second opinions on some articles that I have come across which may fall under our scope. They are classed as armed conflicts which preceded the Texas Revolution in the template at the bottom of the article which links them together.

Fredonian Rebellion - currently also at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fredonian Rebellion/archive1
Anahuac Disturbances

-MBK₀₀₄ 00:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Anahuac Disturbances are within our scope, but I am not sure about Fredonian Rebellion. As a practical matter, both can be said to be within our scope, so I would suggest tagging both. That is my opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else want to comment on this??? The FAC was successful, so this decision could result in another FA being added to our showcase. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this would—narrowly—fall within our scope per #7: "...the military histories of particular nations and groups..." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I think this would fall under the umbrella of Mexican military history because of the actual military involvement in suppressing the uprisings, if nothing else. (More generally, I would say that armed uprisings probably qualify as "warfare" in the broadest sense, regardless of whether there's any formal military presence.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen, I believe that is enough second opinions for me to go ahead and tag these. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stepping down

Greetings all. It was with a great deal of pride, and no small amount of happiness, that I found I had been chosen as a Coordinator for the project in March of this year. I believed that I would be able to do all of the duties assigned to a Coordinator, and perhaps more. Unfortunately, Real-Life issues meant that my time on wikipedia has drastically declined, to the extent that I do little but virtually 'potter around' here and there. As such, I'd like to thank you all for your support and resign my Coordinator-ship so that someone more effective can use my place. Tomstar81 suggested to Parsecboy that he might do well as a Coordinator, to which I whole-heartedly agree; whenever I've interacted with him, Parsecboy has been kind, friendly, helpful and extremely knowledgeable, and if he were to wish to become a Coordinator, I can't think of anyone else I'd rather have take my place. But of course that's just an endorsement, and nothing else. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Skinny, if this is truly what you wish, then I will support it. However, considering that the next coordinator elections are set to take place in a matter of days, I suggest you just continue to "potter around". The beauty about having so many corords, and the fact that the last few months have been quite inactive, the majority of us have done little, or had little to do in regards to our positions. Mate, you are an excellent edit and a kind, friendly person. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true, at this point you might as well just not stand for election this time instead of bothering resigning. As for your decision to depart, I'm sorry to hear that - after all, you haven't really done much less than me, although for that matter I'm not 100% sure I'll run myself, because, as I said, there are some really great people who aren't coords. If you're worried about that, though, I'm pretty sure Lordoliver won't be running, so don't feel that the only way someone can get on is if you step down. Sorry if that post didn't make much sense, I'm really tired right now. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, sorry if you're deciding to go, and don't feel guilty about how you've done. – Joe N 00:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, what Bryce and Joe have said. There's not long to go now, so you may as well serve out your full term and then stand or not as you choose. I have to say that I'd be sorry to see you step down. Most of us contribute fitfully at best, but that's designed into the system anyway, and as for being 'effective', you've done a fine job (and more than I did in my first term!). However, your decision is yours, and I'm sure I can speak for everyone when I say you have the project's gratitude and respect no matter what you decide. EyeSerene^talk 08:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Skinny, there's clear consensus that your resignation will not be accepted :) As the others say, easiest is simply not to stand for re-election. I also join with EyeSerene is thanking you for your past work, which is both of excellent quality and much appreciated. You have worked wonders fdor Airborne Warfare. Roger Davies ^talk 18:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there a page for the elections where we can sign up yet? Cam ^(Chat) 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be putting them up on tomorrow evening (UTC). Roger Davies ^talk 02:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've posted them now here ... this is just in case the car breaks down during the long drive home :))) Roger Davies ^talk 03:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to send out a mailing to the entire membership to indicate that nominations are open, or are we only doing that for the start of actual voting this time around? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 23:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's in hand (and should really have been done yesterday but I've had RL dramas to deal with, I'm afraid). I've just put notices on all the task force talk pages to add to the oomph and modified the election dates so that voting starts on Sunday 12 September (this gives people Saturday to compose noms etc) and avoids a 9/11 close date for noms. Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Being that external discussions can effect our content as well would it be worth our while to add the {{cent}} template to the talk page here to keep tabs on wikipedia wide proposals? It could help us stay ahead of any major shifts that would effect articles within our scope. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt. I'd have no issue, provided that it doesn't mess with the menus already in place for MilHist. Cam ^(Chat) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't those that are interested simply have the template on their user space? And then tell us about anything of interest that's coming up? Roger Davies ^talk 18:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Roger; when centralised discussions which affect the project are advertised on the main talk page very few of our members typically participate. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest dept

Is anyone free please to tally it all up for August and post the results in the Contest Dept section on the Bugle page? Roger Davies ^talk 18:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has talled up but we still have a way to go. Any more volunteers?

On a related thought, given the hugeness of (a) checking the status of all the articles and (b) the current monthly totals would we be better of with an honour system so that nominees do some of the work themselves? This would just leave the closing coordinator to just double-check a selection by way of audit, work out the totals, and hand out the awards? Roger Davies ^talk 05:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with individuals doing their own tallying and a few coordinators checking at the end (I know, I haven't done anything in this department this time round myself...!). To avoid congestion at the turn of the month, would it be beneficial to do the status checking as people go, i.e. your nominated article gets assessed at the next grade up and you 'mark' it then and there? In fact many contestents only add the article after it's been assessed at the higher grade, which should make things even easier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

New special contest

Hi fellas, I would like to propose the Henry Allingham World War I special contest. If everyone agrees with my plan the contest would start on October 1st and would be very similar to the current WikiProject Aviation Contest in terms of organization and evolution. Of course help is needed, but if no one has enough time to assist me I will make some efforts to make this set alone. Thoughts? --Eurocopter (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping ST47 (talk · contribs) before you start anything—if he continues to be inactive, his bot that counts the points will be too. The WikiCup is having problems with this right now... Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Note to all competing. —Ed (Talk • Contribs)

Aside from the technical issues, what exactly would the scope of the contest be? By the choice of name, I'm guessing that it's intended to focus on WWI topics? If that's the case, it might be worthwhile organizing it within the WWI task force; this would mesh neatly with the idea of pushing for more activity at the task force level that's being discussed above. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly as I thought Kirill, the contest would be organized within the WWI TF and with its members. Its secondary scope would be promoting the World War I Centenary Drive. Besides the score updating, which I believe can be done manually in this case, are there any other serious technical issues? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any off the top of my head. We'll probably need to fiddle with the page structure a bit—it would be nice, I think, to locate the contest at, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Contest and then either link or transclude that onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest for maximum exposure—but that's really a minor issue. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should we better hurry things up so the contest will start on October 1st as planned or should we postpone it until November 1st so the elections will pass, etc? --Eurocopter (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest pushing it back by a week or two further into October so that there's a bit of time for the new coords to settle in before we launch it; but I don't see a need to delay it all the way to November. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, 15 October should do then. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Would this factor in the difficulty of getting some of the more expansive topics and articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Centenary drive that are exponetially more difficult to get promoted? Would you get more points for improving a core article? Are all articles that will be listed on the WWI page included in the normal contest? Woody (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes actually I was thinking that we should give special awards and a considerable amount of points to those who promote the WWI top twenty articles to A-class or FA. I was also thinking that besides the golden, silver and bronze trophys of the contest, a platinum one should be available in case someone promotes the World War I article to FA (which will automatically be accompanied by Roger's bounty :) ). Regarding the normal contest in that period, WWI articles should be included in my opinion, although I believe nobody will have the interest to submit them. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ARC closures

Hi guys. Currently at ACR there is an article that could probably be promoted, and one or two demoted as they have reached the time limit without a consensus to promote. I would do these myself, but I have either commented or opposed in these reviews, so if someone would be willing to do this it would be great. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done EyeSerene^talk 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming absence

This may be a bit presumptuous given the timing of the elections, but I'd just like to post an early notification that I'm going to be on holiday overseas from 25 September to 13 October and won't be checking in at Wikipedia during that time. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Medal Problem

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a problem with the A-Class medals which I believe is unprecedented. Earlier in August Eurocopter passed an ACR for 45th Infantry Division (United States) which upon reconsideration was relisted and eventually was closed as no consensus to promote via the new 28 day rule. As part of the aborted closure, the article was used as the third article upon which an ACM was awarded. We need to take back the latest ACM awarded to Ed! (talk · contribs) and do so before the August newsletter is published as the ACM in question is listed there. I haven't checked the ACM tracker yet as I am in class at the moment, but perhaps we can substitute another article for this one. Anyways, would someone please look into this immediately. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed! himself brought this up on Roger's talkpage User_talk:Roger_Davies#A-Class_Medal_Question and I think he has provided a solution: I Corps (United States) is also his. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, if someone would like to take care of switching the articles out that would be appreciated. If it hasn't been done, I can do it in about 8 hours. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I have rectified them all now. Woody (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability guideline

From the discussion here, I think it a very high-priority task that the project, and the Coordinators, develop a noability guideline for members of armed forces who are awarded - I'm not sure what to call them really - medals such as the Silver Star, Military Medal and other such awards. In the AfD cited, I argued that being awarded a Silver Star did not confer notability, and discussion so far at the WT:MILHIST conversation seems to support that - but we have no such guideline at the moment to cite, which makes arguing in these AfDs very difficult. Skinny87 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that lesser awards, such as the Silver Star or MM should not automatically make a subject notable, but the current practice of having articles on Medal of Honor, VC, etc. winners is good, as many of them are more widely known. – Joe N 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that guidance on the notability of military people and military units is needed. I've found that there's a low awareness that WP:ORG applies to units and what this means (in short, units of any size may be notable, but only if they've received significant coverage in reliable sources). The situation for people is much worse - AfDs for people with an impressive military career are often dominated by people voting 'keep' because they think that the person is admirable rather than the availability of sources. The worst example I can think of is this discussion of an article on a junior USMC officer which was kept mainly because some editors thought that it was admirable that she was the first woman to fly a V-22 Osprey - when pressed for sources about other events in her life so that WP:ONEEVENT wasn't violated they Googled her name and added personal details about her sourced from university newsletters, etc, in a clear WP:BLP violation. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There's now an editor (not an ip or new editor) who is arguing Keep, because Edson was awarded the Silver Star and was in a unit with a Presidential Unit Citation. Could someone look over my counter-argument and see if it's correct? And I'd still press for a more concrete version of our Notability section, because it would be awful handy for this AfD and ones like Nick highlighted above. Skinny87 (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. That editor seems to have not read the 'This page in a nutshell' section of WP:BIO before deciding to cite it to support their position. This debate looks like it's heading towards being closed as a delete; it only looks as long as it is because the page's creator has posted many times. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - as Nick says here and elsewhere, notability always boils down to sources, sources, sources. Everything else is smoke and mirrors ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need some help...

User_talk:The_ed17#Photo_problem —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems sorted (in the sense that the file is now festooned with license tags). Roger Davies ^talk 05:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not standing for re-election

Hello all, just wanted to leave a note here explaining my reasons for not seeking re-election as a co-ordinator at the upcoming election. The truth is that during the February election I obtained a new (dream) job, which took up an inordinate amount of my time and continues to do so. As a result, my contributions across Wikipedia decreased, including my ability to undertake my role here, and I have been painfully aware that I have not contributed to the degree I was hoping to, leaving others to take up the slack. In an effort to reduce my wiki responsibilities I have been withdrawing from obligations I cannot be sure of keeping and am thus not standing for re-election.

I will continute to contribute to articles as and when I have the time and will remain an active member of the project as best as I can - I also hope to stand for election once again when (if) things in RL calm down and I can contribute more effectively. I want to thank everyone for their assistance and the intelligent discussions held on this and other project pages: being a co-ordinator here has been a rare privilege and I am grateful for the opportunity. Best of luck and best regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting us and for all your hard work for the project. Roger Davies ^talk 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your job as well. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

From me too, and all the best. I look forward to working with you again at some point. EyeSerene^talk 09:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Me four. Good luck, my friend. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105/User:Shattered Wikiglass/etc

Just a note that this indefblocked editor is once again active, currently around Operation Market Garden and related articles. Because they're on a dynamic IP I've resorted to semi-protecting a few articles, to which they've taken exception on my talk page and promised to continue socking. They are still trying to continue article talk-page discussion, which I've rolled back, but I'm very reluctant to protect these so more eyes might be useful. Current targets: Operation Market Garden, A Bridge Too Far (film), Guards Armoured Division and XXX Corps (United Kingdom). Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 11:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and, um, sorry again for just blocking you when I was going after one of the sock accounts. Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. EyeSerene^talk 16:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He's certainly busy at the moment (yet another example of why IP editing does more harm than good in my view). Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox name capitalization

Apparently, there are guidelines for capitalizing the names of infobox templates, and it looks like ours don't comply with them. Should we go ahead and move the other infoboxes (for consistency, if nothing else), or wait for someone else to do it? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we establish what the guideline is (and says) before doing anything else? Roger Davies ^talk 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough has referred to me to Wikipedia:Infobox_templates#Design and usage point 5.

This strikes me as being a vast number of redirects. Roger Davies ^talk 19:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; there's Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), which says:

Name the template [[Template:Infobox some subject]] (some subject should be in the singular and capitalized as per normal usage - see WP:NAME).

So the rule—widely ignored though it may be—does appear to call for lowercase names. Given that, should we just go ahead and do it? It doesn't seem worth arguing the point, given that there's no real impact other than moving the pages themselves; there are so many redirects already that a few more will hardly be noticeable. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems a very sensible approach. What would be funky would be if the template could update the embedded link when the individual articles were opened. Just out of curiosity is such a thing possible? Perhaps with an additional module somewhere? Roger Davies ^talk 12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The only way I could think of doing it natively would be something in the site JavaScript, which wouldn't really be worth the effort. (Perhaps we could suggest that AWB or similar cleanup tools include a way to automatically bypass template redirects on an article?)

In any case, I'll try to get the moves themselves done sometime in the next few days. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

August contest scoring

I've gone ahead and scored almost all of that intimidating list in the August contest, strictly out of self-interest, mind you. There's one list on MoH winners that still needs to be looked at because it's a start-class for us, but is being considered for FL. I left it alone as I'm not sure of the citation standards for lists. So if one of y'all would validate my scoring and tally up the numbers y'all could put that beast to bed. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've updated the contest table, awarded the gongs, and added the details to the Bugle accordingly. Roger Davies ^talk 12:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Banner redesign attempt

It looks like MSGJ is trying to redesign {{WPMILHIST}} to use {{WPBannerMeta}}. Personally, I suspect that the idea won't work right—the meta template simply doesn't support a lot of what we do without just including most of our existing banner as custom code—but perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. In any case, I'd appreciate if a few more people could keep an eye on things, and make sure that, at the very least, MSGJ doesn't change out the active banner without making sure his replacement works the same way. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, will do. I noticed the moves earlier. Roger Davies ^talk 13:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles ready for promotion to A-Class

Guys, to help clear backlog, there appear to be two articles that can be promoted now; I'd do myself but I've been involved in reviewing/supporting both so if an uninvolved coord would care to take a look, they are: SMS Derfflinger and Hermann Detzner. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of them. I've made a comment on Derfflinger, but haven't supported or opposed. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tks mate. Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What can be revealed from a map?

So, we have a map dated May 29, 1759, detailing the British's plan of attack: File:Ticonderoga attack plan2.jpg.

We have an article for said map: Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) (which occurred two months after the map's making, on July 26–27, 1759)

But there is no mention of this early map in the article, because I don't think that any reliable sources mention it—possibly because they did not know of the map when the books were written. So, can we try these in order? (a) find a reliable source that does mention it and give us more information. (b) if not, shoot the Fort Ticonderoga staff an email and see if they know of it/know more about it. (c) if they do, ping a friendly historian who knows an author who would research more about this map and publish information in an offsite magazine, creating a reliable source for us and the world.

Could more information be out there, waiting for someone to notice this map and get the drive to start researching afresh? Thoughts? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as there isn't any attempt at interpretation, this ought to be usable as a primary source (equivalent to any other primary source). The intriguing thing is that none of the FA writer's sources mentions it (or mentions equivalent information). This is worth pursuing further. It wouldn't be the first time a digital image restoration revealed information that was previously overlooked or unknown. Remember the Wounded Knee Massacre aftermath image and the attention that received? Also this image of a US National Historic Landmark was unknown to the site's staff until after I restored it. Would like to find an editor from upstate New York who could contact the Fort Ticonceroga staff: the attack plans in this image were written three weeks before the battle; it's a manuscript map. If the landmark staff aren't familiar with it, there's a chance this find would be worthy of publication in a reliable offsite venue. Durova³¹⁴ 03:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I worked on the article, allow me to comment. In response to a prompt from Durova back in July, I poked back into a fairly typical stable of secondary sources, and spent a bit of time looking for potential sources that might shed light onto the origin of the map itself. One thing that those of you reading this need to be aware of is that this action was relatively minor (due to the French retreat), and completely overshadowed by other major North American events of 1759: the decisive Battle of the Plains of Abraham and the Battle of Fort Niagara.

The approximate fruits of my labor:

Standard secondary sources on the F&I war (e.g. Anderson, Fowler, Jennings) don't mention the map itself. One author (it may have been Fowler) mentioned a detailed plan that Amherst developed, and in fact much of what is outlined in the map bears some resemblance to things that actually occurred. While this is not called out in Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) (it would probably be WP:OR to do so), I believe the article is sufficiently detailed that the comparison is somewhat straightforward.
Jeffrey Amherst's chief engineer was John Montresor, who had a distinguished history in North America. I theorize that references to the drafting of this map would reside in either his or Amherst's papers. I was unable to locate useful information on the engineer who actually signed the map.
Jeffrey Amherst's journal has been published, but the edition is not widely available. I believe there is one in a research library near me (the Massachusetts Historical Society), but I have been (and will be) busy with other activities, and it will probably be November before I get there.
I do not know anything about Montresor's documentary trail, but would ask the staff at the MHS when I go there. (There may be more on/by him in the New York Historical Society.)

As Ed mentions, the Ticonderoga research center may be a good avenue to pursue this -- they do publish a journal that would be considered reliable. (Its contents, even in abstract, are not available online to my knowledge, but may also be available at the MHS, when I next get there.)

I am not a professional historian, and have no publication credits. I could probably do an analysis (essentially using secondary sources and things like Chris Fox's detailed treatise on the British movements), and make inquiries with the Ticonderoga journal (for example) on getting something published (either under my own byline, or combined with someone with with more cred than me), but that will have to be as my (donated) time and circumstance allow. Magic♪piano 04:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't appear to be entirely unnoticed by historians, although it seems to be somewhat obscure; I was able to find some references to it, albeit in rather old works:

Winsor, Justin, ed. Narrative and Critical History of America. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1887.

On p. 602, in the midst of what appears to be a discussion on the available sources for the 1759 campaign, fn. 1 states, in part:

A MS. "Project for the attack on Ticonderoga, May 29, 1759, B. B. delt." is among the Faden maps, no. 24, Library of Congress.[1]

Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association with the Quarterly Journal: 2nd-21st Annual Meeting with a List of New Members, Volume 10. 1911.

On p. 357, among a list of "Maps and Depictions" for the article "New Historical Light on the Real Burial Place of George Augustus Lord Viscount Howe, 1758" by James Austin Holden, we have:

Maps in Library of Congress. - a. Project for the attack on Ticonderoga proposed to be put in execution as near as the circumstances and ground will admit of. May 29th, 1759. W. B. delt. ms. col. 15x12 (Faden Coll., no. 24).[2]

I'm not sure if the map was actually examined for any intrinsic value beyond being a period map. It would be interesting to know who "W. B. delt." refers to, at the least. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

William Brasier, draughtsman, in the Office of Ordnance, British Army. Durova³¹⁴ 05:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, the Fort Ticonderoga staff should definitely know about it; it's referenced in note 228 of this document from their website. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to get confirmation that this wasn't overlooked by the scholarly community. With regard to the mention of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, I've got two manuscript British maps for that. The files are huge even by my standards and rather difficult to edit. No plan of attack in the notation; they're before and after versions of the battle.[3][4] Durova³¹⁴ 05:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Hmm. I don't think I did a search on Brasier's name before -- this book turns up, and is in a more convenient nearby library. (The matched text in my search specifically mentioned 1758 and 1759.) I've read the Holden -- he's more interested in the 1758 debacle, and actually attempts to defend Abercrombie from the many charges of incompetence.

BTW, the comparative analysis I did in July is still on my talk page, for those interested. Magic♪piano 12:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. As an aside, the Public Record Office (Kew, London) is stuffed with World war One battle plans, trench sketches, etc often appended to relevant memos, regimental war diaries/returns. These can be very involved - by 1917, for instance, the Royal Engineers had their own printing works, not far from the front line, churning out detailed trench maps for attacking troops, based on aerial observation - and they help build good pictures of the tide of battle. The problem, as you say, is original research. Sooner or later, they'll be published I suppose with commentaries but with the trend these days towards schematics it might be a long wait. Roger Davies ^talk 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

True. a lot of the interpretation ends up being part guesswork and part OR. That said, I think it would be a first for a Wikipedian asking someone else to write an offsite article so said Wikipedian can then write an article about said topic. Nonetheless, definitely an avenue to pursue, given the lengthy time-frames associated with legitimate research these days. Cam ^(Chat) 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely and there's probably already a good article to written about military mapmaking, based on existing sources. There's a lot of published material, for instance, on its role in the battles of Arras and Vimy Ridge in early 1917. Roger Davies ^talk 08:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than discuss the details of the Ticonderoga map further here, perhaps interested parties can continue on the article talk page? A brief trip to the library has turned up the fact that Brasier did not work directly for Montresor, but reported to Lt. Thomas Sowers. Also, Montresor's journal for May 1759 has a few revealing nuggets (including the May 13 entry and several others). Magic♪piano 16:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful new tool

I noticed on Durova's blog that User:MZMcBride has developed a new tool which measures how many editors have watchlisted articles (and user pages). It's available here. An obvious use for this tool is to check how many editors are keeping an eye on contentious articles when disputes arise or high-quality articles are subjected to vandalism. You can also stroke your ego by seeing how many people have watchlisted your user page ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The high ranking user pages could be a sign of watchlisting to keep the other guy on a short leash.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful, hadn't seen that before. Thanks Nick ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator Emeritus

In light of Roger's announcement as his retirement from Lead Coordinator and his statement that he would accept an emeritus position if it were offered, I have boldly gone ahead and added a referendum to that effect to the upcoming election page on behalf of the current coordinators. I believe I spoke for all of us with regards to this, and I would welcome any tweaks to the referendum as I went back to the one for Kirill and tweaked it a bit. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. :-) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MBK Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I had thought of doing the same thing; thanks, MBK. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

adminship for a lesser known member

User:Mohammad adil, one of our lesser known members who creates maps of battles (I'm working on a tutorial with him) and writes about early Muslim military history is requesting adminship. I post it here so you can handle an official post that calls for all who know him to vote. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a stillborn RFA. Created on 6 September but never transcluded to WP:RFA and as of now scheduled to end yesterday. I've left him a message on how to re-start the process if he is so inclined. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, easiest is probably just to transclude it and reset the clock. Though, on reflection, it looks as if it might be premature. Perhaps suggest admin coaching first? Is anyone still doing that? Roger Davies ^talk 13:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest Dept: proposed new scoring system

As mentioned above, it's becoming quite a big job to check the status of all the articles at the end of month. It might be better to replace this with an honour system with nominees doing some of the work themselves. With this approach, at month end, each contestant enters the "End class" (see table below), together with the points scored they've scored. This leaves the closing to double-check the calculations, work out the totals, and make the appropriate awards.

If adopted, this would probably be easier to manage with a sortable table, rather than with the method we currently use. Here's an example table:

Nominee	Article	Entry date	Entry class	End class	Points	Checked
Parsecboy	Brandenburg class battleship		Start
AustralianRupert	No. 6 Commando		None
Sturmvogel 66	Ilyushin Il-1		None
the_ed17	North Carolina-class battleship		Start
Skinny87	Blacker Bombard		Start
Auntieruth55	Cologne War		GA
Nominee	Article	Entry date	Entry class	End class	Points	Checked

Thoughts? Reactions? Roger Davies ^talk 12:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, does anyone know how to stop the bottom line entry being sorted? Roger Davies ^talk 12:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't answer the question immediately above but, as mentioned earlier, certainly in favour of the honour system, people doing their own scoring. As I said previously, suggest people be encouraged to update progressively throughout the month as their articles go up a grade, so there's less risk of congestion at month's end with multiple people trying to edit the table at the same time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Good thought. Roger Davies ^talk 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done the table, Woody (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Roger Davies ^talk 12:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. In the long run, it makes it a hell of a lot easier and less time consuming for the coords. Though, I don't see much point in having an entry date column, to be honest. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the date column as an afterthought when it occurred to me that people might want to date stamp their entries. But, I agree, it just adds to sprawl really.

Any objections or comments from anyone else? If not, I'll update the Contest Dept on Mon/Tue-ish. Roger Davies ^talk 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll mention this on the Contest Dept talk page too, to see what input the regulars can provide. Roger Davies ^talk 11:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I like the idea of people self-assessing B-class articles. I've had a couple of instances where I genuinely thought that I had one, and was surprised to be reminded that I'd forgotten to cite a paragraph or that a more detailed account of the carrier's participation in the Battle of Midway might be in order to meet criteria 2 of the checklist. So I'd cap it at a maximum self-assess level of start. And that would have saved me a boatload of work with all those biographical articles this last contest. And that was the bulk of the work involved so I'm not sure that allowing people to self-assess B-class is really necessary since most people submit them to the assessment dept. anyways. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Along the same lines as Sturmvogel here. I think those that achieve an assessment outside their control (ie. FA, GA, A) should all be self-assessed in terms of the scoring system. They are all entirely non-controversial or should be. The only one that I think should be done by a coordinator is B due to its subjective nature. The B class criteria are subjective, particularly the citation one, and as a result they are prone to a nominator not taking a step back from the article and realising that there may be some faults. Woody (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Echoing Woody, start differs from stub mostly in length (read: not controversial), GA requires a GAN, and A+FA both require a full review from the project and community, respectively. Perhaps a note at MILCON should remind people to submit their entries to WP:MHA? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds logical, a note along the lines of Any editor who thinks an article meets the B-Class criteria is asked to submit it to WP:MHA#REQ? Perhaps, Any editor who thinks that an article needs to be assessed against the B-Class criteria for this month, please submit the article to WP:MHA#REQ? The latter one probably makes the point better about only those articles that need to be judged against the criteria should be submitted to the requests page. Woody (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the second one. What does everyone else think? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that we would require the articles to have an external assessment, such as WP:MHA, and then the editors would just update the table accordingly. However, I do agree that a note should probably be added stating this, just to clarify and clear up any misconception. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a suggestion of self-assessment here, just self-scoring after each article had been assessed in the normal fashion - which I'm still fully in favour of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, just self-scoring. Roger Davies ^talk 13:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with a simple link, losing the sprawl... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Bellhalla implement that so any scorer would have easy links to the talk and history pages? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment points

Broken this discussion out from the self-scoring system proposal above - related but separate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If people want to make scoring easier, increasing the value of GA/A/FA would be the way to go. At the moment, GA=B, which is very dubious in terms of merit, and sometimes an article with 4-6 kb prose (4-5 paras) can pass B (in some extreme cases even one with 2kb, and infobox and a few cites), and as the layout/presentation needs are also a lot lower, it's more economical for a person who wants to win to do lots and lots of B-class articles (maybe 1.5-3 hours for 6 points if they want a low end B-class article), rather than go for As or FAs. Also as A=FA, which is also dubious, it isn't going to encourage people to go for FAs, if that is what the coords want. There would be less entries because there would be an more incentive to write one A/FA instead of three low-end Bs, and also less variance if that worries people, as B is the most variable category and is the most targeted for points. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with YellowMonkey here, and have thought about this several times before. The B/GA score really should be separated from each other, as should A/FA, as just because one passes the former does not guarantee it will pass the latter, and the latter really does require greater work and a stricter criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always accepted the B/GA and A/FA system for two reasons: a) simplicity and b) this is a MilHist contest so it made sense that the MilHist assessments (B and A) were given added/equal weight compared to the project-wide assessments (GA and FA). However I quite agree with YellowMonkey above, so would have no prob scoring GA somewhat higher than B, and FA somewhat higher than A. What we'll need next is a concrete proposal for just what that scoring is; something like the current Aviation Contest offers one possibility... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should award more points for B>GA and A>FA. A well-written B can breeze through GA, but it can be agony, both for the editor and the reviewer, for a badly-written one to be upgraded enough to pass GA review. Speaking for myself I've not bothered much with the GA process because it didn't garner me anything except as a step to A-class and changing the scoring would certainly cause me to rethink things. But one caveat to doing so is that changing the scoring could well overload the GA queue, which is already pretty well overloaded. Do we want to encourage people to take on more GA reviews somehow? I realize that that could be difficult since a GA reviewer ideally should have some knowledge of the subject so that issues other than formatting are dealt with. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

About the queue, I would say that the A-class medal and the Four award are teh ones that encourage people to make an extra "pit stop" so to speak. At the end of the day, you get a set amount of points credit for getting a FA, but stopping on the way for GA and A gets you extra awards, whether the paperwork was necessary or not. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have and will continue to go to ACR because they can be, and normally are, extremely helpful... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Aviation model is one approach, although it does have the major drawback of awarding points for "none" to "stub" transitions; in such a system someone creating large numbers of stubs can very easily overwhelm editors doing more advanced article work by sheer weight of numbers. I would recommend that a minimum threshold for awarding any points be retained under whatever new scoring system we adopt. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree Kirill, whatever happens I don't think we should change our current practice of having a minimum level of Start-Class before we award some points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Stormbird, I sympathise re. the GA process and, to be honest, generally only undertake them when I've submitted an article for GA assessment myself and want to 'do my bit' in return. Funnily enough, I was giving thought to the problem of encouraging more GA reviews. If anyone wants to take me up on this, BTW, suggest we again break out to a separate - but related - discussion... I think we're inconsistent with how we treat the MilHist-assigned classes (B and A) and the WP-wide assessements (GA/FA), in that we recognise (albeit imperfectly in some people's opinion) GA/FA in the monthly article-writing contest, but not when we come to hand out the quarterly review chevrons and barnstars. Now consistency isn't my be-all and end-all (I remain against C-Class in MilHist, even though it would make us similar to the rest of WP) but I would like to encourage more GA reviews, and tallying them (and FA reviews) for the quarterly awards might be one way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Trial table

Points awarded
	Ending class
Beginning class		Start	B	GA	A	FA
	None/Stub	+1	+6	+11	+16	+26
	Start		+5	+10	+15	+25
	B			+5	+10	+20
	GA				+5	+15
	A					+10

I've had a play around with the points and levels, and come up with the table above. This is sort of half way between our existing one and the Aviation table. If we want to push standards up, one approach might be not to award points at all for Start class, so the minimum scoring level would be B-class.

Incidentally, a consequence of any points change is that the score table might need to be re-started from scratch as it would difficult to integrate the old and new scoring systems. I'm not sure what the regular contestants would feel about this. Roger Davies ^talk

The table looks good to me, and follows the precedent of our previous one. However, I think we should retain scoring for Start class articles as the point of the contest is to motivate editors to create and improve articles, and some of the entrants do not yet have the knowledge or ability to improve an article past this level, but also there may be a lack of information available on a particular area. Also, if this were removed it may make some editors feel a little intimidated, I think. I don't think we really need to re-start the scoring table, as this is quite similar to our previous system just with enhanced points for some levels. However, I will bow to consensus if it is decided to re-start the table. Thanks for working this out, Roger. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bryce :) I didn't explain it very clearly but the main effect of increasing the points will be to slew the results in nominees' averages columns. This could make it look as if new editors are doing much better than older ones. If we do decide to restart the table, it could be an opportunity to remove some of the very old editors from it. As ever, input sought from other coordinators ... Roger Davies ^talk 05:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

~~Perhaps we archive the new table and start from scratch?~~ With a new scoring system, it seems like the right thing to do. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: I am so tired that I didn't realize that I was restating exactly what Roger said and putting it forward as my own idea. It's time for bed... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I did take that into consideration, Roger, but didn't think that it really mattered much. Though you are probably right, and Ed's and your suggestion of archiving the table somewhere and then starting afresh is probably the best way to go. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be pretty easy to just reweight the table as the vast majority of entries were B or lower. Of course, people who concentrated on B-class articles might see it as moving the goalposts in the middle of the game, Formula One and Ferrari style. If people want to encourage old FA/A saves that could be incorporated I guess...as Catalan said "Humans are greedy" and the jokes about delisting so they could renominate to claim a star or whatever.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) - YM's got an idea here; I think it would be a great idea to count FAR saves. There's a very small interest in saving articles here (from myself included); perhaps this could change it somewhat. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also easier to save FARs than re-pass them through FAC, same for the old A-class articles by RM Gillespie, one of them was delisted last year (MACVSOG and he's still chuntering about it on Talk:Battle of Khe Sanh) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any traction for adding saved articles to the equation, say for A-class and FA, as YM suggests? It would be trivially easy to include a points structure to the table. Roger Davies ^talk 07:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That would help us by inspire people to save what featured content we already have. It could also be a chance to try out the FA-medal idea suggest earlier; if we recycle the concept to FAR saves instead of FAC passes we could get more people on board with this concept since to my knowlage no such award currently exists. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The other thing is that it would look rather awkward if people deliberately went and started FARs/ACRs so that they could save it, and some people would regard it with a Dorothy Dixer style set-piece stunt, or complain that it was flooding FAR etc or that someone was criticising not-so-bad modern articles (or nomming their own over and over) to rort the system. So if this goes ahead, some coord will probably want to start an informal list of articles that are nominally A/FA but do not meet modern standards actually required that would be eligible (or ask the renovator to explain how their edits have improved the article's deficiencies wrt the criteria). It would also cause needless fist-waving because some people start giving others a great big earful as soon as anyone puts their article under the microscope (and therefore people may quietly fix up the articles without waiting for a third party to start a formal review, or starting their own review and then fixing it, both of which would provoke a diatribe by some authors as soon as it is tabled) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good points. It may be more disputive than colloborative to include "rescues". In retrospect, it may be better to drop the idea. Roger Davies ^talk 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on the table Okay, just a practical question: so if an article is new, and it is rated as "Start" and then moves to "B" and then to "A" all in the contest period, is that +23 or +16? (1+7+16=23) or (+16). ???
Re the other conversation above. I agree with Ian re the good article thing. I did a lot of them for a while, especially after I saw Jackyd and Parsecboy's articles stalled in GA. They were good, and needed to be acted upon. I find the FA process confusing and frequently annoying, but at least it is relatively standardized, whereas the GA process, esp. in the so-called GA sweeps, seems to pass anything that isn't egregiously mis-cited, uncontexted, unverifiable, etc. I tell my students (who usually want to use a MHproject article anyway), that they can use it as a starting point, but that it must be rated as B or better. It seems to me that the projects should control the GA process, not generally, because it becomes a hash of mixed qualifications, and criteria. Now I must get back to my dissertation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re your first, I assume the "Beginning class" would reset with each new hurdle. Taking, for example, a former Start right to FA gives 25 points. Taking that same start to B gives 5 points; if it's then nominated for GA we'd use B as the Beginning class (so another 5 points). GA -> A = 5 points, and A -> FA = 10 points... for a grand total of the same 25 points.
Re your second, that would really be opening a can of worms! The GA review process, unlike most Wikiproject review processes, is really just a basic five pillars check (or at least, those that apply to content) with a bit of house-style stuff plugged in. It's simple, it mostly works, and it shouldn't be seen for more than it pretends to be ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) On the narrow point of the existing table, is everyone happy with the scoring schema? I'm not proposing we implement it just yet, just curious to see where consensus lies. Implementation, and new scoreboards etc, is probably a matter from the new tranche of coordinators. Roger Davies ^talk 17:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it. —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see us agree to implement both self-scoring and a new points system from 1 October, in line with commencement of the next round of coordinators. My one niggle with the new points system, and it may surprise people coming from me, is whether 10 points for A to FA is justified or desirable. We've always claimed our A-Class as being just short of FA in quality, yet we make the jump from A to FA 10 points whereas the jump from Start to B, and B to GA, and GA to A, are each 5 points. Of course I won't attempt to stand in the way of consensus if most people are happy with that, and given that I take the majority of 'my' A-Class articles to FA it will hardly disadvantage me (!) but it just struck me as a bit of an anomaly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting point. What do others think? Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a good point. I'd say the jump from A to FA, given our A-Class standards, is probably less taxing than taking a B to A (and certainly not twice as difficult, as the current scheme implies). Another point is slotting GA into the hierarchy when it really falls outside it, but I don't believe this is a huge issue. EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've created a new log, moved the old table of scores to the old log, and replaced the scoring table. The only change I made from the above was increasing the points for A-class per Ian and ES above; feel free to tweak as needed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured pictures

Concerns have been raised elsewhere that we're not paying sufficient credit to our featured picture contributors. Perhaps it might be a good idea if we ran through our featured pictures (all 157 of them) and made up a table of the editors who contributed them, with appropriate awards in mind? Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I think WP:FP notes the names of the people who have worked on each of the Featured images with the specific image. I think my only concern is what then about other Featured content? Will this creat some sort of precedent? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. Us coordinators also need to do a better job of monitoring FP nominations; quite a few slip through without being added to the reviews page and WPMILHIST Announcements template. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed quite a few of the nominations "slip between the cracks" and it concerns me a little in that respect. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its partially in difference to this that I have suggested from time to time we tag images so we can keep track of this sort of thing more easily. I'll have to think about this some tomorrow, but perhaps a set up a system similar to that for our ACR material to track and award FP nominators would work? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The question then, as Bryce points out, is the precedent for other featured content. Personally, I'm not convinced that we should limit this to FPs; there's no particular reason why they should be valued more, or tracked closer, than any other type of featured content. Why don't we create a "leaderboard" for tracking the editors responsible for all of our featured content contributions, similar to how WP:WBFAN is set up? This could notionally be done either as part of the contest department, or as an adjunct to the current showcase.

(Whether we then start giving out awards when people move up, and whether we introduce a set of FC medals to match the ACMs, becomes a secondary issue.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I had something along the lines of the "leaderboard" in mind when I talked about a table. It is also best, on reflection, to incorporate all featured content as this will avoid people feeling arbitrarily excluded. If, you say, it is prominently displayed, it will avoid the need for awards. Roger Davies ^talk 11:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of FPs, it does need to be said that MILHIST has sparked occasional complaints from the FPC community. Some of the regulars at that process have expressed concern that this project operates like a bloc vote. So to fellow MILHISTers who spend time at FPC, please spend more time there if you go. Review some nominations outside the project scope, etc. The fear has been that this large and powerful project will end up compromising quality at that featured process. Durova³¹⁸ 16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we have some examples, Durova? If true, this is a worrying concern that needs to be dealt with immediately. Skinny87 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Have the fears that WP:FPC is an insular and excluding process gone away. In recent memory I remember regulars leaving at what they saw was far too much pedantry and bloc voting for regulars from regulars. Whilst the same can be said of most featured processes, FPC seemed to suffer more than most hence why I avoid it now. Personally, inputs from non-regulars is usally ignored or derided. Woody (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been several months since that came up; late spring if memory serves. So it probably isn't a matter that needs active attention. More of a thing to be cognizant of if MILHIST starts an internal drive to put more attention into non-article featured processes. Woody makes a fair point about FPC's insularity. The issue tends to be impatience with technically inferior nominations. Reading between the lines of fellow reviewers' comments, I can almost picture them rolling their eyes and muttering "Oh no, more blown whites." That looks bitey to someone who isn't familiar with the range of technical standards and terms that apply there (I try to be kind when opposing a newcomer unless it's copyvio), but there's more of a clubbish atmosphere among people who understand concepts which are hard to articulate, as opposed to bloc voting. Personal affinities and antipathies rarely interfere with the outcome of a nomination (although confusion sometimes reigns).

On the other hand, featured sounds really welcomes additional reviewers. It's been a while since I've nominated there; stalled on a plan to nominate George W. Bush's announcement of Desert Storm. OGG format conversion introduces glitches that aren't audible on the original file. Multiple editors and multiple softwares all produce the same corruptions and nobody quite understands why. Want to put up a real gem? Try to locate an audio file of Harry Truman's complete speech when he announced the bombing of Hiroshima. Durova³¹⁹ 03:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured pictures (Durova's comments)

Actually a focus on featured processes takes a very narrow view of things. If you've been reading the Signpost this summer, WMF Netherlands and the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam have scheduled a collaborative exhibit to open later this fall. I happen to be the technical and creative lead for the media portion of that collaboration.

Pharosofalexandria from the New York chapter and I have been negotiating with the New York Public Library. The material is right up MILHIST's alley. It starts with this image: a 93MB digitization of Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre. A full restoration cannot be performed on the Library of Congress file because the ink rubbed away from the paper in sections of the print; it's especially noticeable in the British soldiers at right. So our quest begins with this: obtain a high resolution digitized file from another library's copy of the same engraving, digitally composite the two, and construct a full restoration from the composite. After a month of negotiation and a slide show we have a promise from the NYPL staff but no second file yet.

We aim to leverage this in two directions: a substantial donation of digitized media to Wikimedia Commons, and to make that restoration of the Boston Massacre the centerpiece of a collaborative exhibit about the artwork of the American Revolution. Yes, that's ambitious. But we already have momentum from a physical space show at a notable museum in a European capital. Basic military tactics: advance after victory.

As stated elsewhere, the baseball project is currently building a featured media portfolio toward the goal of approaching the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. They're not dropping the ball. I want to continue working with MILHIST; it's the first wikiproject I ever joined. But if things continue to move like it's led by the George McClellans of Wikipedia, I'll find a Grant and and get him a case of good whiskey. Durova³¹⁸ 20:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's all very good in principle, but we need something slightly more concrete than that. Durova, what specifically would you like this project to do? We'd be perfectly happy to work with you on something along these lines; but you need to tell us what assistance you actually need from us (keeping in mind that we don't actually have any other members, to the best of my knowledge, with experience or interest in image restoration—although we can of course put out another public call for participation, if you can arrange for suitable tutoring for any candidates).

(This is entirely unrelated, incidentally, to the idea of more prominently recognizing contributors of featured content, which is something I think we should pursue regardless.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking, incidentally, that a systemic run through the featured pictures section would reveal other editors with an interest in image restoration. From a quick look through our gallery, I see quite a few editors do this but they are do not seem to be active within Milhist. Perhaps if some were contacted, it could provide the basis for a task force/work group. Roger Davies ^talk 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If the project joined with the NYPL negotiations, it would be possible to offer something like what WMF Netherlands is doing for the Tropenmuseum: build encyclopedia articles as background for material used in the show. We've got an international network of people who are pooling infomation about successful strategies working with cultural institutions. It should be possible for MILHIST to fill the gap with regard to the Montréal Museum of Fine Art. That museum has incorporated information from the Wounded Knee Massacre restoration into a photography exhibit. Institutions like to talk to organizations; the Canadians don't have their own WMF chapter yet. Ideally, MILHIST would substitute for a local chapter in offering organizational clout. We've got something else to bring to the table if Montréal moves forward: those two manuscript British maps of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Durova³¹⁸ 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was also contemplating something similar to Roger's suggestion, having lurked on this issue for the last few days now. I hesitated to suggest a TF/workgroup because of our apparent lack of work in this area, but if we could get enough members interested (or form a collaboration with other projects), something like a workgroup under the logistics dept might be ideal. It could also tie in with an Academy course on image restoration... if, of course, we can find an expert like Durova who can contribute to the learning material :) EyeSerene^talk 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If some interested editors can be found, that seems like a good idea; perhaps going through the list of current FPs and seeing who nominated them can produce some likely candidates. Alternately, a group to focus specifically on liaison efforts with other institutions may be worth considering as well; cf. WT:MILHIST#Anyone in Northern Virginia?. Certainly, if we do start such efforts, we ought to at least keep track of them somewhere.

(For clarity, I would suggest not calling such groups "task forces", since the term is generally taken to mean topical groups rather than functional ones. Something like "section" (e.g. "the image restoration section of the logistics department")—or even simply "group"—would work just as well, and not unnecessarily blur the terminology. But this is really a minor point.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, at some point this needs to be said. It certainly looks as if you and Roger put whatever I say through some secret decoder ring and translate it into featured credits and wikitrinkets. See the opening post: "Concerns have been raised elsewhere that we're not paying sufficient credit to our featured picture contributors." He ends with a proposal to create new barnstars, never mentioning the New York Public Library or the Montréal Museum of Fine Art. Shortly after I step in to say that he has initiated the wrong conversation, my comments get segregated as if I were off topic on a subject where the project has practically no other regular contributor. Now you're turning things back to featured pictures again and trying to divert volunteer time into low priority directions. I'm not one to mince words: if you refuse to pay me the compliment of supposing I know what I'm talking about, then kindly recuse yourselves from the conversation. You are an active hindrance to progress. Durova³¹⁸ 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to EyeSerene, Durova, not to you; and it is not your place to tell me that I am not permitted to do so, nor to instruct me on what ideas I may or may not discuss with him.

As far as the NYPL and so forth: yes, we all understand that you want to focus on that; but you haven't yet told us what you'd like for us to do. What does "joining the negotiations" mean in practical terms? If you don't give us any specifics, then you can hardly blame us for not proceeding with what you have in mind. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, if the project had more than one active editor doing image restorations this conversation would have a very different context. But it looks very much like you're attempting to corral other people to plan a workload for me. Fortunately I went on semi-break for several days before reading your response. I had started a draft of restoration tips for the academy, for which I will now request deletion. Please strike my name from any proposed list of candidates for that new image award. People who set my priorities and tell me where my place is also sign paychecks. The Tropenmuseum staff have physical galleries and better manners. Durova³¹⁹ 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)