Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 38

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

→

Lead coordinator?

I'm going to sit this discussion out, but as promised, I'm asking if people still want a lead coord, and if so, if you have any guidance for me. Whatever it is, I'll do my best. (And point people here from other pages if you like). I have no illusions about having a "mandate" of any kind; it's just a job. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If I could ask a favor, I'd rather not do any traditional lead coord things, including whatever the lead does post-election, until someone has made the call that there's no consensus for the position to end. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whilst my opinion has a little less weight now that I'm newly retired (hmm, I feel an urge to spend more time in the garden), I personally think the lead co-ordinator position should remain. Two thoughts spring to mind; one that this decision affects the project as a whole and might be better had on the main talk page. Two (and no offence Dank), if the person offered the role doesn't believe in it much, then (should the position remain) they should consider passing the role onto someone else, rather than merely accepting the position without much intention of developing it. Ranger Steve ^Talk 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a debate to be had over the role of the lead but inertia is not the way to initiate it, especially when just one vote separates the lead from those who came joint second. Perhaps the baton (runner's rather than field marshal's) should now pass to EyeSerene, Ian Rose or Nick-D. Roger Davies ^talk 06:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with RS and Roger - I refrained from commenting during the election but I wasn't very comfortable with the discussion on the election page. While the lead position is essentially meaningless in many ways, it does carry significant informal weight regarding the image of the project and the respect of the coord team. If you don't feel happy in the role I'd prefer that it passes to someone else as smoothly as possible. EyeSerene^talk 08:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the election page, I think that the lead coordinator role is useful and should be continued. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay ... I don't want to give the impression that I didn't hear what people were saying on the election page, I did ... everyone there wanted to keep the lead coord position. When I realized that, I just went quiet, partly out of embarrassment, but mostly because I thought further discussion would take away from what the elections were really about (but all's well that ends well, and the elections ended well). I was never thinking that I didn't want to or wouldn't be able to fulfill the duties, I was thinking that little use had been made of the position, and Wikipedia is after all an adhocracy ... positions should come and go as needed. I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to encourage anyone who thinks they can make good use out of some kind of title to make one up, tell us what use you have for the title, and ask for it ... Milhist Director for (geographic area), (subject area), (outreach to whatever). Any of those will sound a lot fancier (to outsiders) than "lead coord" :) - Dank (push to talk) 09:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that encouraging people to make up their own roles would be very sensible. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Again I concur. Handing out titles to whoever wants them would not only devalue the coord election process (why bother if we could just ask) but also lead us towards a level of bureaucracy we can frankly do without. The value of the election process is that coords can be fairly confident they have the respect and support of project members; along with that goes an understanding that what little authority coords have is based on the respect of their peers and should be exercised extremely cautiously if at all, lest it disappear when respect is lost. I really don't mean to cause offence and I admire you enormously, but at the moment I'm feeling less and less confident that you appreciate why we have a lead coord or what the nature of the role is. EyeSerene^talk 10:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I've skimmed Parsecboy's and TomStar's archives, and read what everyone has said about lead coord, and I'm having difficulty seeing what it is I'm not capable of understanding or doing. And the idea I just suggested has been suggested to me privately by other coords, and is standard operating procedure for many nonprofits ... titles have no meaning inside the organization (everyone knows you're the same person with or without one), but if you want to get someone outside the organization to pay attention to you, it helps to have a title of some kind, so in many nonprofits, everyone in the organization gets a title. I'm not saying we need to do that at Milhist, there may be no need, since we don't do a lot of work (yet) with outsiders, such as GLAM work. It may be best to wait until someone is trying to do something that can't be done effectively without a title before we consider it. I brought it up now because I'm wondering if our self-imposed stinginess with titles is causing some of the friction here ... a lead coordship role can be useful, but that doesn't translate for me into some kind of blanket denial of other possible roles. This is not a new issue; our project's reluctance to bestow recognition of various kinds has been noted before. - Dank (push to talk) 10:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not my intention to question your capabilities so I apologise if that's the impression I've given. My concerns arise from the general theme of your posts, which seems to be that you believe that if the lead position is not being used pro-actively then it has little value to the project. Perhaps there are jobs that can be given titles to make liaison with outside agencies easier, but those wouldn't need to be at the expense of the lead since the role has no functions (that I'm aware of) actually written into anything anyway. Our lead coords in the past have been free to make whatever they wanted from it, but despite different approaches all have been able to maintain the balance between retaining the respect of the project and advocating their own ideas. In contrast you seem to be proposing an either/or approach—either the lead is more pro-active or we get rid of the position—without seeing the value of simply having it as a Fleet in being. If I've horrendously misunderstood you, please accept my apologies and I'd welcome clarification :) EyeSerene^talk 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead coordinator was selected because she or he received the most votes! I derive from this that she or he is known to the community and trusted by the community, maybe more so than the other candidates. This makes the lead a natural point of contact, call it an interface, liaison. This is your asset! MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee. EyeSerene, I was thinking that the way I started this thread was the only thing I could say, given my obvious COI and what's been said before ... but I've obviously hit a nerve somehow, so I've struck it, and I won't bring it up again. I like your analogy, and I think that's roughly the way people see the position. I'm still open to any specific suggestions about what the lead should or shouldn't be doing. After all the questions so far, I've got to ask ... does anyone think Kirill made the wrong call with the election results, or believe that he was right to promote me, but that I should now be recalled for poor judgment? If so, can you tell me, specifically, what part of the job you think is beyond me? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that I am newly retired as well, I feel funny posting here somehow, but I will comment that Kirill made the correct call. You were the one selected for the position by the community, and unless we have an urgent or pressing desire to relieve you for cause, or unless you wish to pass on the position, than the lead is and rightly should be yours. I am more than willing to give you the benefit of a doubt to adopt to this position and see how you like it. In reality its not that hard, and you will have the support of the others, so take advantage of this opportunity and step up; its your time to shine. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Was writing this parallel to Tom, obviously... Busy day, so forgive me belatedly joining this discussion. Dan, I don't think it's a case of anyone thinking the job is beyond you, more a matter of whether you would want to bother with it if its existence causes you to lose sleep at night...! I suppose I'm of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school. I don't see any hard evidence that the system of having a lead among the coords is broke, even if the role is not clearly defined. As I suggested in my election response to the question, I believe the lead is another coord -- only a little more so! I think that you may, ironically, be ascribing the role undue weight if you need its duties to be clearly spelt out and agreed, etc, etc. You are one of the top people in all WP, if you have a fault it may be thinking too much (something I'm lucky enough not to suffer from, as my wife will tell you)...! If you wish the position, it's yours, and yours to make of it as you will. If you essentially keep doing what you do as a regular coord, plus accept that the position of lead makes you first among equals, that should be fine. If you want to be more proactive, that will probably work too -- the team will soon let you know if there's a problem. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As was I. I've scrubbed much of what I'd written because Ian and Tom have said it better. Dan, I have no worries at all that you'll do or say anything that will reflect badly on milhist, but what I can't support for lead is anyone who doesn't really have their heart in the job. If you say that you do that's good enough for me :) EyeSerene^talk 14:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My heart is in the job. Thanks guys for that support ... it feels good, and it will help me do my job, whatever that is. Now let's talk about you ... just about everyone who voted supported just about every returning coordinator ... I know we didn't allow opposing votes, but still, given that you guys have to make decisions all the time that some people won't like, do you know any other group on Wikipedia that would get that level of support in an election? My top priority will be making sure people in and outside the WP community know how special you guys are. Thanks again. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't say much more than the people above. Dank, you're going to be a great lead coord for the exact reason you're getting into trouble now – thinking too much. ;-) Just keep your head up and soldier through any missteps; you have enough respect from me and everyone else that we will forgive just about anything (trying to block Jimbo might be a bit too much though). Now, let's go back to this thought for a second: "I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to encourage anyone who thinks they can make good use out of some kind of title to make one up, tell us what use you have for the title, and ask for it ... Milhist Director for (geographic area), (subject area), (outreach to whatever). Any of those will sound a lot fancier (to outsiders) than "lead coord" :)" This is probably a case of 'no demonstrated need right now', but in the long run, your idea might be a very good fit for GLAM work. The problem is making sure it isn't controversial on-wiki, which is why I think "Milhist Director for (geographic area) or (subject area)" could be a problem. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Task force allocations

There are 47 task forces currently and 14 of us, while that may average out to about 3 per person we like to have more than one person overseeing each task force. With a total of 4 slots for each spot in a task force on the chart - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and standby - that means that everyone ideally should pick up about a dozen different task forces.
Add your name to the nearest open slot please, using the format [[User:example|example]]; this helps us keep track of who's on first.
Veterans, please leave a few spots in the popular task forces open for the new guys. Morale improves when we get to oversee our personal areas of interest, and it will help the new guys gain experience points.

Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Task force adopted	Coordinator	Coordinator	Coordinator	Standby
Fortifications	Sturmvogel_66	Buggie111	Hchc2009
Intelligence	Nikkimaria	Hawkeye7		Adamdaley
Maritime warfare	The ed17	Sturmvogel_66		MisterBee1966 Adamdaley
Military aviation	Sp33dyphil	Sturmvogel_66		MisterBee1966 Adamdaley
Military biography	MisterBee1966	HJ Mitchell	Hawkeye7	Sp33dyphil Adamdaley
Military historiography	Nikkimaria	Sturmvogel_66	Nick-D	Hawkeye7
Military land vehicles	Sturmvogel_66	Ian Rose
Military memorials and cemeteries	Nikkimaria	Buggie111	Hchc2009
Military science and technology	Nikkimaria	Sturmvogel_66	Dank	Hawkeye7
National militaries	Nikkimaria			Adamdaley
War films	Dank			MisterBee1966
Weaponry	Sp33dyphil	Sturmvogel_66	Buggie111
African military history	Hchc2009			Adamdaley
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history	Nick-D	Ian Rose	Hawkeye7	Adamdaley
Balkan military history	Sturmvogel_66			Adamdaley
Baltic states military history	Sturmvogel_66			Adamdaley
British military history	Nikkimaria	HJ Mitchell		Adamdaley
Canadian military history	Nikkimaria	Dank	Hawkeye7	Adamdaley
Chinese military history	Dank	Hchc2009		Adamdaley
Dutch military history	Dank	Hchc2009		Adamdaley
French military history	Sturmvogel_66	Hawkeye7		Adamdaley
German military history	Sturmvogel_66	MisterBee1966	Hawkeye7	Adamdaley
Italian military history	Ian Rose			Adamdaley
Japanese military history	Nikkimaria	Hawkeye7		Adamdaley
Korean military history	Nikkimaria			Adamdaley
Middle Eastern military history	Ian Rose			Adamdaley
Nordic military history	Dank			Adamdaley
Ottoman military history	Buggie111			Adamdaley
Polish military history	Dank			Adamdaley
Russian and Soviet military history	Sp33dyphil	Sturmvogel_66		Buggie111 Adamdaley
South American military history	The ed17	Hchc2009		Adamdaley
South Asian military history	Dank	Hchc2009		Adamdaley
Southeast Asian military history	Sp33dyphil			Adamdaley
Spanish military history	Sturmvogel_66			Adamdaley
United States military history	Sp33dyphil	Buggie111		Adamdaley
Classical warfare	Dank	Ian Rose
Medieval warfare	Nikkimaria	Sturmvogel_66	Hchc2009
Early Muslim military history	Dank	Hchc2009
Crusades	Buggie111	Hawkeye7	Sp33dyphil
Early Modern warfare	Sturmvogel_66	Dank
War of the Three Kingdoms	Nikkimaria	Dank	Hchc2009
American Revolutionary War	Nikkimaria			MisterBee1966 Adamdaley
Napoleonic era	Buggie111	Ian Rose		Adamdaley
American Civil War	Buggie111			MisterBee1966 Adamdaley
World War I	Sp33dyphil	MisterBee1966	Buggie111	Adamdaley
World War II	The ed17	MisterBee1966	HJ Mitchell	Adamdaley
Cold War	Sp33dyphil	Nick-D	HJ Mitchell	Adamdaley

Total task forces adopted

Coordinator	Total
Adamdaley	32
Buggie111	10
Dank	12
EyeSerene
Hawkeye7	9
Hch2009	10
HJ Mitchell	4
Ian Rose	6
MisterBee1966	9
Nick-D	3
Nikkimaria	12
Sp33dyphil	9
Sturmvogel_66	15
The ed17	3

Discussion

Out of good sportsmanship, I'll vote a bit late so as others can take some more hotspot-ish areas. Buggie111 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Same here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are we doing this again? You wouldn't know Buggie, but I thought we decided that task force allocations were unneeded now that they are used only for categorization purposes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Oh te dramaz are coming!" No, I wouldn't. Just was checking on the archives from last year and pasted it in. So, now for (yet another) discussion! Buggie111 (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have signed up for more but some of those areas are not my strong point. Therefore I have left them alone or I could be a standby to help clean up the article and make improvements. Adamdaley (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I had one approach from an editor last term due to the fact that I was listed as a TF coord, but only one, so there is perhaps a very weak case for allocating coords to TFs. On the other hand I have no objections if we don't :)

That said, during the elections there were a couple of ideas thrown out about coords adopting the special projects and/or the Academy. Even if we don't allocate TFs, these might be worth considering. EyeSerene^talk 07:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just added myself to a few task forces, and then read this. I agree that it's not really necessary to allocate coordinators to task forces. It might be worth replacing the bits on the TF pages that identify the coordinators associated with the task force with a link to this page. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added myself to a few slots that weren't heavily subscribed, so there's none with less than 2 coords, but like Ed I thought we were dropping this. I too have only had to do one thing specifically for one TF in the last year, so while it's nice not to have onerous duty, I question its worth. On the other, our new members on the team might make more of it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what was this "one thing"? (Others feel free to answer too). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Initiating Operation Brothers at War. A few of the editors in the American Civil War Task Force were keen on a special project for the 150th anniversary of the conflict so as one of the coords responsible for the ACW TF I helped set it up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to look at a behavioural issue on some articles that come under the TF - traditionally we don't wear both admin and coord hats at the same time because the roles are very different, but if there's a way to help out without bringing the two into conflict I'll generally see what I can do.

On the subject of coord roles, we seem to have some confusion at the moment. Two questions then:

Are we signing up for task forces?
Are we signing up for special projects and/or the Academy?

EyeSerene^talk 08:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No and not sure. I think that we've agreed that the task forces don't need dedicated coordinators, but not about whether the special projects or academy should. I personally don't think that they need them. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally like to get stuck into Academy development (yes, I've been saying that for ages!), but it's true that one doesn't need to be a coord to do that. Someone to organise and drive things along might be useful though. Re the special projects (apart from OMT), again they might benefit from someone to push things along, but I guess that doesn't need to be a coord either. It would perhaps be a more proactive role than coords have traditionally adopted. EyeSerene^talk 10:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the special projects, there would be some value in having a coordinator assigned to them, but that coordinator would need to be active in the area to be credible. There should be no problems in this regards with OMT and Normandy, but the others are a bit more tricky. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So, where do we stand on the question of task force coordinators? Should we update the names currently listed on the task forces, or remove them? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that we replace the names with a note directing requests to WT:MILHIST and/or here. EyeSerene^talk 09:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll do that within about 24 hours. What about the table of TF allocations further up on this page - the old one? Should that section just be removed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If we're not going to continue the allocation system, then I think we can go ahead and remove the old table. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Any coords looking for a job?

Every quarter, we tally up reviewer activity for peer reviews, A-class reviews and FAC reviews that have closed during that quarter ... see for instance WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_36#Quarterly reviewing tallies. I can handle the FAC totals, after someone has done the tallies for PR and ACR; I only count reviews at FAC by people who have done at least one PR or ACR review for Milhist. The history of Template:WPMILHIST Announcements may be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can do that, but are we assuming no one will review anything in the next 24-ish hours? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We just include the ones that close this quarter, so if none are closed, it doesn't matter if someone adds a review tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Username	PR Jul–Sep 2011	ACR Jul–Sep 2011	FAC Jul–Sep 2011	Total Jul–Sep 2011
User:Alexandru.demian	0	1	0	1
User:Anotherclown	0	22	0	22
User:AustralianRupert	1	11	1	13
User:Brianboulton	1	0	3	4
User:Buckshot06	0	1	0	1
User:Carcharoth	0	1	4	5
User:Climie.ca	0	1	0	1
User:Cmguy777	1	0	0	1
User:Coemgenus	1	0	0	1
User:Cs32en	1	0	1	2
User:Dana boomer	1	0	1	2
User:Dank	13	32	29	74!
User:DemonicInfluence	0	1	0	1
User:Designate	1	0	2	3
User:Dhatfield	0	1	0	1
User:Ed!	0	3	0	3
User:Eisfbnore	4	13	3	20
User:Farawayman	1	0	0	1
User:Fifelfoo	2	0	2	4
User:Finetooth	1	0	0	1
User:GraemeLeggett	0	1	0	1
User:Grandiose	1	6	0	7
User:Hawkeye7	0	1	2	3
User:Hchc2009	4	5	1	10
User:HJ Mitchell	3	5	10	18
User:Ian Rose	0	3	9	12
User:Intothatdarkness	0	3	0	3
User:Jappalang	1	0	1	2
User:Jim101	1	0	0	1
User:Jim Sweeney	2	7	1	10
User:Kirk	1	3	0	4
User:Kumioko	0	1	1	2
User:Kyteto	1	0	0	1
User:Ling.Nut2	0	4	0	4
User:Malleus Fatuorum	1	1	3	5
User:MarcusBritish	1	0	0	1
User:MilborneOne	0	1	0	1
User:MisterBee1966	0	3	2	5
User:MONGO	1	0	0	1
User:Monstrelet	0	1	0	1
User:Nev1	1	0	0	1
User:Nick-D	3	11	3	17
User:Nikkimaria	2	5	32	39
User:Parsecboy	0	7	0	7
User:RexxS	1	0	0	1
User:RightCowLeftCoast	0	1	0	1
User:Ruhrfisch	1	0	0	1
User:Saberwyn	1	0	0	1
User:SidewinderX	0	1	0	1
User:Simon Harley	0	1	0	1
User:Socrates2008	0	1	1	2
User:Sp33dyphil	1	2	3	6
User:Ssilvers	1	0	0	1
User:Sturmvogel 66	0	12	8	20
User:The ed17	1	1	2	4
User:The Land	0	1	0	1
User:Tim riley	1	0	2	3
User:Trekphiler	0	1	0	1
User:Wehwalt	1	0	3	4
User:Wizardman	1	0	2	3
User:Woody	0	5	0	5
User:XavierGreen	0	2	0	2

Done. Would it be worth adding a column for FAR or FLC reviews? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. FLC: no opinion. FAR: I vote no. (But your work at FAR is fantastic, of course.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: Is there a simple way to go about this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check to see what Template:WPMILHIST Announcements looked like at 2- or 3-week intervals, that should tell you what showed up at FLC, and give you handy links to pull up those review pages. You may find that it's easier, and maybe best, to only consider reviewers who have at least 1 Milhist PR or ACR review, as I do ... occasionally, FAC reviewers object to being given awards for reviews, but I've never had that problem with anyone who's active at Milhist. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Nikki got all of them ... thanks!! - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I haven't added in FLC - if someone feels strongly about that, go ahead - or handed out any awards. Any more coord volunteers ;-)? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What she said. Rupert gave instructions on how to hand out awards at the same link as above (WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_36#Quarterly reviewing tallies). - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to work on that, if you guys feel like ~~slacking off~~ not doing it. Buggie111 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex-Ed! =done. Buggie111 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could someone else do Eifsbnore to LingNut? My "cough" copying skills butchered the award templates. Buggie111 (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I"ll do them. Buggie111 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

done through Kyteto. Buggie111 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Done through Nikki. Don't know if I'll be able to do the rest today. Buggie111 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

All done. Buggie111 (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, dedicated work by two new coords, Nikki and Buggie -- fresh blood always pays dividends... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian and Dank. Buggie111 (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Toolbox

I've created a toolbox for us here. Feel free to use it. It's a bit incomplete, so add what you think is necessary. Buggie111 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

ACRs for closure

Just a reminder that ACRs listed for closure in the section towards the top of this page should be left for 24 hours before actioning to allow for last-minute reviews, as per the instructions. The four I listed earlier today were closed almost immediately. The enthusiasm is welcome, and it's probable that a day wouldn't make any difference to the results for these particular articles that were in any case well overdue for archiving, so I'm not going to suggest reversing the closures. Be aware in future, however, that in some cases 24 hours could be the difference between promotion and failure, e.g. if an article had 2 supports and no opposes. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I"ll take this into account. Buggie111 (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

103rd Mahratta Light Infantry

Article: 103rd Mahratta Light Infantry.

In making the WikiProject Military History template more accurate on the article 103rd Mahratta Light Infantry what would be the appropriate Associated task forces (periods and conflicts)?

Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 - c. 1800)?
Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)?
World War I task force?

Would those "Associated task forces" relate to that article? I know that between 1815 and World War I is 100 years give or take. I'll update the template because feedback would be appreciated here. Adamdaley (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

They look good to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Award page

New coords may want to watchlist the awards page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Buggie111 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Push to start assessment

Has anyone here recently taken a look at our quality statistics?

Military history pages by quality
Quality
Quality	Total
FA	1,506
FL	150
A	674
AL	36
GA	5,561
B	20,934
BL	341
C	64,390
CL	1,025
Start	107,482
Stub	27,397
List	4,159
Category	47,783
Disambig	2,368
File	4,559
Portal	12
Project	203
Redirect	22,695
Template	8,608
Draft	348
Assessed	320,231
Unassessed	142
Total	320,373

I have and I personally find it very tail end heavy with too many articles in the stub class category. I feel that a healthy distribution should look more bell shaped like the Gaussian distribution. I therefore over the past couple of weeks have been harvesting our stub class articles for easy promotion to start class. My impression after visiting a few of them fall into three categories:

About one third of them have enough meat and require no changes and can be promoted to start class immediately
Another third require a few changes, like adding an infobox for promotion
The last third are truly stub class articles

I would like to start an initiative to push the "no brainers" to start. To do this I suggest that we ask (not mandate) those people submitting an article for B class assessment to find and promote one or two to start class. What do you think about this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, although I suppose we should be asking people submitting an article for B-Class assessment to assess another B-Class request as well (as we ask people to review others' ACRs when they nominate their own). I don't have any objections to your suggestion as an ongoing aid to keeping the Stub numbers down but I wonder if a new drive is in order to try and break the back of them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by "to try and break the back of them" MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant try and break the back of the problem, i.e. try and get the numbers down quickly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed it for months prior to being a Coordinator. I usually start with the "Unassessed" to them "Assessed". Then work up, I've done "Stubs" and "Starts" as well. I'll help if no one corrects me my edits because I'll certainly ask before I do them to make sure they are properly done and not the lazy way. Adamdaley (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We can cut about 10,000 off the C tag by clearing the no other section of Articles that need specific improvements. Buggie111 (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And on the other end ... the harder FACs and FLCs these days are the ones that haven't recently been through A-class ... it seems to be harder to get reviewers for those. And doing FAC or FLC after A-class, when the reviewers are familiar with the article, is easier on the reviewers as well as the nominators. Should we add some kind of relevant FAQ to the Academy? - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a question: Do we archive the assessments made here? Or do we just delete those done periodically? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MisterBee, in the past we have simply deleted them a reasonable time (usually a couple of days) after they have been actioned. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe start a Stub&Start Assess drive? Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that our distribution is an unreasonable one; indeed, looking at the overall distribution for all of Wikipedia, we're actually doing better than average.

Having said that, I would suggest that there are two potential avenues for attack here:

Many Stub-Class articles either require relatively little effort to advance to Start-Class, or are viable candidates to be merged into lists or other articles. It's not immediately clear how we might readily identify these, however; we don't really have access to any detailed statistics for stubs.
Many Start-Class articles require relatively little effort to advance to C-Class or B-Class; looking at WP:MHOT#Articles that need specific improvements, there are probably ~10,000 articles that are only missing one of the B-Class criteria.

I'm not sure that an assessment drive will produce a lot of improvement in and of itself, although updated statistics would certainly have some value. Perhaps we can have a more focused drive to improve and/or merge (rather than merely assess) stubs? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not aligned here. To be better than average makes no statement about the absolute quality. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course. My point was more that it may be unrealistic to expect our ratings to fall into a Gaussian distribution, as they don't do so in the general case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's interested in regrading some stubs, I've just regenerated an old list of pages which have a stub template but are (probably) too large - there's just under two hundred of them, using a fairly high cut-off of 5k text. If there's any interest, I'll try to generate a second one using talkpage assessments which seem to be out of sync with the article. Shimgray | talk | 12:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now extended the list to include:

Articles with inline stub tags, but which are probably too large (~200)
Articles with inline stub tags, but at least one non-stub rating (start, etc) on the talkpage. (~450)
Articles with MILHIST stub rating on the talkpage, but at least one other non-stub rating as well (~300)

Hope they're of some use to someone... Shimgray | talk | 13:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, we currently state that we as a project are working towards four major milestones. Which are

750 featured articles: 74.9% complete
500 items of featured content other than articles: 79.6% complete
2000 good articles: 81.9% complete
10% of all articles rated B-Class or better: 75.5% complete

Can we add a fith goal?

66% of all articles rated Start-Class or better: it would be 60.4% complete now (100% - 46384/117,151)

Coments? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

While I fully agree that raising stubs to Start-Class is a worthwhile activity to encourage, I'm not sure that it's necessarily something we want to advertise to the wider world as a major target. The difference between Stub-Class and Start-Class is fairly minor, and Start-Class articles are typically deficient in a variety of ways. I don't think we want to proclaim a goal of "having 66% of our articles suck slightly less than they did before", even though that would certainly be a good thing in principle; it's really something we should be pushing for internally, not holding up as a major accomplishment to the rest of the community. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that the difference between Stub-Class and Start-Class is fairly minor, however my objective here is a different one. I hope I can make my idea come across correctly. What I am aiming at is to achieve a closer mapping of true article quality to current article assessment. As a project we should also strive for a fair reflection of what the editors have achieved over time at all class ratings. Maybe setting a lower boundary is not the best way to achieve this but I think it requires some kind of incentive to achieve the objective "quality rating maps article quality". MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing A-Class reviews

Just a reminder to everyone closing A-Class reviews (and particularly to our new coordinators, who may not be aware of the full procedure): please try to go through all of the steps involved in closing the review, including updating the associated archive and listing pages, at once. It takes considerably more effort to restore the different to a consistent state once they get out of sync than it does to update them as the reviews are closed. Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The basic steps are all contained in the collapsible section A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators on the A-Class review page. I've been doing this for yonks, and still find it best to have those instructions open on a spare tab for reference while I perform the steps. We can really use the new coords getting into this facet of the job -- no-one's going to jump on you if you make a mistake, but if you follow those instructions you should be okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts on MILHIST

Hi,

I wanted to raise a few points, but think it best I post them here for coords to discuss before taking it to the main talk page, and causing squabbles. It concerns me how disproportionate the efforts of MILHIST editors are, in several respects, for which I shall give a few examples.

Whenever anyone posts that a new article is open for PR, ACR, FAR, or GAR there are often very few responses, perhaps 1 or 2 members will take up reviews, on average per nominated article, and sometimes that can be several days after the nomination. I contrast that to a recent post regarding the trivial moving of "Stronghold" to "Fortification", where something like 7 or 8 editors entered the discussion within a very short time. Given that an article of A to FA can take weeks, sometimes months, to write and develop, compared with an article that takes a few seconds to boldly move/redirect, it seems disappointing that editors are more vocal in the "quick and easy" response topics. I'm not knocking those who contributed to that discussion – more is sometimes better, where consensus is concerned – I'm thinking more on the lack of responses to topics that relate to reviews, project development (examples: my topic on List–class, Krill's topic on new member list format) where interest and replies are thin and more formal than functional. Question being, is there a lack of interest, or a lack of encouragement?

My other concern is that MILHIST sometimes feels more like, "Project Majestic Titan... plus some other things that happened in history". I see a whole lot of positive input towards the Majestic Titan special project, and very little towards anything else or any of the other 3 specials – Normandy, Brothers at War, and Great War Centennial – despite the fact that two of those special projects encompass entire wars, one a major offence, and Majestic Titan is more focused on a bunch of ships. Not that I want to belittle the project itself, but again, attempt to reason whether it's worth retaining special projects where there is a considerate lack of interest – to the point of being dysfunctional. Perhaps it might be worth reviewing the scope of the current 4 Special Projects and opening a vote on all 4, whether to keep or scrap them – knowing Majestic Project will be an ultra–strong keep, we could see where the other 3 projects stand, and if necessary eliminate one or two, which would free up the resources of the MILHIST project in general – i.e. no point keeping an old car, if you have to keep getting out to push it.

Might also be worth considering if there is room for any other special projects, as I am not sure the current 4 really attract the right amount of interest. Majestic Titan seems to have become more moulded to suit long–term members, and has become the pet project of several coords who stepped down this year to focus on developing articles for it. Normandy and Great War Centennial just seem dead in the water, reasons unknown, whilst Brothers at War is more likely to attract an American audience, with a few exceptions, and is still low on the interest scale compared to Majestic Titan.

I think there is a potential for two new special projects, based on current membership activity. Those being, a special project focusing on medieval fortifications, eg Project Stronghold, for all the castle and fort people, which could also incorporate sieges, etc. And also a special project that covers the French Revolution/Napoleonic Era – probably THE first major European war before WW1, as prolific as the American Civil War, and with a great number of articles and members working on such articles, but not having a focus point.

I note the post above regarding the Assessment results on MILHIST – very bottom heavy. Many FAs and GAs no doubt are as a result of the efforts of the close–knit Majestic Titan project, which goes to show that a special project can work if it has the right level of interest – and it seems, of the 4, it is the only special project that is "successful" compared with the other 3. Hence why I recommend a major move by the new coords to promote an "out with the old, in with the new" motion to determine which special projects are a wasted effort (imo Normandy and Great War Centennial), whether border–line projects (Brothers at War) could be encouraged to do better, and whether a couple of new projects would raise the quality levels of many existing articles in areas where they are only considered "MILHIST" but lack special interest. GAN is packed with noms from Majestic Titan editors, HMS this, SMS that, which shows it's eagerness compared with everything else the project covers, special or not, the balance between the success of a project about a few fleets of battleships from the two world wars, compared with the lack of interest in all that remains of military history dating back to the birth of civilization, upto 3000 years of known warfare, hundreds of wars, thousands of battles, hundred of millions of men – am I wrong to think MILHIST needs to restructure a few areas to improve the overall focus, encourage better authoring, stronger motivation and determination for A+ class articles first time round instead of dozens of shoddy Stubs and Starts that need work because editors don't feel MILHIST is really that interested in their work?

At a time where Wiki, or perhaps just MILHIST, is a little low on fresh members, it may pay to be both economic and bold to revitalise its overall efforts.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

~~Not gettin' into this, too long and complicated~~ Well, I certainly want to argue the BaW is much worse off than Normandy. I ahven't seen that come up on my watchlist, while Normandy is active, though not the same level as MT. Your thoughts on the French project and fortifications project are nice, but I don't know woh would actually push for some initiative, I'd be open to anybody. About the whole minor problems comes before big dfeal thing, I think we should add in review points in the contest, like the WikiCup does. Apologies for the short message, gotta go. Buggie111 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'm sure the order of the less active 3 special projects is subjective based on how much interest you have in them and know the level of interest and editors involved, I haven't done any in-depth research in those matters, but based my comments on what relays through the talk pages and reviews – most of the time, it's MT articles and other scattered items. But as long as we're agreed and recognise that all 3 are certainly less active than MT, I'm not really fussed about the order of runners-up. As to who could push for changes to the current array of special projects, well I see it as being a coord matter to review, and then bring to open debate on the main talk for a while, followed by consensus as to what goes/stays, and what to introduce. You'll soon find that people are far more vocal and active when they have to fight to keep the thing they love, and if editors perceive a special project they like as "under threat" of being scrapped, their efforts will increase too; it may even become necessary to give each special project a probationary period, e.g 3 months, to prove itself worthy of keeping, by setting reasonable fixed targets to meet, and if it doesn't – bye bye! That's certainly not unfair. I don't see why special projects with lower input than MT can't be reviewed every 6 months following consensus that the project is failing to meet enough target to be granted its own operation – I mean, what's the purpose of even having a special project if it isn't meeting high standards every time, or hitting the goals in its mission statement at a reasonable pace? I certainly think that there are other areas of military history receiving far less attention, yet with a potentially bigger audience of editors, worthy of special projects that don't have one, or the benefits of one, so it is not unreasonable to push for some new specials and motivate people! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The problems are the level of enthusiasm and the number of new editors. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts, in no particular order:

It is important to remember that, when we speak of "Operation Majestic Titan" being successful, what we really mean is that the editors who write battleship articles are successful. The special project is, for the most part, merely an organizational concept that provides a convenient common identity for an otherwise nebulous group of editors who share an interest in the topic, not an entity distinct from the editors who comprise its membership. (The editors in question would, presumably, continue to write the articles they wish to write regardless of whether the Majestic Titan label existed; their interest in the topic long predates any formal recognition of them as a group.)
The question of why one special project is successful while another is not thus has a very simple answer: the first has editors who are both able and willing to produce the results we regard as indicating "success", while the second lacks those editors. It is tempting to think that somehow reorganizing the internal structure of the special projects will cause them to be more active; but, in the absence of the needed editor base, such efforts are unlikely to result in any real change.
In my experience, trying to get editors to write on topics in which they have no personal interest is all but impossible. No matter how much we might insist on the importance of some particular topic, it will receive no attention if editors are not individually interested in it. Our success as a project stems in large part from our ability to welcome (and take advantage of) editor's individual interests within the broader sphere of military history—whatever those interests may be, and however obscure they might seem to everyone else; our attempts to focus efforts on "important" topics have all been resounding failures, and we should not be overly anxious to repeat them.
The overwhelming prevalence of low-quality articles is a Wikipedia-wide phenomenon (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index), and solving it in the general case is almost certainly beyond our capabilities as an individual project. This is not to say, of course, that we cannot offer more encouragement to editors working in the lower levels of the assessment scale; but I think it's unrealistic to expect that anything we do is capable of dramatically altering the overall proportions, at least in the near term.

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Can't add much right now re. Marcus' orignal post. Just to quickly pick up on one of Buggie's points, I've thought about review points in the monthly contest as well but I think it's simpler to keep it as a writing contest -- I know you get points for review in WikiCup and from memory we also did it in the Henry Arlington WWI one-off contest we ran some time ago, however the time spent formatting one's review scores and having someone else verify them seemed to me effort that could be better spent elsewhere. We do after all reward people for FAC/ACR/PR participation every quarter and, while I'm always open to suggestions about other ways to encourage reviews, I don' think points in the monthly contest is the best way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To follow the tangent a bit, how well is the contest working these days? Looking over the scores for the last few months, I'm getting the impression that there's only a few people participating; is there something we can do to get a broader interest base? Would it be worthwhile to consider alternatives to the current contest structure? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Kirill, we had one month where Ed and I tied for top spot with a mere 21 points each! That was probably about the time I made the last general announcement encouraging more participation and since then it's certainly improved again in numbers of entries and points, in fact I think it's probably as healthy now as it's ever been. Re. changes, the last biggie was probably when we started counting GA and FA articles as well as B/A-Class (we've since added C-Class of course). More than happy to hear ideas for broadening interest, the review points thing just seemed too much of an administrative overhead based on my experiences with it elsewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember that month... I was really surprised to get anything, let alone a tie for first. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, "points" do nothing for me – neither do barnstars a great deal.. a number or icon, is hardly a reward, imo. I think there's a greater sense of achievement in the merits of creating high quality articles, without all the puffery that comes after it. Simply "knowing" you made a good effort, rather than "103 points" worth of effort is how I feel. I also feel that competitions where you need to get a lot of reviews pushed through in a month can lead to bad practices. For example, given how many MILHIST editors enjoy Majestic Titan, you could find a half-dozen editors willing to review each battleship article very easily, and ignore the rest of us writing about things that do not interest them. As a result it demoralises the efforts of people working hard but getting less attention in reviews. I don't think writing competitions are fair either, given that not all editors are native English speaking, and again, not all editors are willing to copy-edit articles if they are too busy trying to win a competition themselves. There is more to gained from joined community spirit than having fruitless competitions and making a sport out Wiki, and education as a whole. I know I won't enter any such contest for love nor money, let alone "points". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that's why contests aren't compulsory...! Everyone has different motivations, and some have many. Since we're all effectively doing this for the love of it anyway, I personally doubt that the contests and award systems MilHist runs are a huge factor in getting people to edit or review, they're more fun and nice to have. Then again, if they do help motivate, I'd say that's on balance a good thing -- one can't mandate community spirit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People were kicking footballs around and hitting balls with sticks long before teams and leagues were created. Formations are what bring a closer sense of community, and with Wiki being a faceless community – people all over the world you never meet, just read their text – it helps to bring shared interests together, not only would it work in terms of sharing history, but historiography, by which editors determine how certain related articles should be written, which is why we have templates and special projects, to focus efforts, and make the result more rewarding – 2 or 3 people developing each battleship article on MT is leading to dozens of FAR/GAN each month, compared with scattered one-off articles from the rest of us. Which takes me to your third point, in that whilst people won't write about things in which they have no interest, they may work harder if they feel part of a team effort. There must be a sense of personal satisfaction when those MT editors get a new article on the GAN list each week from a combined effort, rather than working solo and maybe getting one every month or two. I do think there will be change, positive change, from restructuring different areas. You've developed a new member list format which can better highlight peoples abilities, thus allowing us to drawn them into the scene, "Can you get me... X, Y or Z, for an article". I'm trying to expand the Assessment criteria of Lists, and eventually improve the recognition of portals, and such. And along with special projects, and other developments to the MILHIST project, it forms a better set of processes.

I realise there are more Stub/Start low quality articles than anything. However, just because Wiki has followed that trend for a long time, does not mean it has to maintain that trend – considerable efforts result in considerable results. I'm not sure MILHIST needs to reform, but reorganise a few things to strengthen its role as a WikiProject, yes, I don't think it would hurt. If a WikiProject can't consider its own goals and aim higher every so often, what it the point in its existence other than to tag history articles and not work to improve them also?

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had a nice long post wiped out by the ec, but I'll compress it to a couple of points. MarcusBritish, you're seeing OMT-related names all over GAN, ACR and FAC, but very few of those are actually OMT-related. Only two of 46 article at GAN are OMT; the other 17 ship articles are my British destroyers, Parsecboy's (where are you, brother! Stand up and wave to the gentleman!) German cruisers, and Benea's ship of the line. OMT works because its editors are very prolific and willing to spend the time to get through FAC and all the intermediate stages. And, not coincidentally, the people who get articles promoted provide most of the reviewers (Well, us and Dank. OK, there's Dank and then there's the rest of us.) And quite plainly, people prefer to review something that they're already at least sort of familiar with, so more obscure articles may wait for months for a reviewer to tackle them. It requires very little time for me to review an OMT or post-1860 warship article because I'm already at least partially familiar with the ship or period and I know what I think are the important things are that need to be covered. I'm far less comfortable with, say, Byzantine generals, and they take me a bit more time to review. Sometimes I have the time and energy for those reviews and sometimes I don't. It's just that simple.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see. I though all these battleship articles with part of OMT efforts. But either way, you're right, it's as simple as all that – prolific and willing editors are happy to work with each through all stages, and review. And I think we need that in other areas, where there are many strong articles being developed but no central community point to work through, just scattered editors who find each other through edit history and the few who add their names to task forces, and then find that they can't get enough interest from reviewers, so it takes months to get an article promoted instead of weeks. These Special Projects have the potential to be as successful as MILHIST itself, the combination of people working in SHIPS and MILHIST = OMT proves that combined efforts have great results. Combining FRANCE and MILHIST = Napoleonic special project, ARCHAEOLOGY and MILHIST = Castles special project, etc. The better the range of ideas, the better the chances of a sub-special project doing very well, and increasing MILHISTs results. Like the Olympics, each team wins per event, not as a whole, but it is the whole team that gets merit. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree the Assessments are a little "Bottom Heavy" (Stub/Start/etc). Prior to being a Coordinator I tried my best to get the "Unassessed" assessed. Enjoyed it, kept me busy too. I'm willing to look at anything to do with Military History, even though I don't know the anything about it. Sure, I know more about World War II because I took an interest in it. By all means, I'm willing to clean up articles and help them become assessed at a higher assessment, just leave me a message on my discussion page with the link. Adamdaley (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Adam, there are ~100,000 low-quality articles. I don't think drives or asking a few editors to work on them will help. If you are not "into" a subject then you may not feel like working it from Start/Start to A-class, maybe C or B at most before wanting to move on. We need to encourage editors with interest to develop articles from Stub/Start to A/GA at best, FA if they feel really up to it. Whilst your willingness to develop low-quality articles is admirable, the actual chances of improving more than a few dozen a year are low, and in that year inexperienced editors will produce far more low-quality articles than you could hope to improve. Which is why I thin we need to encourage more specialised projects to get existing and new editors to work towards higher standards from the moment they create an article, rather than a basic Stubs for the sake of "I'm making this article, because there wasn't one" – a reason I've read at WP:RFF many times, and find a little annoying, because the result is a half-dozen lines and barely worth reading. I think many newbies create them in the hope someone else will finish them.. for free.. because they can't be arsed.. which is an unfair burden, imo. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish - I agree with you. I get annoyed when there is like 2 paragraphs, no Infobox, no picture (Recently I've contributed some from Cebu City, Cebu Island, Philippines) to improve the article. Maybe we could reach out to the other WikiProjects which involves WikiProject Military History to encourage them to improve and expand low-assessed articles? Worth a try? I'm currently doing one article which involves the Cold War spy Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher which is about half done re-write because I managed to get the books to expand the article. Another one is of a Biography which isn't related to WikiProject Military History which is a small book, but is about the person in the article. For me I could get books from Amazon, then again there are not many places here that have many Military History books. Adamdaley (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't opt for coord, because I didn't want to become pre-occupied in managing MILHIST affairs to such an extent it takes me away from writing and editing, which is why, I suspect, a lot of coords dropped off this year, to focus on their own articles. So I can ony throw ideas at the new coords with the hopes that they will be considered, discussed at length before action is taken. In this case I see many options, in terms of MILHIST outlook. What with the large number of fresh coords and serious loss of old-hands, I think it important the new team moves fast to maintain the confidence members have in the project. Fresh blood means fresh ideas, and I don't see why we should be thinking "well, Wiki has always been this way" when change often equals progress. It's not like you need to rewrite anything, more like shuffle things around, optimise processes, rethink a few old-school methods, and introduce a few new measures to see if they improve the output of the project. At the end of the day, each Wikiproject serves to maximise the quality of the articles under its scope. Each projects primary concern is to establish ways to recognise, develop and promote articles as best as possible. Anything else is superfluous, and should not be given priority. For the last 6 months I haven't seen what I call "progress" on MILHIST - Peer Reviews have been move to a more global Wiki page, several lomg-term coords have left their roles, several long term members have semi-retired. There are a few fresh members, including myself, and a batch of new coords several of which are relatively well-known, some less so. Regardless of loss or gain, the project still needs to press forward, encourage new members, better articles, more reviews, and react to what is hot or not, in terms of the types of MILHIST articles being written and developed. I see no point in credible editors of strong subjects being back-benched and getting little support in the way of reviews and such, when efforts can be made to unite their interest under focused special projects and let them support and review each other. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was listening to an FDR speech there! Wow. Anway, yeah, your points are good ones, Marcus. I believe they will be taken into account by my fellow coords and I. Buggie111 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

For me, I've had the pleasure of being asked prior to being a Coordinator of Military History, to help with certain Military articles. I was possibly unknown to this person, because I never saw his username anywhere prior to this day when he asked me to help him with articles he was writing. Of course I'd offered my help even though I was no expert in writing top-notch articles or familiar with the battles, I was willing to give my support to him. Still being asked by a normal user who created an article or a fellow Coordinator or another WikiProject person asking me to help, I'm more than willing to point out what could be improved to the article. I personally know of an article that someone has taken some 3 years to write and last I know, it wasn't even close to being published on wikipedia even though I saw his draft which would make Good Article look like a Stub. My point being, I'm willing to help anywhere I can if it is only a small amount. Adamdaley (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(@Marcus) - the peer reviews were farmed out to the Wiki-wide PR system because articles here weren't getting reviewed, and if they did we judged that it was a waste of reviewer resources that could go to the A-class process. We've also begun to consolidate departments that see little or no traffic so it is less time wasted for the members. It's not like we were sitting here doing nothing. :-) Now we need to continue to build from there. The problem with what you suggest ("focused special projects") is that the task forces see little-enough traffic. If enough people show interest, that's great, but I suspect many special projects of this kind would go dormant rather quickly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Task Forces don't do anything, so far as I can see - they just consolidate eras/events under headings like a reference library groups books under "American history", "British history", etc. Special operations have their own aims and deadlines (I see Brothers at War aiming to attain FA for articles for its 150th anniversary, for example), so to me special projects place more emphasis on targets of specific areas, whereas Task Forces do not do anything like that, they just gather an entire sub-set of history and lump it on their page and that's that - task forces are a form of project admin (even all their talk pages redirect to the main MILHIST talk page), not a form of community endeavours. By creating special projects it gives members a chance to discuss ways forward, define goals, whether to focus on battles or commanders, for example. If OMT hasn't gone dead, then it's a benchmark special project for what works, whilst other special projects are falling below their initial expectations when established, it seems. Projects have already gone fairly dormant, but that doesn't mean others will. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true; but perhaps part of the confusion here comes from the fact that the two ideas for new special projects (Castles and French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars) have been framed in terms that are closer to task forces (cover all articles on topic X) than to special projects (improve a defined set of articles to a defined quality level, possibly by a defined deadline). To create special projects for these topics—at least with our current understanding of how "special projects" differ from "task forces"—we need to come up with a more concrete goal for each.

On a slightly more practical note, it may be worth creating proto-special projects using the incubator rather than simply debating the abstract principle. If the incubator group can gather a decent pool of active editors and come up with a good set of goals for itself, then there should be no problem with promoting it to the status of a full-blown special project. Conversely, if the group can't gather editors or agree on goals, then no amount of structural shuffling will make it successful. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will bear in mind that incubator option is there. For now it's probably better to keep discussions on general ideas in the open, as once topics start to drift into lesser known areas of wiki, they can quickly become inactive discussions, and I find a lot of topics are that way anyway, as 5 day archiving is too soon, and topics disappear and then have to resurface later back at square one. As there's no group at the moment yet, just rattling off my thoughts and rough ideas. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 12:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kirill's poitns above. While the two ideas you proposed, MArcus, are good, they are braod and fit (in the case of the Napooleonic Wars, exactly, in the case of castles a bit less) into the Napoleonic Wars and Fortifications task force. If it were something smaller, along with a reasonable goal (in another two years it will be the cenntennial...) it might have some support. I'd suggest Operation Unified Repulsion to cover the War of the Sixth Coalition and Eternal WAtchman to cover, say, the Roman forts. Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, the sixth coalition only spans 2 years, 1812–1814, hardly a lot of articles and mainly only the 1812 campaign is worth talking about there, which isn't the only thing worth shouting about from 20 years of Napoleonic history. Needs to be broader, with enough material to go around interested parties to prevent squabbles. Something like Brothers at War which covers the whole war but with set goals spread about. There's no point in aiming to clean up 2 years worth of articles from 20+, that's only a 10% clean up. I don't like the name either, "Operation" sounds too 20th century from a historiography view, early 19th century armies went on glorious campaigns and missions, not calculated operations. Also "Unified Repulsion" sounds too anti-Napoleon/pro-Allies, and would put off those who like Napoleon, including me. Needs to have a more dignified name, like Brother at War is neither pro-Union nor pro-Confederate. Even something a little pro-French sounding, something like Eagles of Europe which suggests Napoleon's icon, relates to the French Empire, the beat of the drum beneath French standards, but neither indicates glory or defeat, and doesn't need "Operation" before it; remember it was Napoleon seeking to unify Europe under Republican ideals whilst the monarchies of Europe sought to crush his hopes and return the Bourbons to the throne.

With a forts special project, I was thinking about a broad project to include all medieval strongholds and a simpler outlook more in terms of achieving article improvement based on "this is a castle article", rather than centred on a focal point in history or one particular design (Roman, Norman, Saxon, etc), as castles have been built over many different reigns and not all historians really care about which baron/king/lord etc or which civil war was around, it's more about the castle from an archaeological POV, where it was built, when, who by, why, size, features, what ruins remain to this day, etc. It's a little less involved in terms of politics, armies and battles, more in terms of background, period, sieges. I haven't really though about it in as much depth as a Napoleonic Era project as I don't think I'd be involved, it's more a thought based on the level of interest I've seen rather than personal interest. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I"m saying is taht there needs to be some anniversary (i.e. 150 for BaW, 100 for GWC, 70 for Normandy and 100 for MT). The Sixth Coalition, fits nicely in a 200-year anniversary. Buggie111 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

On your other points (lazy me there!) Firstly, the whole name of both projects that I mentioned are 101% arbitrary. Also, the castle project seems ok. Buggie111 (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know they have anniversaries. Waterloo's 200th is coming up. I simply don't see need for setting such deadlines on Wiki, as it gives projects an end-point, and applies pressure on editors. I think it's more important to focus on community efforts, than deadlines and such – they idea of anniversaries just seems too "old-school" to me, why is the 200th anniversary of Austerlitz, Borodino or Waterloo any more important that its 198th, or 203rd, except in the social idea of "round numbers". Again, I think "Push to France" is pro-Allies, if that was a suggestion. There are a lot of very good, yet quite pro-Napoleon, editors work on Napoleonic articles, which shouldn't feel put off by the name. It was a European war, it shouldn't be made to sound against the French, not glorifying their defeat at any point. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, PtF was just whatI think of it as. But your'e right. I could start a special project on anything for any anniversary. It's just round numbers usually are featured more in the media. Buggie111 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there's nothing particularly special about focusing on anniversaries; they're simply a convenient way of formulating a concrete goal for the effort. One could just as easily frame the objective of the special project in terms of featured topics (as is the case for OMT), numbers or proportions of articles in certain assessment ratings, or something else; any goal can work as long as it can be concretely defined and progress towards it can be measured.

As far as names are concerned, I don't see any problem with letting the participants in the group choose whatever name they find to be most suitable (within reason, of course). I do think, however, that the "Operation X" naming convention should be used across the board for all special projects, to provide some level of consistent nomenclature. The fact that "Operation" is anachronistic is not, in my view, a major problem; the names are only for internal use (and, in any case, the terminology is already anachronistic when applied to Brothers at War). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We've been having a discussion about good and featured topics over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan#Post_1930_BB_topic_box that is kind of relevant to our success as a project, I believe. I find good topics a great motivator when working as part of a larger project as they serve as intermediate steps en route to the larger goal. Forex, here's a good topic box for Russian predreadnoughts that Buggie111 and I (among others) have been working on for a while:

I've already built subordinate good topics for the Evstafi, Ekaterina II and Imperator Aleksandr II classes, which gave me easily attainable targets that feed into the larger goal. And now I can look at this and see that maybe I should work on the other Borodino class articles since I've already gotten one of them up to FA status and that only leaves five more for another good topic, etc., etc. The sheer scale of some of the suggested and existing projects is daunting and I think it's important to have smaller goals en route to the larger one. The nice thing about topics is that they're only as limited as the editor's imagination and the need for a logical organization and theme. Forex, in another context, I could see topics for Battles of the 1809 Campaign, Austrian Generals of the 1809 Campaign, French Generals of the 1809 Campaign, both of which feed into a larger Generals of the 1809 Campaign, which would combine with the first topic and the summary article about the campaign to form a larger topic about the 1809 campaign. Wash, rinse, and repeat for the other campaigns. Or any other large topic really. So I'd suggest that any group of editors looking to work together on a topic keep this sort of thing in mind.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I get a real sense of satisfaction about looking at topics that I've created and I expect that Parsecboy does as well with his German battleships topic, the largest one in Wiki (at least until I finish my 80-odd article topic on British Interwar destroyers sometime next year!). And I can't help but to think that helps me to stay motivated. Especially when considering the work involved in bringing up a lengthy article like a very active British battleship up to GA standard. I think that progress is best achieved in small bites with tangible rewards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, so let me see how that works as I'm not all that familiar with Featured Topics and I don't see wiki promoting them, but perhaps because there are not that many yet?

So, you pre-determine a FT name, and add a bunch of low-class articles to the list relative to that topic, include their current class so people know what stage each is at, and then work as a team to get every article to FA or GA class. One done you nominate the lot as an FT?
Do you feel that kind of effort would only work best on a Special Project scale where members have a shared interested and community, rather than on task force pages which to me seem more like "checkpages" without interaction?

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is sort of a side point here, but the original intention on TF's used to be pretty much what special projects are now. If there was sufficient interest, there's no reason we couldn't un-redirect a task force's talk page and revert to less of a 'checkpage'. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's one option. Personally I think special projects probably give people the sense of something "new and big" and may be more inclined to boldly contribute, create tasks and FT lists for, etc, whilst there are a ton of task forces that have been around for a while, and trying to raise one above the rest would be futile - i.e. it would be harder to promote a simple task force talk page than an entire special project to interested parties. Bit like giving the old car a run through the car wash, and getting a brand spanking new car - which are you more likely to take for a spin? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good and featured topics don't get a lot of publicity, that's true, but I'd suggest shooting for a good topic first, with an FT following later because a FAC can take over a month to get promoted and each nominator can only have one nomination at a time. A single editor can have an unlimited number of GANs at any one time, as you can see from the current MilHist nomination list in which my name is rather prominent, so a good topic is far easier to do. The topic box is a good method to organize goals, but an individual topic isn't the only way things can be grouped so an individual article can fall into multiple topics. WP:OMT uses a lengthy table to track the individual articles under its purview, which is tedious to built and somewhat awkward to use for large projects, but that may be the best way to track things. I tend to think that narrowly-focused projects are more likely to succeed, but I don't have any real confirmation that that's really the case or not as editors drift away for a multitude of reasons. The main issue is finding like-minded editors and keeping them motivated. Operation Normandy seems to have been the most successful of the special projects until most of the editors fell away, and maybe that's one example in favor of my hypothesis.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that the collaboration of efforts between SHIPS and MILHIST is proving very successful for OMT, than any independent MilHist task force, expect perhaps WP:MARITIME. But apart from that, none of the task forces really "stand out" as having provided the strongest areas of contributions towards MilHist itself. I think we need to consider things from the POV of "what is military history" or rather that people tend to have "specialised" interests, eg WW2, Napoleonic, Vietnam War, etc etc. I do not think task forces achieve anything in their own right other than the "checklist" approach I mentioned. MILHIST itself draws together people who enjoy military history, but from there it's a bit on an anti-climax - you have to seek out people in the project working on similar areas of history/interests/articles otherwise it's you're a bit of a loner doing whatever you feel needs to be done. I think MILHIST needs to strengthen its "community" appeal, along, whereas it normally looks at strengthening its policies and processing. Giving people the tools to make good articles is one thing, but teaching and encouraging is another. People learn from those who care most about a topic. I couldn't teach someone how to create a good article on a battleship, for example, but on a Napoleonic battle, maybe. Special projects can provide that focus in addition to the goals you describe - GANs, FTs, etc. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I learned to write ship articles by looking at those articles that passed FAC and copying what they did; there wasn't any formal mentoring. OTOH, I've tried to bring along bring along several current members of OMT to greater and lesser effect. The biggest value to OMT from my perspective is that they've helped me with sources that I didn't have access to and the generally supportive atmosphere. OTOH, if I'd wanted or needed more help, I probably would have gotten it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tinkered around in my head with the MILHISt welcome to make it more appealing to special projects, take a look:

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently with new articles to review. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}. THis is also suggested for the open tasks page.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has two departments, which handle article quality assessment and writing contests.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
The project has four ongoing special projects, on the topic of World War I, the American Civil War, the Normandy landings and battleships. Feel free to join any one of them, as the more help, the merrier.
There is also an academy to help you along the way.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!

(Note that this is copied from my talkpage, which means it's still got the review and logistics department links in it.)

Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, though I want to see more Special Projects added to that list over time, I don't think the current 4 provide enough scope for popular subjects. And as Sturmvogel 66 mentioned above, editors have fallen away from at least one of those. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what the change is supposed to do (I've reworded it a bit). Attract new editors to the current projects (I put OMt last for a reason) and to encourage more special project growth. Any changes you'd prefer? Buggie111 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to make it look like their isn't a biased reason for putting OMT last, that you put the 4 in chronological order by war, i.e. ACW, WWI, Normandy, Battleships. I'm not sure if the current projects will grow without a lot more promotion, it seems that as MilHist attracts members they discover the special projects, rather than the opposite. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but technically BB's should come second (pre-dreads predate WWI, but that's no big deal :). Buggie111 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I though OMT was for WWII battleships, from Battle of the Atlantic, Midway, and other such actions. Never really looked, not into 20th C. warships much. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We do all battleships and battlecruisers. :-) Buggie - it's a good idea but we need less links. Find your top three or four and get rid of the rest. Editors will not read or click through a sea of bluelinks, especially new ones – we need to get the top ones in the message itself, and maybe move the rest to a linked Academy page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cut down, please check over. Buggie111 (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

After the 4 special projects also reword "Feel free to join any one of them" - remove "one" as it sounds like there's a limit, simply to "Feel free to join any of them". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

We should try to condense the discussion of {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} and Category:Military history articles needing attention into a single bullet, as one is present inside the other. Perhaps we could just point people to WP:MHOT and mention that the announcement box can be watchlisted?
The list of departments should be updated to remove the review department.
The point about task forces shouldn't mention discussion, since the talk pages are now all consolidated.
I'm not sure that the discussion of creating new special projects (the two sentences that begin "On the other hand...") is necessary in a welcome message. Someone who's just joined the project is probably not going to try to create a new special project as their first activity; and the details of the process (i.e. the difference between special projects and task forces, the incubator process, etc.) would probably be better explained in an academy article than condensed into a few sentences in the template.
Perhaps we should put the bullets in the same order as the items appear on the main project page:
1. Talk page
2. Open tasks
3. (Key) Departments
4. Special projects
5. Task forces

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcus wanted more incentive to create SP's, so I bent it to him. Cehck it out now. Buggie111 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I lost the plot - I thought this was some permanent header box to go atop the MilHist main page. If it's an invite template for members to subst to new editors talk pages to make them aware of the project and its scope, then yeah, strip it down to some of the major things we do, they'll pick up on the rest if and when they visit the project pages and browse the links. Welcome boxes just need a brief oversight to get them interested but not to overwhelm them with too many links. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New section layout on main project page

I've taken a stab at rearranging the sections on WP:MILHIST to reduce the use of collapsing boxes—I suspect the task force list was being missed by most readers, for example—and combine the various discussions of internal structure into a single block. Comments would be appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring the strategy department

I've been looking at the strategy department, and it seems to me that the area is not working particularly well as it's currently structured. The idea of a separate talk page for long-term planning was a good one in principle, but we haven't really enforced any clear distinction between short-term and long-term discussions—the typical planning discussion is as likely to wind up on the main project talk page, or on this one, as it is on the strategy talk page, and most discussions tend to wander between talk pages in any case—and it's become increasingly clear that (as we had feared) the strategy talk page receives considerably less attention from the members than the main talk page does.

To follow up on our recent efforts to restructure the logistics and review departments, I'd like to suggest that we take a similar approach with regards to the strategy department. In broad terms, I would propose that we move the true behind-the-scenes elements under the coordinator page structure (creating, in essence, a "coordination department" to span all of the project's internal workspaces), and absorb the others into the project core. In detail, this would involve:

Moving the news and editorials division (the Bugle newsroom) into the coordination space (perhaps to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom?). The newsroom is probably the only truly "internal" element of the department (in the sense that it is of limited interest to the average member, and is frequented primarily by the coordinators working on the newsletter), so I think it would make sense to host it within the coordination pages.
Merging the training division into an internal open task list on this page. Given that the division has essentially been reduced, at this point, to nothing more than a to-do list of articles to be written, I don't see any real value to retaining it as an independent entity.
Moving the incubator division under the main project (i.e. to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator) for the time being. This might wind up being an interim solution, depending on whether the incubator continues to be used; but it's probably sufficient for the time being.
Merging the strategy discussion area back to the main project talk page. The trade-off here is primarily one of getting more participation at the cost of residing on a more active page; but, given that most strategy discussions migrate to the main talk page in any case, I don't think this is unfeasible.

Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Buggie111 (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. EyeSerene^talk 11:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented these changes; please be on the lookout for any broken links as a result of the page moves, and let me know if you spot any.

The lists of future discussion topics and missing academy articles are currently located on this page, above the ACR closure list; we'll probably want to come up with a less cluttered arrangement at some point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Referencing, Notes and Bibliography.

I'm concerned. Isn't "References" that appear at the bottom of the page (placed through out the article come under "References"?

References Heading
1. ^ Gordan p. 195. (Example)

What are notes used for? Give an example? I find the "Referencing" example page confusing. Then the books that are used in the "Referencing" of the article come under "Bibliography" and other books that don't go under "Further reading". Adamdaley (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Letting us know what article this concerns would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wot Storm says re. a specific case, however to make a general statement... Taking the last part first, "Further reading" is pretty straightforward: that's where you put any book that might aid understanding of the topic but which you haven't directly cited as a reference. Re. Notes/References/Bibliography, there's no one standard. The one that I use (and which seems to get me through GAN/ACR/FAC) is Notes first, which is where direct citations within the main article body appear, followed by References, which is where I include the full details of books, etc, that I've cited in short form under Notes (example). Other articles you'll see might have a high-level References heading, and subheadings for "Citations" and "Bibliography" underneath, the latter two serving the same purpose as "Notes" and "References" in the style I use (example). Some also use the term "Sources" instead of "Bibliography", and some split Sources into Primary and Secondary or Articles and Books, or in still other ways. Because of the many accepted variations, one really needs to treat what may appear unusual methods of referencing on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears I've been doing the calling the wrong list References than Notes. For example Battle of Glendale Article. I've been trying to get them upto a "B Class" (that was off topic). But yeah, been calling Notes and References the other way around. Does that make sense? Adamdaley (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See: WP:FOOTERS#Standard appendices and footers for details on MOS naming convention and content. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a favourite style, although I usually go with the literal meanings of the words – stuff that comes under "Notes" should really be explanations or clarifications of anything in the article; "References", to me, should only include pages or publications that are cited in the article, or are references to the subject; "Bibliography" is the list of publications that are the major works cited. For example

John is a female.[2][N 2]

==Footnotes==
;Notes
^[N 2] Other sources say John is a male.[1]

;References
^[1] Citizen 2012, p. 9.
^[2] Murdock 2012, p. 19.

;Bibliography

Citizen, John (2012). Blah Blah. Atlantis: WMF. ISBN XXXXX.
Murdock, Kane (2012). Unknown. Hong Kong: HarperCollins. ISBN.

Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm one of the odd ones on-wiki. I use Phil's (Sp33dyphil) section style except I substitute "Endnotes" for "References" and "References" for "Bibliography". My citations, though, follow Chicago, not WP's weird APA-but-not-really style. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Outreach

By way of a quick update, I've started off doing some of the outreach work I proposed when I stood as coord. So far:

I've set up a meeting with the curator of the Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum, to have a chat about what more might be done cooperatively in relation to their regimental history and collections;
I've put in a query to the UK MOD, to see if more of their historical analysis could be moved on to an Open Government License, thereby enabling it to be used by communities such as ourselves;
Similarly, I've put in queries into the relevant parts of the UK and the Welsh Government, to see if the Open Government License could be used to release some of their plans of castles and other fortifications.

Feel free to drop me an email if there's anything anyone particularly would like me to cover during these engagements, or if anyone has any advice! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one else has responded here. This looks awesome, and I look forward to any results you get, especially on the castles. Good luck! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. A couple of people who have done similar kinds of outreach in the UK and might be helpful: User:Ironholds (international man of mystery, and this week's guest columnist in the Signpost) and User:The Land ... see his WMUK page here. The sense I get is that, even with all the good things the two American chapters and the new Canadian chapter have done, the Brits are either more determined to do outreach or are finding it easier or both. I'd love to be kept in the loop. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Hchc, great work - and we need to talk, sooner rather than later :-)

Also I meant to tell MilHist about the budget Wikimedia UK has allocated for 2012 specifically for projects related to World War I and World War II; though there isn't any fundamental reason why some of the other budget heads for Wikipedians-in-Residence, digitization, or event support shouldn't be used for military history either. So, please consider yourselves informed, and let's talk... :D The Land (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hchc, let me know how you get on with the MoD. If they could be persusaded to release some photos of military officers under the OGL, I would be a happy man! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I met with the Gloster team as planned; next step is for me to put in some ideas in writing, which I'll get onto over the weekend. HJ - I've dropped you an email ref your query. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting at FAC

I won't have time to copyedit articles at A-class for the next two months or so. I'll be happy to copyedit any FAC articles that have passed A-class and that look like they have a shot at passing FAC, if you'll check the items on the Checklist first. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

List class

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 105#Proposal to add List-Class

Proposal has been archived, not as much interest as I had hoped, but with a fair number of votes. Is this ample consensus to add List class? If so, how do we proceed, and who can implement it? And how do we go about adding specific List criteria for assessments?

Looking at the discussion, I think there's a reasonable consensus to add one or more assessment classes dedicated to lists. It's not entirely clear, unfortunately, how many classes should be added; and I don't think there's been any real discussion of what list-specific assessment criteria we should use for those classes.

In the short term, I'd like to suggest that we do the following:

Add a "list" flag (i.e. "|list = yes") to the {{WPMILHIST}} template. This will enable us to implement a reasonably automated method of switching between "article" and "list" assessment schemes on an individual article level without needing to determine those schemes a priori. As a first test, we can probably merge the "FA" and "FL" class levels, and have the assessment result trigger based on the "list" parameter (i.e. "FL" if "list=yes" and "FA" otherwise) when either "FA" or "FL" is provided as input.
Add a "List-Class" as an alternative to "Start-Class". The new "List-Class" would trigger based on the "list" parameter, but would otherwise function identically to the current "Start-Class" (i.e. automatically upgrading to "C-Class" and/or "B-Class" based on the corresponding checklist). Once the new class is implemented, we'll need to create the corresponding categories for the project as well as all the task forces.
Work on developing list-specific versions of the B-Class and A-Class criteria to enable us to add "BL-Class" and "AL-Class" assessments in the future. We'll also need to do some research to determine how to integrate these custom classes into the assessment scheme; I know the Math WikiProject does something similar, but we've never implemented it ourselves.

How does this approach sound to everyone? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, but I think all the coords need to make sure they are aware of anything implemented, as it will certainly affect any tasks required of them to maintain the project. The overall and task force assessment tables would need to show the List row, as you say. As for criteria, I don't think it will be difficult to determine the criteria, more to detail it somewhere accessible, and clear to all that it is project-specific. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That looks great, Kirill. Buggie111 (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sound good. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, good call MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding List assessment criteria – I don't think it will be a big task to take a copy of the standard article criteria and tweak it to suit lists. As such, I'm volunteering to do that so as not to burden coords with extra work, and seeing as I made a fuss to get this motion going I might as well do some of the actual work. I will draw up Draft criteria in the near future and that will allow members to openly discuss it. Then I revise it to produce a Final Draft before a conclusive product. If there are any disputes regarding criteria points at later stages then consensus' may be required, in due process. However, it should not take more than one or two revisions to get criteria to an acceptable point. Once ready, I'll then leave it to Kirill, or whoever is up to it, to integrate it into the MilHist Assessment pages appropriately – I personally am not willing to mess with the project pages/layout in case of.. collateral damage! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Byron C. Ostby Article

Article: Byron C. Ostby.

WikiProject Military History has been taken out of the above article. I was left a comment on my Discussion page about this person was not notable for being in the WikiProject Military History section. Even though it was was already there prior to me editing it. It does state in the article he was in World War II in the Navy. Adamdaley (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with no associated task force

I've done my best to get all the articles in the "Category:Military history articles with no associated task force" into a task force. For now, it only leaves an image there and an article which has been tagged as being dubious. Adamdaley (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AWOL apologies

Apologies for my current inactivity - it's rather poor form to disappear right after an election, but RL picks its own times to intrude :( I'll try to chip in where I can for the next few weeks until things at work slack off again. EyeSerene^talk 08:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What he said! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyeserene - Where is your doctors' note for being AWOL from Wikipedia? Adamdaley (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FAC update, 20 Oct

Three Milhist FACs promoted last week. Gratz to Hchc2009, Ian Rose, and Nev1, and also to Ed17 for the story on his Featured Topic. Help is needed on the following FACs, particularly the ones more than two weeks old:

08 Oct 2011 – 1689 Boston revolt (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by DCI2026 (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: ~~image review,~~ spotchecks, reviews.
07 Oct 2011 – McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Sp33dyphil (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: reviews, particularly from people familiar with aviation articles.
  - The FAC page is getting better fast. One more knowledgeable review would be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    - Two opposes on prose (Sandy's comments will be treated as an oppose, more or less). I haven't copyedited this one and probably won't have time to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
07 Oct 2011 – Jovan Vladimir (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by VVVladimir (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: spotchecks.
07 Oct 2011 – HMS Eagle (1918) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Sturmvogel 66 (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: reviews.
06 Oct 2011 – Arado E.381 (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by WikiCopter (t · c); see discussion
- ~~Needed: Image review, spotchecks, and reviews, particularly from people familiar with aviation articles.~~
  - No more reviews needed until the nominator has a chance to work on the ones he's got. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
04 Oct 2011 – Battle of Kaiapit (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Hawkeye7 (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: another review, and spotchecks wouldn't hurt.
03 Oct 2011 – Battle of Vukovar (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Prioryman (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: only spotchecks, and only if you happen to have one or more of the sources.
30 Sep 2011 – Background of the Spanish Civil War (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Grandiose (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: reviews, spotchecks.
26 Sep 2011 – Chaplain–Medic massacre (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ed! (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: another review, spotchecks, ~~copyediting in the Background section.~~ - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with no associated task force

Since yesterday (October 20, 2011), I've been able to get the following image moved to commons "File talk:Jørgen Conrad de Falsen.jpg". It is in this section: Category:Military history articles with no associated task force - Unfortunately the help channel on Freenode doesn't understand what I mean for it to be deleted from wiki.riteme.site since it's on Commons. The Category it is in is for Military history articles wiht no associated task force(s) I've tried my best to get it moved, then deleted from the existing page on wiki.riteme.site so we can only have articles with no "Military History articles with no associated Task force(s)" there that can be easily assessed and once all of them have been assessed it'll become empty for a short period of time. As I have said I've tried my best to get article's assessed and out of that particular Category, so it doesn't build up and gets too much for the Military Coordinators to handle. My end result is for it to be deleted, but it does point to an article which I totally understand. It's on Commons now and there shouldn't be much to do to fix the Image on the article once deleted from taking up a page that is suppose to be for Military History Articles. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The MilHist Assessment page doesn't track the "File" class. Why don't you just remove the {{MILHIST}} banner in the file talk altogether? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I didn't think of that! Thanks MarcusBritish. Adamdaley (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Zhuge Liang's Northern Expeditions Articles

I'm here to see I would be able to eliminate the WikiProject Three Kingdoms template on the Discussion page of the six articles of Zhuge Liang's Northern Expeditions Articles and put them into the WikiProject Military History with the same assessment. This following article is just one of those Battle of Mount Qi, which has not been changed yet. I would simply put the Three Kingdoms under Military History and put the "Mid", "Top", etc beside it and leave out WikiProject Three Kingdoms. I would like feedback from other Coordinators and former Coordinators for this. Adamdaley (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain a little bit more about why? The reason I ask is that while I'm not a member of the Three Kingdom's project, at first glance their description of the project covering "any article related to Three Kingdoms events, individuals and information" would suggest that it would apply to the Battle of Mount Qi. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Because we could put "Three Kingdoms" as a task force or associated period into WikiProject Military History and eliminate the "Three Kingdoms" template. Adamdaley (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So the intent here would actually be to turn WikiProject Three Kingdoms into a task force, not just to make changes to the templates? On the surface of it, the idea is not an unreasonable one; we've certainly absorbed inactive military-related projects in the past. The key questions, in my opinion, are these:

Is WikiProject Three Kingdoms currently active or inactive? If the project remains active (to one degree or another), then we'll need to be considerably more careful in how to approach any discussion, so as to avoid inadvertently upsetting or alienating its members.
If there is any activity, would the active members there support becoming a task force of MilHist? Depending on how active the project is, and how much of its own infrastructure it has, it may be easy or difficult to get a consensus in support of the idea.
Where in our project would it be merged? Keep in mind that we already have a "Wars of the Three Kingdoms" task force (covering an entirely unrelated topic), so some confusion is possible.

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally forgot about this. Even though I have the subject of this written down on a piece of paper and every time I looked at it I thought it was assessed and out the way. I agree with Kirill. It is certainly open for debate for everyone. I'm willing to listen to the more experienced Coordinators and users in the WikiProject Military History, because I am a new Coordinator and I'm not associated with the WikiProject Three Kingdoms. I feel positive there is a solution. Adamdaley (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

September Bugle

Question: When do we release the September Bugle? I am not sure what needs to be done here MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

NOW. I'll go ahead and finish it. Buggie111 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Turns out it's harder than I thought. That, and real life, is gonna be a pain. Buggie111 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually coming here to leave a message about the newsletter. Is anyone free to finish this? Cam hasn't responded yet, and RL is severely impacting my time on-Wiki. All that needs to be done is a "from the editors" section (I guess this would be "from the coordinators" this time though ;-) ) detailing what happened in September (ie the election), who received awards in that month, and a few article blurbs. Thanks and apologies, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Having had a bit of experience in most areas of the Bugle I'd be happy to finish off what needs doing in the next 24 hours or so if no-one else prefers to step in sooner. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, that's much appreciated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's all done now, Ed. Whew, I would score the most award-heavy month in ages... ;-) 'Fraid I have to crash for the night shortly so if you can give it the once-over and arrange despatch, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FAC update, 26 Oct

Gratz to Buggie111 on the promotion of Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) last week. Help is needed on the following FACs, particularly the ones more than two weeks old. I've decided to add "spotchecks" to the list of what's needed (if spotchecks haven't been done yet) even when I think the article can pass without them, because any article is likely to pass more quickly with than without. See the next section for more discussion.

22 Oct 2011 – Hobey Baker (talk · edit · hist) FA nominated by Kaiser matias; see discussion
- This one needs a simple fix to get back on the board; either convert the {{harvnb}} refs to {{sfn}} or the other way around. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
22 Oct 2011 – Project A119 (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Grapple X (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: everything.
08 Oct 2011 – 1689 Boston revolt (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by DCI2026 (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: spotchecks, reviews.
07 Oct 2011 – Jovan Vladimir (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by VVVladimir (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: spotchecks.
07 Oct 2011 – HMS Eagle (1918) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Sturmvogel 66 (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: spotchecks, reviews.
04 Oct 2011 – Battle of Kaiapit (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Hawkeye7 (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: spotchecks, another review
03 Oct 2011 – Battle of Vukovar (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Prioryman (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: I'm not sure that anything is needed, we'll see.
30 Sep 2011 – Background of the Spanish Civil War (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Grandiose (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: reviews.
26 Sep 2011 – Chaplain–Medic massacre (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ed! (t · c); see discussion
- Needed: Another review. Ian has done a spotcheck of "one or two sources"; I don't know if that's enough, we'll have to see.

Spotchecks

The kind of success that Milhist now has at FAC can take years for a project to develop, and it's really good advertising for our project to see Milhist articles every week in the "Featured content" section of the Signpost ... so it's a shame to see so many articles sitting at FAC waiting for spotchecks and one more review. For nominators, you'll attract more reviewers to your FAC articles:

if the article has just passed A-class ... since the article won't have changed much, it's less work for the A-class reviewers to review it again at FAC.
if it's one of a series of articles, such as from a task force or a future Good Topic, that's shown recent activity.
if you review other people's FACs. I don't know why more people don't do this, because it's so easy, and because Milhist people are usually more than willing to reciprocate in some way when you help them out. Even if specialist knowledge is required, such as for some image reviews, it's much appreciated if a less-experienced reviewer has looked at all the images first, identified possible problems, and asked the nom(s) a few basic questions ... it saves a lot of time, and makes it easier to get the attention of specialists.

The problem that doesn't currently have a clear solution is spotchecks. In rare cases, spotchecks are a trap to catch bad-faith editors, but it's not usually a black-and-white thing. Different people have different ideas on what constitutes following the sources too closely or not following them closely enough, and the only way we can negotiate a consensus, and learn from it, is to compare the writing to the sources. That's impossible when the reviewers don't have the sources. This idea got support in August, but obviously that's going to take some luck and some effort. Feel free to discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC) added "in some way"

I cannot agree with this unfortunately.

MilHist articles at FAC nearly always have been through A-class; but while you can have multiple articles in A-class reviews, you can only have one at FAC at a time. I have about a dozen; so it will take a year or more before a recent one comes up.
Usually people review only one or the other, so people who review at A-class will not turn up again at FAC. In any case, the FAC delegates prefer non-MilHist input at FAC, to avoid giving the impression that the Task Force is a WP:CABAL.
Does anyone actually believe that Milhist reviews count less at FAC? In the distant past, there were frequent misunderstandings between FAC and Milhist (between FAC and most projects, actually), but the frequent promotions based on Milhist support and the respect that all of us receive at FAC these days speak for themselves, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying they "count less". I think the issue is that FAC delegates prefer to have some non-MILHIST input on MILHIST articles, because outside reviewers are more likely to see issues with jargon/technical language. If there is a battle article with four MILHIST supports, no-one else reviews, and it's been up for a month, then yeah, they're going to promote it. Nothing else they can do. However, their preference (explicitly stated by the delegates) is to have some non-MILHISt input on FACs. And I don't think that's a bad thing - biology people will catch jargon better on MILHIST articles, while the reverse is probably true, as well - hence why the delegates also prefer to have some non-mycologists commenting on mushroom articles. Dana boomer (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I admit it ... I start pulling my hair out when people (including reviewers, sometimes) say things like "FAC delegates prefer non-MilHist input at FAC" instead of input in addition to MilHist input. With all our success, there's still a contingent IMO that thinks exactly that, that their opinion won't be respected at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed three FACs in the past week, none of whose authors have reviewed mine, either currently, or in the past. I do not expect them to; this is not a quid pro quo situation.

The sad thing is when FAC articles fail to get promoted due to lack of reviews or checks, or spend ages at FAC awaiting them. This slows everything down, and exacerbates the whole problem. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A third to half of active MilHist reviewers review at both, which is not a majority but is significant. Quid-pro-quo is not the answer, nor is exclusively MilHist reviewers on MilHist articles, but in general (though there are obviously other variables involved - YMMV), people who review frequently at FAC garner more reviews (and are less likely to have their noms archived for lack of review) than those who don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed "reciprocate" to "reciprocate in some way" ... sorry, all I meant to say is that there's significant good will at Milhist and you can have a reasonable expectation that if you're nice to people, then people (maybe different people who saw what you did) will be nice to you. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A while ago I offered to start helping out with spotchecking articles in ACRs. Due to real life commitments I haven't actually done this. However, I should be able to start doing so in the near future (limited a bit by one of the main libraries I use being about to go on summer hours in which it's difficult for me to access), and will hopefully have a go at spot checking some FACs once I get the hang of it. Is it considered OK form for editors to spot check FACs from a project they're heavily involved in? I agree with Dana's comments about the value of editors who are unfamiliar with a topic participating in FA reviews BTW. Nick-D (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

From a project they're heavily involved in? Yes. For in-depth checking, or even spot checks on articles that rely heavily on print sources, people from the same project are likely to be the only ones with access to many of the same sources. If you want to be really cautious, a statement like "Since I edit in a similar topic area, I have access to the sources by Doe, Smith and Brown. Here are the results of a spotcheck..." might work. Just, and I'm stating the obvious here, no spotchecking on articles you're heavily involved in. Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what Dana said. If you've got access to even one print source used in the article that isn't online, you can help more than the average FAC reviewer. Project shouldn't matter unless you've worked on the article in question. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. As I said, I'll try to get used to this in ACRs before moving onto FACs. Nick-D (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait two weeks at FAC, please

I'm now recommending that, even if a FAC reviewer comes and tells you that you should be able to put your failed FAC back up faster than two weeks, don't even ask ... wait the two weeks. The delegates in their discretion sometimes bend the rules, but I think we need to start taking into account the likely reactions of other projects to our dominance in the Signpost's "Best of the Week", and avoid all special requests to a delegate. The situation rarely comes up, anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

How many people actually think of their FAC as a Milhist FAC? I'd be more inclined to thinking of my FAC as 'my FAC' or 'my and OMT's FAC'. I think this will hold true for other projects too; at the worst, perhaps many commenters in some project may express resentment toward us simply for having so many quality articles going through FAC. I don't see that happening though (thankfully). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more "military history" than WP:Milhist. Even if they've never heard of Milhist, a casual reader of last week's "Best of the Week" could be forgiven for thinking that FAC is all military history, and they might wonder if all that success comes because of some kind of special treatment, rather than from years of work by scores of people. So ... all I'm asking is that, for anyone who's with-it enough to be reading the coordinator's talk page, don't ask the delegates to bring a failed FAC back in less than two weeks, just so we aren't perceived as having any special pull at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am looking at last week's "Best of the Week" and all I see is an article on a railway line, one on a baseball manager, and one on a Russian battleship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-17/Featured_content. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I did enjoy that one (and not just because an article close to my heart scored a photo and a quote from the author!) -- that battleship shot is one of the best. I get what you mean though, Dank, the only FA not political or military was a dinosaur and it had the shortest blurb of all... ;-( I've said before that I always try to review at least one non-MilHist FAC when I nom one of my own, as well as a couple of MilHist ones. Not as a QPQ but, as I think someone else suggested, it can help help foster a bit of good will -- and I always learn something new...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this just reminded me that I need to get around to making a better scan of that image. It's actually slightly cut off at each edge due to the small scanner my university has. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

October Contest

If anyone would mind doing my articles, I'll be more than glad to do the rest. Buggie111 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tks mate -- I should be able to get to them and, later, the tallying/awards, some time tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FAC update, 1 Nov

Per WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-31/Featured content, congratulations are in order for Battle of Vukovar (nom) (Co-nominated by Joy and Prioryman) and the Featured List List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1945) (nom) (MisterBee1966).

I've added two points to the FAC WP:Checklist:

Because: Give some thought to whether because, as a result, since, due to, thus, therefore, so, and other cause-and-effect words are the words you want in a narrative (storyline). Use after instead of because in: they retreated because the enemy broke through their lines, since the readers can figure out that one led to the other. Avoid "therefore" in: The ship stayed in port two days loading low-grade coal, and therefore never caught up to the fleeing destroyer. (Therefore ... because the ship stayed in port two days, because it loaded coal, or because the coal was low-grade? It's better not to raise the question if the answer isn't clear.) And of course, don't say or imply that one thing caused another if your sources don't back that up.
Intention: Don't use state-of-mind words like intended, decided and wanted in a narrative (storyline), unless the sources indicate that what people were thinking was an important part of the story. Instead of They decided to build torpedo boats, just say They built torpedo boats or (occasionally) They started building torpedo boats.

The only new FAC since last week is 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment. I need some help with the copyediting on Project A119; nothing fancy, just read it with the WP:Checklist in mind, ask the nominator to fix obvious problems, and ask questions if the text isn't clear. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Implementation of "list" flag and List-Class

As discussed above, I've added a "list" parameter to {{WPMILHIST}}. The parameter accepts the standard yes/no values ("yes", "no", "y", "n", etc.), and currently causes the following behavior:

If "list" is set to "yes", setting "class" to either "FA" or "FL" results in the article being assessed as "FL". If "list" is set to "no", setting "class" to either "FA" or "FL" results in the article being assessed as "FA".
If "list" is set to "yes" and the article would normally be assessed as "Start" (i.e. the class is set to "Start", "C", or "B", and the checklist criteria for "C" or "B" are not met), it is assessed as "List" instead.

Currently, a "List-Class" category is only being generated for the main project, not for the task forces; the task force category generation will be enabled once we've finished testing the new implementation.

In the short term, there are two things I'd appreciate help with:

All of our current FLs need to have the "list=yes" parameter set in their project banners; until this is done, they will revert back to "FA" assessments.
Some Start-Class lists need to have the "list=yes" parameter set in their project banners, so that we can verify those assessments are being generated correctly.

If anyone has some free time, please feel free to pitch in.

As always, any comments or suggestions (or reports of things being broken) are very welcome! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the FLs that I've worked on and for two start-class lists that are in progress. Both are showing as lists on the banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

Kirill, I've created a sandbox version of the project main assessment section here with the List class included in the parameter list and Assessment table. As you are more familiar with the project's pages, would you be able to apply it? Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the main assessment page to reflect your sandbox changes. In the long term, I'm planning to create a new version of that section to more clearly outline the "article" and "list" assessment paths; the current table layout is already a bit confusing, and is likely to become more so as we add more list-specific ratings. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Will probably need two distinguishable tables, but clearly defining that one follows the "article" route, and one the "list" route with details regarding progression from Start->FA and List->FL via criteria specific suited to each type. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, about half the articles in Category:Unassessed military history articles are list articles. The random sample I looked at had the "list=yes/y" tag enabled, but this appears to be overriding any entry in the "class=" field. -- saberwyn 22:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, they include the ones that I added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem found and fixed; Category:List-Class military history articles should be generated correctly now. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Theodore P. Savas Article

Article: Theodore P. Savas.

The above article I feel is more of a biography than a "WikiProject Military History" article. It also has been tagged to be COI, among other things. What is other WikiProject Miltiary History Coordinators/members opinion? Adamdaley (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that the information in the article is correct, I'd say that he's within our scope as a significant military historian. The potential COI issue is one that needs to be addressed as a separate question, I think. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It can be under both projects simultaneously - I agree that as a military historian, this project does apply to him. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)