Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Welcome to the discussion area of the Military history WikiProject's coordination department! This page is mostly used by the project coordinators, but everyone is welcome to participate! If you have a question, concern, or suggestion for the coordinators, please feel free to leave us a note! |
Handbook
[edit]- Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.
Coordinator tasks
[edit]- These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
- Assessment
- Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
- Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
- Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
- Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
- A-Class review
- For each ongoing A-Class review:
- Determine whether the review needs to be closed and archived, per the criteria here.
- If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~
- If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, follow the procedure below for creating an A-Class review or reappraisal. This will make way for the normal A-Class review initiation process, so advise the nominator to initiate per the instructions.
- Quarterly Reviewing Awards
Quarterly Reviewing Awards - manual process
|
|---|
|
Quarterly reviewing awards are posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards page by the MilHistBot. As with other awards, change the status from "nominated" to "approved" to approve the award.
- Member affairs
- Invite editors to join the project, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:MILHIST/MILHIST Invitation|signed=~~~~}} - Welcome anybody who joins the project, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}}
- Miscellaneous
- Vote on any open proposals to award the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and approve any A-Class medal or A-Class cross nominations.
- Update the monthly newsletter with new developments within the project.
- Verify entries in the monthly article writing contest, hand out prizes, and update the monthly scoreboard and the newsletter accordingly.
- Fix the {{WPMILHIST}} invocation syntax on any articles in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging.
How to...
[edit]| Create a new task force |
|---|
Before a task force can be created, it is necessary to decide on a name for it. The process requires both a full name (e.g. "French military history" or "American Civil War") and a one- or two-word or acronym shorthand used for some template parameters (e.g. "French" or "ACW"). The instructions below use the "Fooish military history" task force (shortened to "Fooish") as an example; when creating an actual task force, remember to substitute the correct name, rather than actually creating the example pages.
|
| Creating an A-Class review or reappraisal | ||
|---|---|---|
Creating a new A-Class review or reappraisal[edit]If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, a new version has to be created manually. Find the archive page[edit]
Find the last review[edit]
Move the review page[edit]
Update the talk page[edit]
Update the archive[edit]
Create the new review[edit]
|
| Establish coordinator election pages | ||
|---|---|---|
Under the current system used by the Military history Wikiproject, coordinators are tasked with handling certain project-specific operations such as closing A-Class reviews. Because coordinators are held accountable to the project an election is held once a year to determine who among the community's members will serve as a coordinator. While the election itself is a simple approval vote, creating the pages needed for the election can be tricky. Therefore, this Academy page will serve as a walk-through on how to correctly set up the election pages. Before the election[edit]Before any election pages are created, the matter of the coordinator election must be brought up with the current coordinator tranche. Ideally, this should be done sometime between mid-July and early August. The reason that the coordinators must first discuss the matter of the election is to settle on the finer details of the upcoming election. Three key aspects should be decided. The first detail relates to the project's activity level: as the activity level in the project rises or falls, the number of coordinators judged to be needed to effectively run the project increases or decreases. Accordingly, then, the coordinators need to establish how many slots should be opened to the project members. In general, the project currently operates efficiently with roughly 8–11 coordinators, although the exact number settled on for the upcoming tranche must understandably be decided based on the workload and the efficiency of the current coordinator tranche. The coordinators must also decide if the total number should include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, which can cause the total settled on to fluctuate by one. The second factor that needs to be discussed is the election format. Historically, when the system was introduced, the format was 14 days for nominations followed by 14 days of election, which worked well for the community but created an illusion that the process was "slow". As a result of this perception the community approved a change in the process that now sees the election format using a 10-day nomination period followed by a 10-day voting period. This process is marginally faster than the older two week system, which helps speed the process up. While the coordinators have used this option for several years, they also have the option of introducing or implementing a new nomination/voting scheme if one is judged to be needed. Accordingly then, the coordinators will need to settle on which of the three options they feel will work the best for the upcoming election. The final matter that must be discussed is the exact date of the election. Ideally, the entire election should take place in the month of September, but as there are 30 days in September the coordinators will need to officially designate a starting day for the nomination period. Once this day is decided, the format the coordinators have agreed upon can be used to determine when the nomination period will end, and by extension when the voting period will start and end. Collectively, these three points once settled will provide the information needed to establish the election pages. Creating the election pages[edit]Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)replacing the MONTH and YEAR with the month and year in question. Once you have the correct red link the following information should be added to the page verbatim: {{WPMILHIST Navigation|no-banner=yes}} {{/Tally}}
{{TOC limit|3}}
== Overview ==
This election is to appoint the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|project coordinator team]] for one year, from (ADD THE DATE OF THE INCOMING TRANCHE HERE USING DAY MONTH YEAR FORMAT) to (ADD THE ENDING DATE OF THE UPCOMING COORDINATOR TRANCHE HERE, USING DAY MONTH YEAR FORMAT). Coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. All of the coordinators, and especially the lead coordinator (or lead coordinators), serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and focus on specific areas requiring special attention. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.
=== Responsibilities ===
From [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators]]: <blockquote>The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group. <br/><br/> The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.</blockquote>
Practical information on coordinating may be found [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|here]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Being a coordinator|here]].
The current coordinators are:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! Position
! Standing for re-election?
|-
| Add the name of the first current coordinator as shown on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinator's page]]
| The current position the above named editor holds. By virtue of the currently used system, this slot will always be "Coordinator" with the exception of the editor who holds the position of lead coordinator, whose position box should be filled in as "Lead Coordinator"
| This slot MUST be added to for each coordinator and should be left blank since only the listed coordinator can decide if he or she wants to stand for reelection.
|}
=== Election process ===
* '''Nomination period''': (Add the day and month the nomination will begin and the UTC time, day, and month the nomination will end here. For example, "8 September to 23:59 UTC 18 September")
* '''Voting period''': (Add the day and month the election phase will begin and the UTC time, day, and month the election period will end here. For example, "19 September to 23:59 UTC 29 September")
* Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the [[#Candidates|"Candidates" section below]] by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:
<pre>
=== Name ===
{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...
==== Comments and questions for Name ====
*''What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?''
**
*''What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?''
**
==== Votes in support of Name ====
#
</pre>
* The election will be conducted using simple [[approval voting]]. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the lead coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); this position may be shared in the event that multiple candidates receive the highest number of endorsements. The remaining candidates with twenty or more endorsements will be appointed as coordinators to a maximum of eleven appointments (including the lead coordinator). The number of coordinators ''may'' be increased or reduced if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.
* Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.
== Candidates==
{{/Status}}
<!--
As per long standing consensus both new candidates and returning coordinators are listed alphabetically below, so add your user name accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation.
-->
}}
Create the status template[edit]The second page that will need be created will be the status template. (A completed example can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017/Status). This template uses a set of established parameters to inform editors, readers, and other interested parties when the nominations will open, when the voting will open, and when the elections have concluded. The template itself resides at the top of the Candidates section, and will be present in the page you just created by virtue of the its presence in code copied from the preceding section. To access the template, add/Statusto the current election page so that the election page looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)/StatusIt should give you a red link, click it and then add the following to the status page: ;{{#switch:{{CURRENTYEAR}}
|2015={{#switch:{{CURRENTMONTH}}
|8=<big>The election has not started yet. Please do not edit this page.</big>
|9={{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} < 8|<big>The election has not started yet. Please do not edit this page.</big>|{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} < 19|<big>Please <big style="color: red;">DO NOT VOTE</big> yet; the voting phase of the election will open at 00:01 (UTC) on 19 September.<br>If you wish to run, please sign up by 23:59 (UTC) on 18 September.</big>|{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} <= 29|<big>Voting is now open; project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September.</big><br>(This is a [[approval voting|simple approval vote]]; only "support" votes should be made. All other votes will be discounted.)|<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>}}}}}}
|#default=<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>
}}
|#default=<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>
}}
Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, [[{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}]] [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]''' (UTC)
Once the above has been added take care the you change the year and the days to match the current election year and the days for the nomination and voting periods. Once the information has been updated save the page, this will result in the template on the election page being created and if done correctly should automatically switch messages to notify interested parties when the nomination and election phases open and when the election concludes.
Tally Box[edit]/Tallyto the current coordinator election page so it looks like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)/Tallytaking care to replace the MONTH and YEAR tabs with the current election month and year. Once you have the red link, add the following to the page verbatim, taking care to not that MONTH and YEAR in the example below will already reflect the current election month and year: {| class="plainlinks sortable" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="2" style="width: 200px; background: whitesmoke; margin-left: 15px; float: right; border: 1px black dotted; "
|-
|+ <big>'''Tally'''</big> <br/> <small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/MONTH YEAR/Tally|action=edit}} edit]</small>
|-
! Candidate !! Votes
|-
|}
After adding the section save the page, this will result in the Tally Box being created and added to the election page proper. With this done all three pages for the coordinator election should be created and no further action should be required on your part. With all three pages now live, the current coordinators and the editors of the Military history Wikiproject will be able to edit the pages to announce their candidacies or their decision not to seek reelection. Notify the project that nominations are open[edit]See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification for details on how to send a mass message. The relevant list should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active, as this ensures everyone active within the project is alerted. Suggested heading is: Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! Suggested message form is: Nominations for the upcoming [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]] coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator|here]]. If you are interested in running, please sign up '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2024|here]]''' by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|current coord team]]. ~~~~ Notify the project that voting is open[edit]Two weeks later. Suggested heading is: Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! Suggested message form is: Voting for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]] coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|current coord team]]. ~~~~ After the election[edit]Close the voting[edit]{{archivetop|The election is now closed. ~~~~ }}
to the top of the election page and {{archivebottom}}
to the bottom of the page. Notify the winners[edit]For the newly elected coordinators, a suggested form is {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:US-O11 insignia.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} |Coordinator stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! ~~~~
|}
For the lead coordinator, a suggested form is: {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:US-O12 insignia.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} |Lead Coordinator stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your re-election to the position of Lead Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Lead Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! ~~~~
|}
For a coordinator emeritus, a suggested form is: {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}#Nomination for Coordinator Emeritus (<editor>)|Coordinator Emeritus stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | It is with immense pleasure that I pass on the unanimous decision of the members of the WikiProject Military History that as a mark of the great esteem in which they hold you and your judgement you be appointed a Coordinator Emeritus of the Project for as long as you should choose to remain one. Congratulations and many thanks for all that you have done for the Project. ~~~~
|}
Update the coordinators list[edit]Edit the lead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators to reflect the current list. Update the notification template[edit]Edit Template:@MILHIST to reflect the current list. Update the category[edit]Edit the coordinators' user pages to add Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators and remove it from coordinators who are no longer active. Update the Bugle[edit]Add the election results to The Bugle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2024/Project news |
| Establish military historian and newcomer of the year election voting | ||
|---|---|---|
Under the current system used by the Military history Wikiproject, coordinators are tasked with handling certain project-specific operations. This Academy page will serve as a walk-through on how to correctly set up the election pages for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year elections. About[edit]These elections are conducted between 1 and 30 December each year. Before the election[edit]Create the election pages[edit]Substitute the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history page before 17 November: {{subst:WPMILHIST Nominations for military historian of the year}} ~~~~
{{subst:WPMILHIST Nominations for military history newcomer of the year}} ~~~~
Notify the project[edit]See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification for details on how to send a mass message. The mass message tool can be found here. On 17 November, notify the project that nominations are open. Suggested form is: Nominations now open for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History|]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|newcomer of the year]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|military historian of the year]] awards for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military historian of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. {{subst:Currentuser}} via ~~~~
On 1 December, notify the project that nominations are open. Suggested form is: Voting is now open for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History|]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|newcomer of the year]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|military historian of the year]] awards for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military historian of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. {{subst:Currentuser}} via ~~~~
After the election[edit]Close the voting[edit]{{archivetop|Voting is now closed. ~~~~ }}
to the top of the election page and {{archivebottom}}
to the bottom of the page. Notify the winners on their talk pages[edit]For the winners of the Military History Newcomer of the Year, a suggested form is: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Goldenwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: #fdffe7;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Golden Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected as the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the coveted '''Golden Wiki'''; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. ~~~~
}}
For runners-up, a suggested form is: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:WikiprojectBarnstar.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: WhiteSmoke;
| text = '''{{font|text=The WikiProject Barnstar|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} You have been selected as a runner-up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], please accept this token of gratitude and appreciation on behalf of the project; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. ~~~~
}}
For winners of the Military Historian of the New Year: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Goldenwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: #fdffe7;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Golden Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected as the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the coveted '''Golden Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
For second place: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Silverwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: WhiteSmoke;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Silver Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected in second place for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the esteemed '''Silver Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
For third place: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Bronzewiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: NavajoWhite ;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Bronze Wiki|size=x-large|color=maroon}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected in third place for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the esteemed '''Bronze Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
Update the winners lists[edit]These are located at
Update the Bugle[edit]Add the election results to The Bugle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2025/Project news The suggested form is: The [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2024_are_open!|Military Historian of the Year]] awards have been distributed, the Golden Wiki going to {{u|gold}} for third year in a row. The Silver Wiki was awarded to {{u|silver}} and the Bronze wiki jointly to {{u|bronze}} and {{u|bronze}}. {{u|runner up}} and {{u|runner up}} were runners-up.
The [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2024_are_open!|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] awards have also been handed out, with {{u|gold}} receiving the Golden Wiki and {{u|runner-up}} and {{u|runner-up}} the WikiProject Barnstar.
Congratulations to all members of the project on your achievements last year, and best wishes for 2025!
|
Boilerplate and templates
[edit]| Public boilerplate notices |
|---|
|
| Hidden structural templates & boilerplates |
|---|
|
| Military history awards |
|---|
|
| Coordinator userboxes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open tasks
[edit]Topics for future discussion
[edit]- Collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, universities, and various other institutions (e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM)
- Article improvement drives
- Notability guideline for battles
- Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks
- Using the "Results" field in infoboxes
- How far milhist's scope should include 'military fiction' (possible solution, see scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force)
- Encouraging member participation in the various review processes (peer, GAN, ACR etc)
- Recruiting new members (see User:The ed17/MILHIST, etc.)
- Improving/maintaining popular pages
- Motivating improvement from Stub to B-Class
- Enabling editors to improve articles beyond B-Class (possibly utilising logistics dept, also see WP:FAT for related ideas)
- Helping new members (possibly involving improving/deprecating welcome template; writing Academy course)
- Recruiting copy-editors to help during ACR
- Recruiting editors from external forums/groups/etc.
- Simplifying ACR instructions (old discussion)
Missing academy articles
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using different reference formats (partially written/needs expansion)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Image restoration (partially written)
- Using supporting materials (possibly not needed/covered by other topics)
- Image quality and accuracy (possibly not needed/covered by other topics)
Open award nominations
[edit]Nominations for awards are made and voted on by coordinators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. An A-Class Medal nomination needs at least two coordinators' votes to succeed, and the Chevrons with Oak Leaves a majority of coordinators' votes. All coordinators are requested to review the following:
ACRs for closure
[edit]All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either promotion or non-promotion, by any uninvolved coordinator. The closing coordinator should check the review page carefully to ensure that there are three general supports and supports (or passes) for both the image and the source reviews, and that there are no outstanding points to be addressed. A guide to manually closing A-Class reviews is available, but normally the closing coordinator just needs to change A-Class=current in the {{WPMILHIST}} banner to A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Henry Biard has only one support (from me) and is highly unlikely to get any more. Open for 9 months now. Seeking consensus to fail this nom. Matarisvan (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Matarisvan:. I agree that this is unlikely to get the needed supports. Two other coordinators looked at it, commented and ultimately did not support. I think the problem is the one raised by Hog Farm, that the person who is the subject of the article is not notable for his military service, per note 3 to area of focus number 2: "Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability." Donner60 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Donner60, archiving this one since we have a quorum of 4 coords out of 7. Matarisvan (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Matarisvan:. I agree that this is unlikely to get the needed supports. Two other coordinators looked at it, commented and ultimately did not support. I think the problem is the one raised by Hog Farm, that the person who is the subject of the article is not notable for his military service, per note 3 to area of focus number 2: "Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability." Donner60 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Miyoshi Nagayoshi has no supports and has been open for 4 months now. Seeking consensus to fail this nom. Matarisvan (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is unlikely to get reviewed because almost all of the sources are in Japanese. The only English source that can be viewed as an online excerpt has only a few pages of information about Nagayoshi. The other two English language sources are books that few people are likely to own. The books may not provide a comprehensive look at the subject even if some potential reviewers own them. One seems to be a general type of Japanese military history overview; the other seems to deal mostly with religion. It is also a long article which could discourage reviewers, especially if unfamiliar with the subject. I don't know if there is any guideline about how long a request should go unnoticed before it ought to be failed. Maybe others would have some knowledge or experience with this. Otherwise, if no one else responds, I suggest that you wait until the request is at least six months old. After that much time with no activity, I think there is less likelihood that a fail, even with good reason, would be questioned as premature. Donner60 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- The article looks fine though. Put out a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. (Oddly, the nom does not claim to be able to read Japanese.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 and @Donner60, I think we should wait a week for further reviews, that is till the 16th, and then archive this ACR. It has already been open for 5 months now and if any reviews were going to come, they would have. Matarisvan (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think we mainly just need somebody who can read Japanese to check over the sourcing etc. to make sure there aren't non-starter issues and then it can proceed better. I haven't reviewed this one because I have no way of knowing if there are major issues hidden below the surface level or not, and I imagine others are in the same boat. Hog Farm Talk 18:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- A plea to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, perhaps? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 has already posted a request for review there. No affirmative responses so far. Matarisvan (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Should this assessment be archived now? There have been no reviews forthcoming from our project and from WikiProject Japan too. Also, the article needs much work on grammar and sourcing, and I'm willing to work on a peer review with the nominator to improve it. Matarisvan (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Donner60, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, @Hawkeye7 and @Hog Farm, this ACR has been archived today, 17 November 2024, since there had been no reviews for 6 months now; editors from WikiProject Japan haven't shown any interest; and anyways, I don't think all sources being Japanese is good, at least the Cambridge or Oxford Histories of Japan should have been referenced. Please let me know if this was in error. Matarisvan (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Should this assessment be archived now? There have been no reviews forthcoming from our project and from WikiProject Japan too. Also, the article needs much work on grammar and sourcing, and I'm willing to work on a peer review with the nominator to improve it. Matarisvan (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 has already posted a request for review there. No affirmative responses so far. Matarisvan (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- A plea to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, perhaps? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think we mainly just need somebody who can read Japanese to check over the sourcing etc. to make sure there aren't non-starter issues and then it can proceed better. I haven't reviewed this one because I have no way of knowing if there are major issues hidden below the surface level or not, and I imagine others are in the same boat. Hog Farm Talk 18:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 and @Donner60, I think we should wait a week for further reviews, that is till the 16th, and then archive this ACR. It has already been open for 5 months now and if any reviews were going to come, they would have. Matarisvan (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The article looks fine though. Put out a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. (Oddly, the nom does not claim to be able to read Japanese.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is unlikely to get reviewed because almost all of the sources are in Japanese. The only English source that can be viewed as an online excerpt has only a few pages of information about Nagayoshi. The other two English language sources are books that few people are likely to own. The books may not provide a comprehensive look at the subject even if some potential reviewers own them. One seems to be a general type of Japanese military history overview; the other seems to deal mostly with religion. It is also a long article which could discourage reviewers, especially if unfamiliar with the subject. I don't know if there is any guideline about how long a request should go unnoticed before it ought to be failed. Maybe others would have some knowledge or experience with this. Otherwise, if no one else responds, I suggest that you wait until the request is at least six months old. After that much time with no activity, I think there is less likelihood that a fail, even with good reason, would be questioned as premature. Donner60 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Matterhorn logistics looks good to go to me. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, has 3 supports and has passed image and source reviews. Closed as pass on 22 October. Matarisvan (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS now has 3 supports, and has passed image and source reviews. Promoted to A class on 27 October. Matarisvan (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
MILHIST CCI cases
[edit]The following open CCI cases contain MILHIST articles (some usernames are omitted from the case titles because they are real names):
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Degen Earthfast
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kprtqrf06
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mztourist
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210418
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Bluecountrymutt
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230508
Discussion
[edit]|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Suggestions
[edit]@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Welcome to another year of coordinating! While I'm not looking to start anything immediately I want to raise the idea of some kind of drive or event during this term. Of our five major milestones only one remains; it might be nice to have a drive with the goal of furthering that? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had been thinking along those lines. I am not sure how the 83.5% figure was arrived at. There are 227,416 articles in the project rated FA, A, GA, B, C, Start and Stub (ie excluding 5,708 lists and 90,811 templates, redirects, categories etc.) To get from 83.5 to 100.0 we need to lift the number of B class articles by about 20% ie 4,000 articles. Unlike the other goals, this one is a moving target.
- So how would we go about doing that?
- One reservoir is the 64,240 C class articles. Some of them may already qualify as B-class, due to the MilHistBot being uncertain about the referencing. For example: 1st Dorsetshire Artillery Volunteers. Others (more common), like 1st Gloucestershire Engineer Volunteer Corps only need a couple of extra references. Most though, need a lot of work. Some are completely unreferenced. We could go through selecting articles that only need a bit of work.
- We could also look at the stubs with a view to deleting or merging some. For example, Talk:1st Military District (Australia) contains a 2016 discussion of merging the Australian military districts into one article which was never performed.
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Good ideas. Many years ago the rogue and banned editor Wild Wolf rated articles start and perhaps occasionally C at random without ever looking at them. He did several in a minute so coordinators and administrators warned him more than once before he was banned. He was also using sockpuppets. I stopped asking for reviews at that time although I am quite sure some of my articles then and later were B class. If I could find a little extra time, I think it would take little work for me to bring them up to B from later deterioration. Those are just a small number of the many that could be improved. I would hope that many editors would respond because many of these articles are on obscure topics with hard to find references. I doubt that I, for one, have or can easily find references for them if the problem is citation deficiency. Donner60 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Editors would have trouble finding references in subject areas in which they are unfamiliar, but more easily in subject areas within their field of expertise. So the approach I would suggest one of triage, where we work though the C class articles, discarding those requiring a lot of work, and categorising the rest according to topic area, so participating editors could take them on and correct them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Create a pre-arranged list of not-too-terrible C-class articles, and put them up in a drive for improvement? Coords could then be in charge of re-rating/checking for B-class once an editor has signified that the article has been actioned. Barnstars and leader boards as appropriate? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds like a good idea to me. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the clearest way to organise the list would be with the task force topics. The question would be whether sections be created for all the task forces (there are a lot!) or only for one type of them? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- How many of the task forces are still functionally used? I imagine it's only a fraction of the total ones. Hog Farm Talk 19:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the clearest way to organise the list would be with the task force topics. The question would be whether sections be created for all the task forces (there are a lot!) or only for one type of them? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds like a good idea to me. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Create a pre-arranged list of not-too-terrible C-class articles, and put them up in a drive for improvement? Coords could then be in charge of re-rating/checking for B-class once an editor has signified that the article has been actioned. Barnstars and leader boards as appropriate? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Editors would have trouble finding references in subject areas in which they are unfamiliar, but more easily in subject areas within their field of expertise. So the approach I would suggest one of triage, where we work though the C class articles, discarding those requiring a lot of work, and categorising the rest according to topic area, so participating editors could take them on and correct them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Good ideas. Many years ago the rogue and banned editor Wild Wolf rated articles start and perhaps occasionally C at random without ever looking at them. He did several in a minute so coordinators and administrators warned him more than once before he was banned. He was also using sockpuppets. I stopped asking for reviews at that time although I am quite sure some of my articles then and later were B class. If I could find a little extra time, I think it would take little work for me to bring them up to B from later deterioration. Those are just a small number of the many that could be improved. I would hope that many editors would respond because many of these articles are on obscure topics with hard to find references. I doubt that I, for one, have or can easily find references for them if the problem is citation deficiency. Donner60 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi coordinators, congrats to all elected in this tranche. I have not been that active recently (and am not currently a coord) but thought I'd chime in on this. I did do a bit of work monitoring our progress against this target in 2018-2019 (User:Dumelow/MILHIST B-class assessment stats); when we held a number of drives to try to clear the unassessed article backlog. This helped to slowly chip away at the target, improving it from 72.1% in February 2018 to 76.9% by October 2019. The November 2019 introduction of Milhistbot to automatically assess against the B-class criteria helped greatly (adding 1,500 new B-class articles) and led to a jump to 82.8% (we are currently at 83.4%). I agree that it would be absolutely great to achieve this target and help to demonstrate the project is committed to bringing a good chunk of articles to a basic decent standard as well as the perhaps more visible successes achieved at GA and FA. More than happy to help out assessing articles and chipping in with improvements if we can get a drive going. One area I was monitoring at the time of the last push was Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials which currently holds around 1,300 articles. A good portion of these, in theory, need only an image or infobox to achieve the B-class standard - Dumelow (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- That would, in my opinion, be a fantastic place to start. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, chiming in late here. The ideas advanced above, namely the listing of C-class articles for improvement to B-class, and working on the articles requiring supporting materials, sound great to me. Also, working on articles which need work on article structure and grammar could be done concurrently; those requiring more citations or coverage could be done later if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had the MilHistBot provide me a list of some of the low hanging fruit. It suggested articles like:
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- What kind of parameter are you using for that? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I asked it to locate C-class articles that are fully or nearly fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- I ran off another short list here. The number in parentheses is the number of references that the Bot thinks are lacking. Plenty more where these came from, but most could be uplifted to B-class with a little effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I asked it to locate C-class articles that are fully or nearly fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- What kind of parameter are you using for that? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, chiming in late here. The ideas advanced above, namely the listing of C-class articles for improvement to B-class, and working on the articles requiring supporting materials, sound great to me. Also, working on articles which need work on article structure and grammar could be done concurrently; those requiring more citations or coverage could be done later if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- That would, in my opinion, be a fantastic place to start. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
In addition to, if you are looking for specific focal areas, you could have a look at the various Task Forces and their respective WikiWork parameters: Cumulative WikiWork (ω) and Relative WikiWork (Ω). For example, the United States military history task force indicated values of ω=302,399 and Ω=4.541. This task force alone accounts for approx. 28% of all military history articles while only 11.2% are B-class or higher. It would require improving approx. 2,500 articles within the United States military history task force to push this task force north of the 15% threshold. Food for thought. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
ACR to-do list for October 2024
[edit]@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I am a newly elected coord for WPMH. I'm taking the initiative to add this topic since the ACR to-do list for July 2024 above has been exhausted, it has only one task remaining, which I will cover below. Would be great to hear from other coords. Please feel to delete this introductory text once all other coords have read it.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Henry Biard: Open for 9 months now. Has only one support, unlikely to get any more since relevance to WPMH is disputed. Might be better for this article to go to FAC now. Asking for consensus on, unfortunately, archiving this ACR. Archived 11 October. Matarisvan (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Miyoshi Nagayoshi: Open for 4 months now. Underlying article needs a lot of work, has no supports. Need consensus for failing this one. Archived 17 November 2024Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ernest J. King:Open for 4 months now. Has 3 supports and has passed source and image reviews. All reviews finished, changed to A-class=pass. Donner60 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lockheed YF-22: Open for 3 months now. Has passed source and image reviews, no supports as of now (reviewing this one soon).
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS: Open for 2 months now. Has 3 supports, and has passed image and source reviews. Promoted to A class on 27 October. Matarisvan (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Matterhorn logistics: Open for 1 month now. Has no reviews as of now. Has 3 supports and has passed source and image reviews. Promoted to A class on 22 October. Matarisvan (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Texas (BB-35): Re-assessment, working on this one. ETA 1 month.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. McCain Sr.: Open for 1 month now. Has 1 support and has passed an image review. Matarisvan (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:HD § Problems moving an article due to a redirect
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:HD § Problems moving an article due to a redirect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps a MILHIST coordinator could take a look at this question posted at the Help Desk and provide some advice to the OP. In addition to the naming issue, there might also be a CONTENTFORK issue since most of the content in User:Mr.Lovecraft/Construction site beta has the feel of stuff that might already be covered in existing Wikipedia articles about either the US Army itself or World War II. If that's the case, maybe it would be better to explain this to the OP sooner than later and spare them the surprise of having this moved to the mainspace only to see it subsequently merged, redirected, etc. by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the author has moved this to the article title United States Army in World War II. I think the title is misleading. While much of the material is covered and I have other criticisms, a problem that I see initially is that this article is really only about the organization of the United States Army in World War II. It would be more accurate to add the words "Organization of the" to the title if it is to be retained in its current form and not distract readers from the comprehensive article on Military history of the United States during World War II. Ping other coordinators for specific notice if they wish to comment here or on discussion page. I will add my comment there. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Donner60 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Donner60: Thanks for taking a look at this. The HD discussion was archived and can now be found at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 October 7#Problems moving an article due to a redirect. The OP responded to your post, but I'm not sure they understood what you were trying to say. The article they created can now be found at United States Army during World War II. Perhaps Talk:United States Army during World War II is now the best place for you or any other members of MILHIST to comment on it or assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The name is like those of other countries, eg Australian Army during World War II, British Army during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly and Hawkeye7: I have added a see also section to this article with Military history of the United States during World War II, and included in the edit summary "other articles about nation's armies in World War II are more comprehensive, this see also should direct interested readers to additional information." I think that should satisfy my concern and not leave readers without a link and article providing information other than just the organization. Donner60 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The name is like those of other countries, eg Australian Army during World War II, British Army during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Donner60: Thanks for taking a look at this. The HD discussion was archived and can now be found at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 October 7#Problems moving an article due to a redirect. The OP responded to your post, but I'm not sure they understood what you were trying to say. The article they created can now be found at United States Army during World War II. Perhaps Talk:United States Army during World War II is now the best place for you or any other members of MILHIST to comment on it or assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the author has moved this to the article title United States Army in World War II. I think the title is misleading. While much of the material is covered and I have other criticisms, a problem that I see initially is that this article is really only about the organization of the United States Army in World War II. It would be more accurate to add the words "Organization of the" to the title if it is to be retained in its current form and not distract readers from the comprehensive article on Military history of the United States during World War II. Ping other coordinators for specific notice if they wish to comment here or on discussion page. I will add my comment there. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Donner60 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
November Bugle
[edit]I'm going to be travelling without Wikipedia access for the next month or so. Could one or two people please volunteer to help Ian with the next edition of the Bugle? I usually handle the book reviews, ACR blurbs and featured pictures. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to help if given a nudge closer to publishing. Am I right in saying Adam Cuerden has assisted with the pictures before? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the apparent absence of a reply, I have looked at the featured pictures published in September and October. The following are two pictures added to the list of featured pictures in October but not published on the main page in October; these seem to be the types of pictures included in the Bugle's new featured pictures section:
- <gallery mode=packed heights=200px>
- File:British Columbia Regiment 1940.jpg|Wait for Me, Daddy, by Claude P. Dettloff (restored by Yann)
- File:Daddy, what did You do in the Great War?.jpg|"Daddy, What Did You Do in the Great War?", by Savile Lumley/Johnson, Riddle & Co. Ltd. (restored by Adam Cuerden)
- These are pictures that were published on the main page in October, but not included in those designated in October as well. So I think they were probably designated as new featured pictures in the Bugle in an earlier month:
- USS Johnston
- Archibald Sinclair, 1st Viscount Thurso
- I am reasonably sure that the first two would be the ones included in the November Bugle as new featured pictures for October, but not the second two. I am pinging @Adam Cuerden:. Perhaps he can confirm that I have researched and analyzed this completely and correctly or whether I have missed something or otherwise come to an incorrect or incomplete conclusion. Donner60 (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is the October issue we are talking about? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the absence of a reply, it appears to me that this would be October news, features, etc. in the November issue. The November issue template is not yet up as of a short time ago. Donner60 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies: I'm dealing with my father's estate, which is taking a lot of my mental facilities. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quite understandable. Sorry to hear of the loss of your father. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies: I'm dealing with my father's estate, which is taking a lot of my mental facilities. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- In the absence of a reply, it appears to me that this would be October news, features, etc. in the November issue. The November issue template is not yet up as of a short time ago. Donner60 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Quality content drive?
[edit]Question: Would there be any interest here is running a project backlog drive with the expressed goal of working through our quality content? We've had that "prior to 2016 it needs to be looked" at disclaimer, but not a lot of action on it, and I get the sense other project are having the same issue(s). If we could find enough support in our project for a drive that'd be great, but I'm thinking with so many articles in need of work we'll need to do some outreach to cover our bases. At a minimum, WP:GOCE should be contacted, but if there's interest here then perhaps we can count on some interest across the spectrum. If it should really blow up, I'd be prepared to give it a proper code name and split up the work into task forces for more manageable bytes. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- An initial question: Would this be along the lines suggested by Pickersgill-Cunliffe in the "Suggestions" topic above or a separate drive? If two different types of drives are contemplated, I think they would need to be spaced some months apart to generate enough enthusiasm to make some real progress. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, this'd be an independent drive with the objective of addressing articles listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. This list has appeared for a few years in our news section with the byline "Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.". Ostensibly, the goal would be to coordinate efforts just within the existing batch there to clear our articles out of the list - although if the rest of the community (biography project, history project, women project, etc) were interested we could consider initiating a Wikipedia wide drive. Right now, I'm just trying to suss out if there is any interest in this particular avenue of work, or if the community wants to rally around a different group of articles to work on at the moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I do not see the byline under the News & Open Tasks tab or in the Bugle. I looked more closely and see it under the Discussion tab and in the template {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}. Some members of the project know about this drive because I note contributions to/reviews by several current and former coordinators and experienced users in recent years but perhaps the byline about it could be inserted on the News & Open Tasks page or in the Bugle News section or both for greater exposure. Donner60 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, this'd be an independent drive with the objective of addressing articles listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. This list has appeared for a few years in our news section with the byline "Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.". Ostensibly, the goal would be to coordinate efforts just within the existing batch there to clear our articles out of the list - although if the rest of the community (biography project, history project, women project, etc) were interested we could consider initiating a Wikipedia wide drive. Right now, I'm just trying to suss out if there is any interest in this particular avenue of work, or if the community wants to rally around a different group of articles to work on at the moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Military historian and newcomer of the year election voting
[edit]@WP:MILHIST coordinators: When I documented the procedure for this last year, I said that voting was between 1 and 30 December but forgot to specify the nomination period. Would two weeks be sufficient? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, that's enough time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I have updated the instructions accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for October
[edit]The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
- First two are B class in form but need some editing on sentence structure; I will work on that; last one has notability and references templates, most of the sources are foreign language, this needs further analysis, otherwise even if B class in form, it doesn't look quite that high; unusually short list by the bot this month. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Battle of LaFayette
- Siege of Parenda (1634)
- Sukhwinder Singh Sangha
MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Something seems wrong here. I will re-check the logs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for October
[edit]The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
Barbette shipB-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- Battle of Addi Qarro
- Battle of Chunj
- Battle of Hrvatska Kostajnica
- Battle of LaFayette
- Battle of Redon
- Battle of Wad Madani
- Battle on the Oreške fields
Bill Young (CIA officer)B class. Donner60 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Fengshan (general)B class. Donner60 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Frederick William HolmesB class. Donner60 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Henry FirthAn English conscientious objecter who died in a the conscientious prisoner camp during World War I. Not a military person, doubt relationship to military history but B class so leave assessment and project banner. If another reviewer thinks the project banner should be removed, I concur. Donner60 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)HMCS TunaB class after a few copy edits. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Howard C. DavidsonB class. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Hubal pacificationsB class. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)John Gower (British naval officer)B class. Donner60 (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)- Kharqamar incident
- Light Weight Air Warning Radar
- Luo Shiwen
N. C. TrowbridgeA blockade runner and possible Confederate agent. Not a military officer, somewhat tenuous relationship to military history. B class. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Niederkaina massacreB class. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)October 2024 Friday Prayer in TehranRemoved project banner as not within the scope of the project. Any coordinator who wishes to check this also, please do so. Donner60 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Operation KiplingB class. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)- PAF Base Sakesar
- Pierce B. Anderson
- Ronald Hamlyn
Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act 1916B-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)- Siege of North Gaza
- Siege of Parenda (1634)
SS Dixie ArrowB class. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)- Stefan Kubiak
- Sukhwinder Singh Sangha
- Teddy Gueritz
- Trotsky's Military Writings
USAT ArcataB class. Short article. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Vin americanii!This is about a slogan used by Romanians in the 1940s and '50s to express their hope that a US intervention would topple the Communist regime. No such action was undertaken so there is no military history here. Project banner removed, B class assessment retained. Donner60 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Vivian StrandersB class. Donner60 (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's better
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Awards
[edit]@Hawkeye7: Dates for nominations differ between talk page and MMS. I'm assuming it's the MMS that's correct? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I have corrected the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
My rewrite on Talk:Bombardment of Greytown
[edit]Around mid-October, I left a message at this URL: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Requests_for_project_input.
I did not receive a reply. Here is what I said:
I have done an expansive rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page on that page’s talk page.
There, I had learned that: “This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Military history: Maritime / British / European C‑class.”
I invite anyone associated with WikiProject: Military history to read my attempt to improve upon this Start-class article and to comment.
I realize you may be very busy with other projects. But if you could just acknowledge an awareness of my effort and that it's "in the cue" to be looked at (with perhaps a rough estimate as to when), I would be much appreciative.
Will-DubDub Will-DubDub (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- On your talk page, you have a conversation in which an editor with a few years of experience replied that your proposal to follow this procedure was appropriate: "I found this advice online: "If you plan to make substantial edits to a Wikipedia article, it is generally considered good practice to first draft your changes on the article's talk page, especially if the edits are significant or potentially controversial, allowing for discussion and feedback from other editors before implementing them directly on the article itself." To do this, it said to "Start a new section [add topic?] on the talk page."
- Although the advice about starting a discussion on potentially controversial changes has some merit, in more than 14 years on Wikipedia, I have never seen an entire article rewritten on a talk page and have no knowledge about where it is suggested in Wikipedia guidelines as a procedure for getting comment or help on a substantial or an entire rewrite of an article - which in turn is not likely to be controversial. (I see you got this advice "online", perhaps not on Wikipedia itself?, but maybe it exists somewhere here.). Your pinging of others who have been involved in editing the article was appropiate and a good way to get input. For prominent articles (perhaps Battle of Gettysburg, as an example), just posting on the talk page might attract comment from a few persons who have the article watchlisted. Posting on the requests for project input on the project talk page here also was a potentially good way to get input. As I note below my suggested way to progress this, however, requests for project input here may or may not get one or more responses.
- The substantial amount of work that you have done seems to be work usually done in draft space and submitted first to articles for creation by newer editors. Because you are obviously good at research and writing, and have gained some experience through articles for creation in particular already, I suggest a more usual approach for assessment of a presumably non-controversial improvement or revision of an existing article. Post the changed article on the article page itself and then ask for an assessment of the article grade at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. A coordinator or experienced user will respond as soon as a day later and almost certainly within a week. They will not do research or comment on the substance of the article unless something does not seem correct and probably if the article is in a topic area with which they are familiar. They may have questions or suggest that you expand or clarify some point. The main purpose of the review, other than that, is to tell the writer whether the article meets B class criteria or whether there are some deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to bring the article to B class. Reviewers will almost always make minor changes for misspellings or grammar. They will not do research or help you rewrite or improve an article - with perhaps a few exceptions in areas of their knowledge and interests. There is a different procedure for higher level reviews. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. The main roles of coordinators are shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators.
- I have only skimmed the article. It appears to be B class in form, except for the end of a few paragraphs where citations are needed; I tagged them in the draft. I would need to read the article more carefully to assess it after citations are added but it looks good at first glance. I personally use a references section as well as citations or notes because in some cases there are additions that are not references and for concise reading. As far as I know, that is not required but just how some editors approach this.
- Requests for project input is a new separate topic area put at the top of the project talk page. These type of requests were scattered through the talk page in the past. Usually, they are about disagreements already started about something in the article, occasionally about a substantive point, or even more likely, about actions such as changing the title of the article and other non-substantive matters. Coordinators (and we are four short of the desired number of coordinators) may or may not respond if it appears that it is something they can or really need to address. As you knew or surmised, coordinatiors are usually busy on tasks noted in the page cited above or even on their own articles.
- This request for input section is on the general project talk page rather than on this page in the event other members of the project, usually experienced users, can, or wish to, provide comment or even additional help. Sometimes experienced users who watch that page do reply. I assume some of these requests may never get a reply. After some period of time requests are removed from the page with the presumption that anyone who was interested in replying would have done so on the article talk page or any other type of page on which the question is raised. I do reply to some requests and will note that I did so in reply to the request on the project talk page as well, although this not an established procedure. So some input may or may not have been given to archived requests. As I noted above, I think your request was a good approach and not unique. Perhaps we need to add to the topic introduction a note saying that a request may or may not receive input from project members (including coordinators) who see the request for various stated (or unstated) reasons in order to prevent future misunderstandings.
- If you have further questions, you are welcome to ask them here or on my talk page. Otherwise, I again suggest that you post the changed article in article space and ask for assessment. Since all the past versions of the article are posted, they will still be available if needed for some reason. Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this extensive and extremely helpful reply.
- I have added the three citations you suggested (and thanked you after putting in the first two).
- I will transfer my draft to the article page if the new citations meet with your approval. When it is on the article page, I will bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests and ask for an assessment of the article grade.
- I only have two remaining questions for the moment. When should I think about adding images? And should I add a Bibliography or Further Reading section when, in fact, three of the entries would be to publications of mine, including a book in print? Would this not raise the specter of conflict of interest or would I be regarded as an SME, or “Subject-Matter Expert”? Will-DubDub (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please add the infobox (amended if necessary) and accompanying picture when you post the article to the article page. You can add pictures then or later. I have read the article and with the infobox and picture I can rate the article as B class regardless whether additional pictures are added now or later.
- Some reviewers and other users object to the posting of rows of pictures (galleries), especially in shorter articles. There is a guideline to that effect somewhere but it has not precluded galleries, especially near the end of long articles. So add pictures to the right or left of the text to avoid any criticism. They don't all need to be on the same side. This fine line about picture posting seems a bit odd to me since pictures are otherwise encouraged. It may go back to the time when limiting the number of bytes in an article was more necessary for loading the page on slower computers or phones.
- You are not trying to promote your books or gain some advantage by citing them. I don't see a conflict of interest. Some users mention books that they have written without trying to promote them. You would indeed be a subject matter expert. Indeed, I don't think the books would even be recognized as yours.
- I have thought a little more about the requests for project input. The separate section at the top of the page was introduced recently upon the suggestion to keep them together and concurrence by a couple of other people. I saw the request and thought there would be no problem with that approach and did not comment. In fact, it turns out that there is a misunderstanding because the types of requests we may have thought about were more routine ones, mostly change of titles and minor questions.
- I think that it would be better for someone who would like input about possible additional sources or comments on a few statements or a paragraph or specific questions and the like to post those in a new section (titled with the article title, and possibly even something like "help with" in the section. These would be posted after the existing sections on a page. That is how they have been done. I think this type of request for some limited help or comment that would more likely draw responses and would not be contrary to the grouping of the types of requests that the list of current requests of a certain type at the top was meant to highlight. Those requests often are looking for input for additional responses or are often procedural. More substantive requests in order of posting still might not draw responses but I think there would be a better chance that a coordinator or experienced user would see that it is a question or request about which they could easily and quickly provide a comment, source or suggestion. Donner60 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again for another long, helpful note.
- I will be making slight changes to the info box while retaining the picture.
- I won't be putting in any other pictures right away, but later.
- I appreciated this: “I have read the article and with the info box and picture I can rate the article as B class.” But should I still bring it to “the attention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests and ask for an assessment of the article grade”?
- And I also appreciated this paragraph:
- You are not trying to promote your books or gain some advantage by citing them. I don't see a conflict of interest. Some users mention books that they have written without trying to promote them. You would indeed be a subject matter expert. Indeed, I don't think the books would even be recognized as yours.
- But I found a page on Wikipedia describing how to set up a “Further reading" entry which “a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject.” And it said:
- Please do not add a work to the Further reading section if you are an author or publisher of the work. All editors are expected to comply with the Conflicts of interest guideline.https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_reading#:~:text=The%20Further%20reading%20section%20of,detailed%20coverage%20of%20the%20subject
- Any additional advice on this subject would be most welcome. Will-DubDub (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please put the assessment request on the article assessment request page. I look at that page frequently, and in some weeks, daily. That helps keep the request upfront and records that it has been handled in the page history. Someone else could assess it earlier but I am sure the assessment would be the same. In recent times, I often get to handling the requests first for the majority of the requests.
- My opinion on the conflict of interest is the same. You will be citing a work that can (presumably) be checked for relevance and accuracy, not promoting it. Apparently someone or a few people thought that adding one's own work to further reading would be promotional. At least I can't think of any other reason for that part which covers own works in the COI section. Notably, the essay contains this sentence: "Bookspam (the addition of content for the purpose of advertising a work) and other promotional activities are prohibited." Note also that the essay is not a guideline itself but an explanatory essay. That is indicated by this sentence: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." The main purpose of this page seems to be to keep users/editors from adding numerous additional works that are not cited in the article or not within other guidelines, including the prohibition on COIs.
- I have seen opinions of users who think there shouldn't be further reading sections at all. Perhaps they serve a purpose in long articles about broad topics, but then again, if they are useful, I don't see why they would not be cited. I don't use further reading sections and think that even in the distant past I have never added or added to one. I am sure that I have edited articles that already have such sections but I am reasonably sure that I have never added to or otherwise edited such a section. Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is this the article assessment request page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment?
- And is this how I make the request? “Just add {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} to the talk page.” If so, after I transfer the draft to the article page, should I click on “Add topic” in the Bombardment of Greytown talk page, and put ?what? in the Subject and Description boxes?
- Sorry for my ignorance!
- I am ready to transfer my draft from the talk page to the article page of “Bombardment of Greytown".
- I will leave the info box and the picture in place, changing the info box only slightly, to reflect the fact that Greytown was an independent city state at the time of the razing.
- I also added a 200 word section to the draft that you haven't seen before. This is not about anything new. It is an expansion of the argument that the case law Durand v. Hollins should not be used to justify presidential acts of war against sovereign states. It begins with the words: "Justice Nelson went on to say …” and ends with the words "Pierce and Secretary Marcy on that express ground”.)"
- Thanks again for all your help. Will-DubDub (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- You will see on the project's article assessment page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests (not the talk page for that link) the following caption: ADD NEW REQUESTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION AND BEFORE THE LINE FOR THE BACKLOG CHECK REQUEST. Start with an asterisk, then a link to the article that you wish to have assessed. Most requests are accompanied by a brief comment, occasionally a question, but often just something like "Please assess" or "Please assess for B class." As long as the new text is covered by the existing footnote, or a new or repeated one is placed at the end of it if it is added to the end of a paragraph, it will be fine. I am glad you mentioned it so that I will note it in particular Instead of skimming it since I had read it earlier. Thank you for following through with this. Donner60 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)