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. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
We've got 26 reviews on WP:MHR with some of them being noms that have been open for quite some time (a month+)...can some coords take a look and comment, support or oppose them? I'll try to close a few after work if this happens, as I've mainly just commented, not supported or opposed, on most of them. Thanks and cheers! — the_ed17 ( Talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(od) Hi co-ords! There appear to be a few others that have now garnered a consensus to either promote and/or demote. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just remarked that quite important Milhist topics such as Pakistani and Bangladeshi military history, as well as most central-Asian military history are not covered by our nations and regions task forces. Should we do something or just leave the things as they are? -- Eurocopter ( talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we have an "editorial" section in the newsletter that is written by one or two coords every month? In my mind, at least, it would take the form of a personal message to project members...it wouldn't go into details (that's what "project news" is for), but it would lay out one or two really important things that need to be done, and thank the project for their work (e.g. "we had _ articles promoted to FA this month. That's awesome; keep it up!") Just throwing thoughts out there... — the_ed17 ( Talk) 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
From the coordinators:
This month's issue features the launch of a new column, the "(name here)". This will be a feature that will be that we hope to continue in subsequent issues, with topics possibly ranging from a run through of the non-free image criteria to a 'how to write engaging prose' to tips on how to get an article through FAC. February also saw MILHIST's A-class and featured totals go up by 45 or more for the second straight month; great work and a thank you go out from all of us to all members!
(od) I boldly added a "From the Coordinators" section...please revert if too bold. — the_ed17 ( Talk) 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In about 24 hours the page needed to the next election should make its appearance. I created a sample referendum sheet with my two suggestions on it, feedback for such a format would be appreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Then, depending on the outcome, we can deal with the actual details of what C-Class would mean and how the logistics would be handled. Kirill [pf] 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)In principle, do you support or oppose the introduction of C-Class into the project's assessment scale?
(<=) I missed part of this, but is 15 necessary? It seems like an awful lot... :/ Wouldn't the current 12 do fine? — the_ed17 ( Talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to think about the text for the C-class motion. A bald "Should Milhist adopt C-class" will almost certainly fail. However, it may well pass if we (the coords) recommend its adoption, using the proposal text as a request for endorsement. My personal view is that we should adopt C-class but I won't lose any sleep if we don't :) What do we think about:
as a proposal? – Roger Davies talk 06:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the solution then? Do we need to have this referendum at all? The C-class discussion has gone quiet of late: does it really need resurrecting? – Roger Davies talk 08:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Just done them, so we're ready to rock 'n' roll. — Roger Davies talk 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Didn't we have one once? If not, shouldn't we have one? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 07:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
{{subst:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~
.
Kirill
[pf]
20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Can someone add a section to the photos in the logisitics departement where you can list new images for MILHIST that have been uploaded or found by some user and may be put the use since they aren't already. Thanks Wandalstouring ( talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've set up some code on the showcase subpages so that the article counts can be individually transcluded elsewhere; the results can be seen in the top section on WP:MILHIST. Is this something worth having on the main page? Kirill [pf] 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I just thought that I would give a little nudge/reminder to note that the scoring for the February Contest still needs some attention. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that the special projects department doesn't seem to be the focus of any real activity, I'm wondering if a dedicated department page is necessary for it. Might it be neater to simply have a list of active special project subpages in the announcement template, without trying to transclude chunks of them into a single page? Or would that be too obscure? Kirill [pf] 05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that (retired) has been removed from my name in the history tabs for the coordinators. I'm honored that I would be considered active after my return, but I was not co-opted after my return, nor was I voted emeritus, and as such I think it would be better to retain the retired after my name since we don't have any anything on the books concerning a coordinator who leaves and then returns. Its not that I object to being listed, it just feel that it somewhat circumvents the due process needed to be considered a coordinator here. Active users such as myself have and continue to make suggestions and participate in internal affairs without coordinator designation; by this definition then, one does not need to be recognized as a coordinator to due what the coordinators already do. MBK004 aptly demonstrated this last tranche, as I have done this tranche. For these reason I would respectfully ask that I be relisted as retired, or be officially co-opted and reinstated as a coordinator. Yours very sincerly and resepctfully, TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
←Thanks, EyeSerene. Always nice to know that one has the support of the community. I'm still on the fence over whether or not I will run again, but at the moment I am leaning a little more toward returning because this particular tranche covers summer, which by its very nature encompasses the long summer vacation, which allows for more on wiki time than the October to March tranche. On the other hand, if enough new users come forth to try their hands I may refrain from running to allow for more new users in the coordinator lineup. In the event that more coordinators with experience are needed I can always be co-opted to assist. I'm taking a wait and see approach, and will official decide on another term during the sign-up period. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I always tag general articles about the holocaust for Milhist but usually don't for specific topics, like Kristallnacht. We should probably clarify this. What do we think? – Roger Davies talk 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If WWII was a WP and not a TF, all Holocaust articles would fit, but not since it is only with MILHIST. Just like I see a lot of articles that would fit a ACW WP, but since it is only a TF, don't get tagged.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 09:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, elections are approaching, and I've been considering standing for a coordinator position, but before I do so I would like to ask the advice and opinions of some of you guys. First of all, approximately how many hours per week do you guys spend on coordinator-related tasks? Secondly, if I ran and were elected, would there be any problems with me taking one two week and two one week breaks during the summer for summer vacations I've planned? Finally, would there be any problems with my election even though I am under 18? If you guys could give me any advice or knowledge of what to expect I would appreciate it, to help me decide whether or not I should run, because I don't want to run and then be too busy with school for half of the term to be able to adequately perform the duties. Thanks in advance for any responses. – Joe N utter 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(od) Go for it (especially as you are on my list of people to ask to stand). The current tranche has probably been the best-ever, based on seamless teamwork and integrated cooperation, with everyone chipping in when they can. The amount I spend varies considerably: sometimes, it may be almost full time for a few days; other times, it may be as little as a few minutes a day as real life or other pressures kick in. The great thing is that although being a Milhist coord really is no big deal, it is certainly one of the most rewarding and enjoyable jobs on Wikipedia, simply because of the great team spirit and outstanding camaderie. I love it :) – Roger Davies talk 05:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, what everyone else has said ;) Should you sussessfully stand, even the smallest thing you do will free up someone else to spend their time how they want to, and the Milhist whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. You're not as much of a stranger to the labyrinthine mechanisms of maintaining Milhist as I was when I was coopted, but it may still take a while to find your way around anyway, so should you be elected my advice would be to start slowly with areas you know, watch how other coordinators handle things, ask when in doubt, and most importantly don't feel there's any obligation to take on more than you're comfortable with. Best, EyeSerene talk 12:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering recent discussions and conflicts regarding battles/operations results in infoboxes, I would suggest defining/adopting wording formulations which should therefore become guidelines within our project. In my opinion this is important to be established in order to avoid potential interpretations of sources (which in most cases automatically involves interpreter's POV). Furthermore, the result in the infobox should simply include the conclusive result of a battle/operation (example: Allied victory), not consequent facts. As I just threw a quick look over few articles, I found some blatant and unfortunately even amusing battle results such as:
I found all this cases at a glance through few WWII articles, but the issue is clearly existent and I propose adopting the following formulations to be exclusively used thoroughout the project (of course these are open to discussion).
In my view this formulations can be easily attributed to the result in question, as it does not involve interpreting the source but simply read it and cite it accordingly. Moreover, the result of a certain battle in an infobox could be tagged more simply in an infobox if we create templates for adopted formulations. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(←)I can only repeat what I posted on the Dunkirk talk page: I believe that, more often than not, summarising a battle in this way is unhelpful, as the space we've got in the infobox is too restricted and we almost inevitably end up with something that's over-simplified and is going to be a bone of contention. However, a standardised set of 'results' might be a good idea, if we can agree on what they should be. We could possibly even write them into a template for consistency. EyeSerene talk 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Kirill [pf] 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)The result may use one of several standard terms:
- "X victory"
- "Decisive X victory"
- "Inconclusive"
The choice of which term to use should be dictated by the sources used for the article. In cases where the standard wording does not properly represent the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section").
(od) The template is okay but for MILMOS, we really need to discuss it on the main talk page first. — Roger Davies talk 17:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello my fellow co-ordinators. After a little bit of deliberation I have decided to not put myself up for re-election this year. Due to various real-life activities, I have not been around Wikipedia much these last few months and as such my activity as a coordinator has decreased far more than I would have liked. That inactivity is unfair on the other coordinators, especially as I see no end to my frenetic real-life activities.
Looking at the very strong nominal roll of candidates this year, I am in no doubt that I leave MILHIST in very safe hands. I will still be around, just nowhere near as active as I once was. Thanks for an interesting and enjoyable year! Best regards, Woody ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear that, Woody. As others have said, feel free to drop in any time and chip in. Your views are always worth hearing. On behalf of the project, may I thank you very much for all your past efforts; they have been very much appreciated. — Roger Davies talk 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I found this by accident, but I am glad I did. It appears that new FAR/FAC delegates are to be appointed, among the names being considered is former coordinator Yellow Monkey. While of little concern to us I feel that the coordinators - whoever they may be - ought to keep an eye out on this and see what developes. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
More or less all ready to go, I think.
I've just added the referenda text. Tweak, expand etc as necessary, lady and gentlemen.
Pdfpdf has kindly updated the status box, with candidate names. He's added numbers for the candidates: I'm not sure how useful these are.
Anyhow, I'll take this opportunity to thank to all retiring coordinators very much for their past work and wish the candidates the best of luck!
— Roger Davies talk 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As a quick note, Mrg3105 ( talk · contribs) appears to be editing from the account Shattered Wikiglass ( talk · contribs) (I am not aware of any check user confirmation of this, but the editing pattern and style is clearly identical). While editors are able to register new identities as long as they don't engage in sock puppetry, the right to vanish only applies if they leave, and their history under their previous identity remains relevant. That said, Mrg's editing restriction was for six months, and it has now expired, and I'm assuming good faith. Nick-D ( talk) 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
See User talk:Kirill Lokshin#A-Class WikiProject reviews: we have some WikiProjects getting ready to set up A-Class review processes like ours, and they're looking for someone to coach them through their first reviews. I haven't been very involved with ACRs recently, so I'm wondering if any of the coordinators that have focused on them might be willing to help out, as their advice will probably be more useful than mine. Kirill [pf] 11:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is something I'm very interested in developing - I've left some comments on the talk page here; any input welcome ;) EyeSerene talk 09:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Tom, looking over what you wrote in the writing an A-Class article, there are a few errors I thought I would bring to your attention instead of just fixing them:
The first one is certain since that is what GimmeBot does during its promotion and demotion runs, and the second point is more of a procedural question in light of the first fact. - MBK 004 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hill 262 A-class review can be closed now by an uninvolved coordinator. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 13:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Xa_Loi_Pagoda_raids YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is coming along very nicely but I'm a bit concerned that we are making things look difficult, which is off-putting, when in fact they're quite easy once you get the hang of them. The sections on coordination and reviewing could probably use lightening up. Roger Davies talk 07:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Further to an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#MILHIST Review department (also highlighted by Durova on the main talk-page), it appears we may be unintentionally causing a headache for the FPC process by spamming candidacy announcements around the project. The concern seems to be that editors arriving at the reviews via our templated announcments are !voting on pictures with an incomplete understanding of how to apply the FP criteria, potentially leading to unsafe promotions.
As we all know, uninformed and/or inexperienced reviewers are something that every review process has to deal with (ideally by helping them to become informed and experienced), but this might be something we need to rethink. Possible solutions could range from adding a caveat to the template reminding editors to read the criteria for a review process before commenting (perhaps linking the criteria too), to limiting the places where the template is transcluded to (not sure how we'd do this), to removing the FPC announcements altogether. Thoughts? EyeSerene talk 09:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Coords may be interested in this discussion at WT:FA. Apparently, warfare has passed 200 articles, which is when they tend to subdivide the FA categories; however, the question here is what to split them into. — the_ed17 ( Talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you may be interested to know that there is currently a state of upheaval at FL. The main idea is to clean up all of the lists, check they meet the criteria, and to remove a bit of chaff that seems to have built up. After an initial sweep, there are 3 lists of concern for this project: found here. These aren't major issues with the exception of the WWI vets one, but worth keeping an eye on as I am off for a couple of weeks now. Good luck to all incoming coordinators. Regards, Woody ( talk) 16:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I marked the election page as historical since the time allotted is past. I do have a question though: Is it 15 coordinators including the lead? And if so how do we resolve the fact that the two 20-voted users share the last spot equally? Should be bring them both in. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(od) Yes, they should both be brought in. Roger Davies talk 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I was bold and went and added a section to the newsletter under the "Project news" section on the election and new Coordinators. Feel free to tweak! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of the newsletter...what are we going ot write for the "From the coordinators" section...? It's the 29th today! :/ — the_ed17 ( Talk) 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The election page is now marked as historical, so are we also closing the two referenda? I'd imagine anyone interested has probably commented by now; Cooption has general support (though some concerns about removal), and C-Class adoption is a fairly clear no consensus with 24 support/20 oppose/6 neutral(ish). EyeSerene talk 09:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
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. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
We've got 26 reviews on WP:MHR with some of them being noms that have been open for quite some time (a month+)...can some coords take a look and comment, support or oppose them? I'll try to close a few after work if this happens, as I've mainly just commented, not supported or opposed, on most of them. Thanks and cheers! — the_ed17 ( Talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(od) Hi co-ords! There appear to be a few others that have now garnered a consensus to either promote and/or demote. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just remarked that quite important Milhist topics such as Pakistani and Bangladeshi military history, as well as most central-Asian military history are not covered by our nations and regions task forces. Should we do something or just leave the things as they are? -- Eurocopter ( talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we have an "editorial" section in the newsletter that is written by one or two coords every month? In my mind, at least, it would take the form of a personal message to project members...it wouldn't go into details (that's what "project news" is for), but it would lay out one or two really important things that need to be done, and thank the project for their work (e.g. "we had _ articles promoted to FA this month. That's awesome; keep it up!") Just throwing thoughts out there... — the_ed17 ( Talk) 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
From the coordinators:
This month's issue features the launch of a new column, the "(name here)". This will be a feature that will be that we hope to continue in subsequent issues, with topics possibly ranging from a run through of the non-free image criteria to a 'how to write engaging prose' to tips on how to get an article through FAC. February also saw MILHIST's A-class and featured totals go up by 45 or more for the second straight month; great work and a thank you go out from all of us to all members!
(od) I boldly added a "From the Coordinators" section...please revert if too bold. — the_ed17 ( Talk) 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In about 24 hours the page needed to the next election should make its appearance. I created a sample referendum sheet with my two suggestions on it, feedback for such a format would be appreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Then, depending on the outcome, we can deal with the actual details of what C-Class would mean and how the logistics would be handled. Kirill [pf] 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)In principle, do you support or oppose the introduction of C-Class into the project's assessment scale?
(<=) I missed part of this, but is 15 necessary? It seems like an awful lot... :/ Wouldn't the current 12 do fine? — the_ed17 ( Talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to think about the text for the C-class motion. A bald "Should Milhist adopt C-class" will almost certainly fail. However, it may well pass if we (the coords) recommend its adoption, using the proposal text as a request for endorsement. My personal view is that we should adopt C-class but I won't lose any sleep if we don't :) What do we think about:
as a proposal? – Roger Davies talk 06:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the solution then? Do we need to have this referendum at all? The C-class discussion has gone quiet of late: does it really need resurrecting? – Roger Davies talk 08:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Just done them, so we're ready to rock 'n' roll. — Roger Davies talk 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Didn't we have one once? If not, shouldn't we have one? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 07:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
{{subst:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~
.
Kirill
[pf]
20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Can someone add a section to the photos in the logisitics departement where you can list new images for MILHIST that have been uploaded or found by some user and may be put the use since they aren't already. Thanks Wandalstouring ( talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've set up some code on the showcase subpages so that the article counts can be individually transcluded elsewhere; the results can be seen in the top section on WP:MILHIST. Is this something worth having on the main page? Kirill [pf] 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I just thought that I would give a little nudge/reminder to note that the scoring for the February Contest still needs some attention. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that the special projects department doesn't seem to be the focus of any real activity, I'm wondering if a dedicated department page is necessary for it. Might it be neater to simply have a list of active special project subpages in the announcement template, without trying to transclude chunks of them into a single page? Or would that be too obscure? Kirill [pf] 05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that (retired) has been removed from my name in the history tabs for the coordinators. I'm honored that I would be considered active after my return, but I was not co-opted after my return, nor was I voted emeritus, and as such I think it would be better to retain the retired after my name since we don't have any anything on the books concerning a coordinator who leaves and then returns. Its not that I object to being listed, it just feel that it somewhat circumvents the due process needed to be considered a coordinator here. Active users such as myself have and continue to make suggestions and participate in internal affairs without coordinator designation; by this definition then, one does not need to be recognized as a coordinator to due what the coordinators already do. MBK004 aptly demonstrated this last tranche, as I have done this tranche. For these reason I would respectfully ask that I be relisted as retired, or be officially co-opted and reinstated as a coordinator. Yours very sincerly and resepctfully, TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
←Thanks, EyeSerene. Always nice to know that one has the support of the community. I'm still on the fence over whether or not I will run again, but at the moment I am leaning a little more toward returning because this particular tranche covers summer, which by its very nature encompasses the long summer vacation, which allows for more on wiki time than the October to March tranche. On the other hand, if enough new users come forth to try their hands I may refrain from running to allow for more new users in the coordinator lineup. In the event that more coordinators with experience are needed I can always be co-opted to assist. I'm taking a wait and see approach, and will official decide on another term during the sign-up period. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I always tag general articles about the holocaust for Milhist but usually don't for specific topics, like Kristallnacht. We should probably clarify this. What do we think? – Roger Davies talk 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If WWII was a WP and not a TF, all Holocaust articles would fit, but not since it is only with MILHIST. Just like I see a lot of articles that would fit a ACW WP, but since it is only a TF, don't get tagged.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 09:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, elections are approaching, and I've been considering standing for a coordinator position, but before I do so I would like to ask the advice and opinions of some of you guys. First of all, approximately how many hours per week do you guys spend on coordinator-related tasks? Secondly, if I ran and were elected, would there be any problems with me taking one two week and two one week breaks during the summer for summer vacations I've planned? Finally, would there be any problems with my election even though I am under 18? If you guys could give me any advice or knowledge of what to expect I would appreciate it, to help me decide whether or not I should run, because I don't want to run and then be too busy with school for half of the term to be able to adequately perform the duties. Thanks in advance for any responses. – Joe N utter 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(od) Go for it (especially as you are on my list of people to ask to stand). The current tranche has probably been the best-ever, based on seamless teamwork and integrated cooperation, with everyone chipping in when they can. The amount I spend varies considerably: sometimes, it may be almost full time for a few days; other times, it may be as little as a few minutes a day as real life or other pressures kick in. The great thing is that although being a Milhist coord really is no big deal, it is certainly one of the most rewarding and enjoyable jobs on Wikipedia, simply because of the great team spirit and outstanding camaderie. I love it :) – Roger Davies talk 05:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, what everyone else has said ;) Should you sussessfully stand, even the smallest thing you do will free up someone else to spend their time how they want to, and the Milhist whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. You're not as much of a stranger to the labyrinthine mechanisms of maintaining Milhist as I was when I was coopted, but it may still take a while to find your way around anyway, so should you be elected my advice would be to start slowly with areas you know, watch how other coordinators handle things, ask when in doubt, and most importantly don't feel there's any obligation to take on more than you're comfortable with. Best, EyeSerene talk 12:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering recent discussions and conflicts regarding battles/operations results in infoboxes, I would suggest defining/adopting wording formulations which should therefore become guidelines within our project. In my opinion this is important to be established in order to avoid potential interpretations of sources (which in most cases automatically involves interpreter's POV). Furthermore, the result in the infobox should simply include the conclusive result of a battle/operation (example: Allied victory), not consequent facts. As I just threw a quick look over few articles, I found some blatant and unfortunately even amusing battle results such as:
I found all this cases at a glance through few WWII articles, but the issue is clearly existent and I propose adopting the following formulations to be exclusively used thoroughout the project (of course these are open to discussion).
In my view this formulations can be easily attributed to the result in question, as it does not involve interpreting the source but simply read it and cite it accordingly. Moreover, the result of a certain battle in an infobox could be tagged more simply in an infobox if we create templates for adopted formulations. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(←)I can only repeat what I posted on the Dunkirk talk page: I believe that, more often than not, summarising a battle in this way is unhelpful, as the space we've got in the infobox is too restricted and we almost inevitably end up with something that's over-simplified and is going to be a bone of contention. However, a standardised set of 'results' might be a good idea, if we can agree on what they should be. We could possibly even write them into a template for consistency. EyeSerene talk 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Kirill [pf] 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)The result may use one of several standard terms:
- "X victory"
- "Decisive X victory"
- "Inconclusive"
The choice of which term to use should be dictated by the sources used for the article. In cases where the standard wording does not properly represent the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section").
(od) The template is okay but for MILMOS, we really need to discuss it on the main talk page first. — Roger Davies talk 17:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello my fellow co-ordinators. After a little bit of deliberation I have decided to not put myself up for re-election this year. Due to various real-life activities, I have not been around Wikipedia much these last few months and as such my activity as a coordinator has decreased far more than I would have liked. That inactivity is unfair on the other coordinators, especially as I see no end to my frenetic real-life activities.
Looking at the very strong nominal roll of candidates this year, I am in no doubt that I leave MILHIST in very safe hands. I will still be around, just nowhere near as active as I once was. Thanks for an interesting and enjoyable year! Best regards, Woody ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear that, Woody. As others have said, feel free to drop in any time and chip in. Your views are always worth hearing. On behalf of the project, may I thank you very much for all your past efforts; they have been very much appreciated. — Roger Davies talk 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I found this by accident, but I am glad I did. It appears that new FAR/FAC delegates are to be appointed, among the names being considered is former coordinator Yellow Monkey. While of little concern to us I feel that the coordinators - whoever they may be - ought to keep an eye out on this and see what developes. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
More or less all ready to go, I think.
I've just added the referenda text. Tweak, expand etc as necessary, lady and gentlemen.
Pdfpdf has kindly updated the status box, with candidate names. He's added numbers for the candidates: I'm not sure how useful these are.
Anyhow, I'll take this opportunity to thank to all retiring coordinators very much for their past work and wish the candidates the best of luck!
— Roger Davies talk 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As a quick note, Mrg3105 ( talk · contribs) appears to be editing from the account Shattered Wikiglass ( talk · contribs) (I am not aware of any check user confirmation of this, but the editing pattern and style is clearly identical). While editors are able to register new identities as long as they don't engage in sock puppetry, the right to vanish only applies if they leave, and their history under their previous identity remains relevant. That said, Mrg's editing restriction was for six months, and it has now expired, and I'm assuming good faith. Nick-D ( talk) 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
See User talk:Kirill Lokshin#A-Class WikiProject reviews: we have some WikiProjects getting ready to set up A-Class review processes like ours, and they're looking for someone to coach them through their first reviews. I haven't been very involved with ACRs recently, so I'm wondering if any of the coordinators that have focused on them might be willing to help out, as their advice will probably be more useful than mine. Kirill [pf] 11:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is something I'm very interested in developing - I've left some comments on the talk page here; any input welcome ;) EyeSerene talk 09:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Tom, looking over what you wrote in the writing an A-Class article, there are a few errors I thought I would bring to your attention instead of just fixing them:
The first one is certain since that is what GimmeBot does during its promotion and demotion runs, and the second point is more of a procedural question in light of the first fact. - MBK 004 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hill 262 A-class review can be closed now by an uninvolved coordinator. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 13:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Xa_Loi_Pagoda_raids YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is coming along very nicely but I'm a bit concerned that we are making things look difficult, which is off-putting, when in fact they're quite easy once you get the hang of them. The sections on coordination and reviewing could probably use lightening up. Roger Davies talk 07:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Further to an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#MILHIST Review department (also highlighted by Durova on the main talk-page), it appears we may be unintentionally causing a headache for the FPC process by spamming candidacy announcements around the project. The concern seems to be that editors arriving at the reviews via our templated announcments are !voting on pictures with an incomplete understanding of how to apply the FP criteria, potentially leading to unsafe promotions.
As we all know, uninformed and/or inexperienced reviewers are something that every review process has to deal with (ideally by helping them to become informed and experienced), but this might be something we need to rethink. Possible solutions could range from adding a caveat to the template reminding editors to read the criteria for a review process before commenting (perhaps linking the criteria too), to limiting the places where the template is transcluded to (not sure how we'd do this), to removing the FPC announcements altogether. Thoughts? EyeSerene talk 09:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Coords may be interested in this discussion at WT:FA. Apparently, warfare has passed 200 articles, which is when they tend to subdivide the FA categories; however, the question here is what to split them into. — the_ed17 ( Talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you may be interested to know that there is currently a state of upheaval at FL. The main idea is to clean up all of the lists, check they meet the criteria, and to remove a bit of chaff that seems to have built up. After an initial sweep, there are 3 lists of concern for this project: found here. These aren't major issues with the exception of the WWI vets one, but worth keeping an eye on as I am off for a couple of weeks now. Good luck to all incoming coordinators. Regards, Woody ( talk) 16:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I marked the election page as historical since the time allotted is past. I do have a question though: Is it 15 coordinators including the lead? And if so how do we resolve the fact that the two 20-voted users share the last spot equally? Should be bring them both in. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(od) Yes, they should both be brought in. Roger Davies talk 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I was bold and went and added a section to the newsletter under the "Project news" section on the election and new Coordinators. Feel free to tweak! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of the newsletter...what are we going ot write for the "From the coordinators" section...? It's the 29th today! :/ — the_ed17 ( Talk) 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The election page is now marked as historical, so are we also closing the two referenda? I'd imagine anyone interested has probably commented by now; Cooption has general support (though some concerns about removal), and C-Class adoption is a fairly clear no consensus with 24 support/20 oppose/6 neutral(ish). EyeSerene talk 09:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)