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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
[moved table to /Handbook section above] Roger Davies talk 06:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the first jobs is allocating task forces. Normally, the incumbent has first refusal and anyone interested puts their name in the "interested" column. For there on, it's negotiation :) Roger Davies talk 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite know what's going on here, but people are signing up slots meant to list current taskforce coords. Please list yourself under interested unless you actually are one of the current coordinators for the taskforce. Maralia ( talk) 01:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind so much what task forces I am allocated, but I would like the Australian and Biography TFs, as these two are where my primary contributions and interest lies. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 02:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added my name as interested on some of the Task Forces, I understand Seniority so if I do not get all of the Task Forces that I would like then it is fine. Have A Great Day! ~ Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the above I've stood down from Australia, so there's now one space available there ;) I'll also relinquish NZ if there's lots of interest (It's a very quiet TF anyway), but I'd like to hang on to Napoleonic if poss. Other than that, I'm not too fussy. EyeSerene talk 09:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(←)I've listed myself for several, mostly those unclaimed or with little interest. My top three choices, however, would be Maritime, WWI, and German, with all of the others as take-'em-or-leave-'em. — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've thrown in my preferences, but frankly I'm happy to take anything on if its left over.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've shunted people into uncontroversial slots where there is no competition. The next step is probably for people to withdraw gracefully from the popular ones until the requisite number is arrived at. TF coordinatorship really is no big deal and even if you're not the TF coordinator you can (and hopefully will) still actively participate. Incidentally, with sixteen coordinators, each only needs to adopt six or seven TFs to provide ample coverage. Roger Davies talk 02:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that I've been fired from the Weaponry TF. I'll assume negligent discharge; I'm tempted to give a rocket to our list compiler, but there's no point in going off half-cocked. EyeSerene talk 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I've lowered my numbers down to my absolute seven. Although I'd rather have Maritime than Indian, I'm happy. I've relenquished spots in Russian and ARW so those who are interested now get to decide for another spot. - MBK 004 01:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
On a review of the table, Roger, Nick, Cam, Bellhalla, Lordoliver, Eurocopter, MBK004 and EyeSerene all have been allocated at least six task forces each, so if any of these are listed as interested in additional task forces I think they can be removed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
←Current counts (excluding those interested but not in a slot). It looks as though those of us with 7 slots should give up one and not take up others without relinquishing a slot to someone else. - MBK 004 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Joe, if I take myself out of the running for WWII (which I agree could use three coords), would you take yourself out of the running for military aviation (or vice versa)? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed myself from early modern warfare Nick-D ( talk) 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the most benevolent way of looking at all this is as an exercise in team-building :)) I wonder if it's occurred to anyone yet that they're probably spending more time discussing which TFs to coordinate than they will actually coodinating them? Roger Davies talk 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have gone quiet on who goes where - I don't know that Roger's admonishment above was suggesting we stop working it out, more that we just get it over with sharpish. As no-one seems to be challenging Skinny for Early Warfare, nor has anyone voiced concerns with three coords for WWII, I've taken the liberty of moving them in... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've done some shuffling around, entirely based how many TFs each coord has, and brought everyone who was on the "Interested" list up to 6 each. Tom as has been noted already has loads so more, at the expense of others, is probably inappropriate, no matter how talented or omnipotent Tom is :) This now only leaves Bryce and Lordoliver (do you mind if I call you Oliver? My republican streak etc etc) in contention for Bio. Once that's decided, perhaps someone could go and update all the TF headers? We used to have a table of task forces by coordinator but that seems to have gone in the re-organisation. Roger Davies talk 10:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Some months back my desktop got a hold of a file that set off my anti-virus programs. Because of its characteristics at the time I was and remain of the opinion that the bug could be the conflicker worm we have all been hearing so much about recently. Since no one seems to know exactly what the bug will do come April 1 I am leaving this here to notify everyone that if you see anything suspicious from my Wikipedia accounts (TomStar81 or TomStar810), block them asap and we will work the details out later. I wholeheartedly hope it does not come to that, but I am taking no chances, hence the disclosure. If the accounts are compromised MBK has the decrypted version of my committed ID, and should be able to tell the real me from an impostor if it comes to that. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Eyes are needed on the peer reviews, the latter half of which date back to February and January. At this point, they should be closed, archived, and moved off the milhist templates and the article alerts box. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
With the elections out of the way and a fine new (and old!) crop of coordinators raring to go, what do we think about the idea of producing a regular newsletter column between us? The idea was first mentioned here and had some support, but with the recent more important business has perhaps been forgotten. To recap, I suggested that it might be a useful and informative extension of our newsletter to include a monthly column on various aspects of milhist and related areas. We could cover subjects such as reviewing guides, image uploading/editing tips, writing engaging prose, the available awards for members and how to award them, taking an article through the GA/FA process, the origins of the project, the work of individual task-forces and so on. There's enough to keep going for years ;)
If there's interest in doing this, I would suggest the column should probably be kept fairly brief - 500 words or so; enough to give an overview of larger subjects or go into reasonable detail on smaller ones. Because most subjects are likely to be covered in detail elsewhere (or will be as the Academy develops), it would hopefully also attract more attention to some areas and pages that don't get visited too often, and with sixteen coordinators and six newsletter issues before the next round of elections, in collaboration/rotation it wouldn't be much work at all. It would be nice to get something sorted for the upcoming issue, though obviously time is now a factor. However, I'd be happy to throw something together if no-one else has any better suggestions. The only downside I can see is that it would increase the size of the newsletter. Thoughts? EyeSerene talk 08:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(od) I was wondering incidentally whether a capped transclusion link might be a better way of dealing with the newsletter. (I believe the transclusion only activates when the cap is "shown".) Roger Davies talk 11:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As reported in the Signpost this week, FAC pages underwent a change in their naming. The problem with this is that our template pointed to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Article. As a temporary fix, I changed this to have /archive1 at the end, but what about articles with multiple FACs that will be at /archive2, /archive3 etc.? — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(od) Thanks everyone. I'll finish off the March newsletter this evening/tomorrow morning and get it off for despatch. Roger Davies talk 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Târgu Frumos is closable by an uninvolved coordinator. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 18:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This may be due to the disruption caused by the coordinator elections, but the number of comments in A-class reviews and peer reviews seems to be declining at the moment. The small number of comments in PRs is particularly concerning to me, as this is the best opportunity for editors to receive constructive criticism of their work. Nick-D ( talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) This needs constantly staying on top of, I'm afraid, as we lose editors through natural wastage. Woody and Catalan for instance were both active reviewers. Last time, we had a crisis, I invited a dozen or so editors to participate, which kick started it. Best is if everyone invites one or two editors to start reviewing, and then keeps an eye on them for a while.
High profile barnstars work too. So maybe issuing the review barnstar monthly to deserving editors for a couple or three months? I'd avoid issuing it to top scoring, as this will encourage people to go for quantity not quality. Roger Davies talk 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've just posted a message asking for A-class reviews on the main project talk page. I hope that the emphasis on the articles which have attracted at least one support vote is OK - completing these reviews seems to be the best way to reduce the current backlog. Nick-D ( talk) 12:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed at StarCraft II and on several aviation pages that there are templates that generate hidden messages concerning the inclusion of external links for fan purposes ({{ NoMoreLinks}}) and what fictional appearances do not qualify for a mention in a wiki article ({{ NoMoreCruft}}), respectively. I wonder if we should consider creating such a template for our articles that outline what can go in and when. Standardizing this element of our project would likely be a good idea since articles such as Iowa class battleship and Strategic Defense Initiative already have hidden messages concerning what can and can not go in a pop culture section, but the two offer radically different approaches to the problem. I think it better to have a single hidden message with guidelines than several with varying degrees of interpretation on the guidelines. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nick-D ( talk) 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually like the imperious and unwelcoming tone of the previous one exactly becuase of its percieved rudeness to the new comers. Since its our new people that add this type of cruft to articles most often I think leaving the strong wording in would serve to hinder their adding anything to the section period, which would allow the more seasoned editors to keep pop culture sections lean and thin. In the sentence "Additions that appears to be insignificant...may be removed" I would strongly recommend that the word "may" be replaced with "will" since we all frown on pop culture sections, and tightening the wording there severely hinders any attempt to add trivial or otherwise unneeded information to such a section. The other thing I might recommend is creating a framework for those who will inevitably insist on fighting to add such cruft to an article. Something like:
(←) Looks good to me. EyeSerene talk 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears at this point that we have our basic template layout. Before creating it though I have a question: how do you subst a template? And should that be pursued here? TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It is time for the quarterly awarding of the Content Review Medal. If someone would like to take this task since I will be unable to do so for at least 12-24 hours. The task consists of going through the ACR and PR archives for 2009 and counting the number of reviews each editor performed in the 1st Quarter of 2009. Then report your findings here: User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST#Content Review Medal Tracking and notifying the others here and a small discussion occurs, the actual awards are presented. - MBK 004 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The tallies are as follows:
I believe tradition holds that the top 10 reviewers receive the CRM, but as there is a tie for the final place I advocate that top 11 receive the award. Thoughts? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 05:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank very much for that, Bryce. Let's change tradition in order to kickstart the process. Best, I think, to encourage participation is to give the Chevrons to the top twelve (10+ reviews) and the Content Review Medal to everyone (sixteen editors) who has done more than two. This will encourage those at the bottom to keep doing them, and hopefully do more. The awards also get seen by others, which enourages them to join in. If no one objects, I'll do this later.
I also suggest we award something next month too. We can create a special "thank you" award as well if needs be. This is just to keep the profile up. I'll write something up for the next newsletter once the whole strategy is sorted out. Roger Davies talk 06:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) We do by the way have the service awards, which with minimal work could be turned into "the Military History reviewer's stripes", for people doing one ot two ever so often. Roger Davies talk 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've distributed all the awards and I've got the announcements ready to post. Roger Davies talk 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Medal of Honor there is a icon in the upper right hand corner of the page similar to what you find on an FA-rated page that displays a Medal of Honor and the provides a link to the MoH article. Problem is, I can not find the discussion that supposedly took place conerning the use of the code, and it appears to have caught on in that our A-class review on the U-boat captian displaces a similar Icon with an award on its talk page. I recall no consesnus on this, and if this is a no-no then I would prefer to move on it now rather than wait and let it become a problem of epic proportions. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm very sorry to bear the bad news that a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia has impacted articles of interest to your project. Previously, I had thought it only impacted articles related to gastropods and mollusks. The short story version: User:GrahamBould, now blocked, copied text from books and non-free internet sources into literally thousands of articles over a span of perhaps three years. In its early days, the matter was addressed at the administrators' noticeboards, twice: here and here. Conversation about it is now taking place primarily at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. I do not yet know to what extent your articles are affected, but I have verified that at least one article still contains text copied directly from a book which I can only access in snippet: Pillbox affair. If you have interest in contributing to the evaluation or clean-up of these, or helping devise a constructive approach to the problem, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) The obvious thing to do is for someone to run through the list, extracting any articles within our scope. Once we've got a short list (may be a dozen or so?), we can check them individually, preferably not at a snail's pace. Roger Davies talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)Saw this last night; rather annoying, isn't it? Still, fortunately none of them seem to be particularly popular topics. I don't know anything about subs, but if someone wants to outline what the Pillbox Affair was, I might be able to at least stub it out, as it spunds vaguely familiar. Skinny87 ( talk) 07:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
A few more have been identified:
Nick-D ( talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Two articles which fall under our scope will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article within ten days. Ironclad warship will appear on 12 April and USS Iowa turret explosion will appear on 19 April. Any help to keep these articles clear of the vandalism that we all know accompanies these main page appearances would be appreciated. - MBK 004 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Earlier today, I scheduled the USS Iowa Turret Explosion article for April 19 as you requested. However, a few hours later an OTRSer emailed me asking me to reconsider, as there is an open OTRS ticket on a closely related (BLP) article, and featuring the turret explosion would very likely inflame the issue. I don't know yet what I'm going to do, but unscheduling it is a very real possibility. I'm giving you a heads-up in case that happens.
←Update on the turret explosion TFA: Per User_talk:Cla68#Iowa_Turret_explosion_main_page_request, the article will not appear, but will appear at a date in the future TBD by Raul. As I mentioned above, it looks like William IV of the United Kingdom will appear in the next few days though. - MBK 004 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<copied from my talk page: Roger Davies talk 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)>
Roger, there are many such out-of-date announcements on both the main project talk page and on task force pages, which I'm about to start removing. However when I double-checked the Coordinator task page, it declared we should "Manually archive any out-of-date A-Class, FAC or RfA announcements". Obviously discussion threads need to be archived but have you found there's great benefit in archiving simple announcements of reviews being opened, rather than simply removing them? Just want to get clarification before I start anything - and if announcements can simply be removed rather than archived we should change the wording on the Coordinator page (unless I've completely misinterpreted). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Shall we amend the handbook accordingly? Or is there benefit in keeping them? Roger Davies talk 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and started deleting outdated announcements. Have done all the 'general topic' taskforce talkpages; the nation/region & period/conflict talkpages could use the same treatment. Unfortunately, the main talkpage won't really benefit from this change, since it's on 7 day archiving. Maralia ( talk) 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
When I was scoring the contest results for March, I looked back at the previous month and misinterpreted what I saw so, as a result, the total articles, total points, and average points for twelve contestants were incorrect. I have now updated the scoreboard to reflect the accurate values for total articles, total points, and average points. The scores for March contest entries themselves are unaffected and have not been changed. (What I had done was to take the February totals and add in the February results, instead of the March results. For the corrections, I started over with the February totals and added in the March results.)
Also, after having to sort through the page history to find the errors of my ways, I have made the contest entries section its own subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries. So if any of y'all watch the contest page, you might consider adding the entries subpage to your watchlist, too. — Bellhalla ( talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The ACRs on Operation Deny Flight and Minas Gerais are ready to be closed by an uninvolved coordinator, I believe. I've supported both so can't. – Joe N 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The last five or so PRs, beginning with Kentucky and working backwards, all date back to January or February, and need to be archived badly. Anyone care to take up the challenge? TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that all editors who play a lead role in getting three articles to A-class standard are automatically eligible for this medal I don't think that we need to vote on it. I'd suggest that the procedures for closing ACRs be expanded to include updating the records of the number of editors who have developed an article to A-class standard and that the closing coordinator should award the medal each time its someone's third successful nomination, adding a note to the records page to allow for awards to be tracked. Nick-D ( talk) 09:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) Tracking ACRs and awarding medals automatically is going to make a whole load of extra work. My preference is to stay with the current system: many eyes does mean that errors do get picked up and the party atmosphere is good for morale/ésprit de corps. Roger Davies talk 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
[moved table to /Handbook section above] Roger Davies talk 06:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the first jobs is allocating task forces. Normally, the incumbent has first refusal and anyone interested puts their name in the "interested" column. For there on, it's negotiation :) Roger Davies talk 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite know what's going on here, but people are signing up slots meant to list current taskforce coords. Please list yourself under interested unless you actually are one of the current coordinators for the taskforce. Maralia ( talk) 01:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind so much what task forces I am allocated, but I would like the Australian and Biography TFs, as these two are where my primary contributions and interest lies. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 02:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added my name as interested on some of the Task Forces, I understand Seniority so if I do not get all of the Task Forces that I would like then it is fine. Have A Great Day! ~ Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the above I've stood down from Australia, so there's now one space available there ;) I'll also relinquish NZ if there's lots of interest (It's a very quiet TF anyway), but I'd like to hang on to Napoleonic if poss. Other than that, I'm not too fussy. EyeSerene talk 09:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(←)I've listed myself for several, mostly those unclaimed or with little interest. My top three choices, however, would be Maritime, WWI, and German, with all of the others as take-'em-or-leave-'em. — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've thrown in my preferences, but frankly I'm happy to take anything on if its left over.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've shunted people into uncontroversial slots where there is no competition. The next step is probably for people to withdraw gracefully from the popular ones until the requisite number is arrived at. TF coordinatorship really is no big deal and even if you're not the TF coordinator you can (and hopefully will) still actively participate. Incidentally, with sixteen coordinators, each only needs to adopt six or seven TFs to provide ample coverage. Roger Davies talk 02:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that I've been fired from the Weaponry TF. I'll assume negligent discharge; I'm tempted to give a rocket to our list compiler, but there's no point in going off half-cocked. EyeSerene talk 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I've lowered my numbers down to my absolute seven. Although I'd rather have Maritime than Indian, I'm happy. I've relenquished spots in Russian and ARW so those who are interested now get to decide for another spot. - MBK 004 01:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
On a review of the table, Roger, Nick, Cam, Bellhalla, Lordoliver, Eurocopter, MBK004 and EyeSerene all have been allocated at least six task forces each, so if any of these are listed as interested in additional task forces I think they can be removed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
←Current counts (excluding those interested but not in a slot). It looks as though those of us with 7 slots should give up one and not take up others without relinquishing a slot to someone else. - MBK 004 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Joe, if I take myself out of the running for WWII (which I agree could use three coords), would you take yourself out of the running for military aviation (or vice versa)? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed myself from early modern warfare Nick-D ( talk) 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the most benevolent way of looking at all this is as an exercise in team-building :)) I wonder if it's occurred to anyone yet that they're probably spending more time discussing which TFs to coordinate than they will actually coodinating them? Roger Davies talk 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have gone quiet on who goes where - I don't know that Roger's admonishment above was suggesting we stop working it out, more that we just get it over with sharpish. As no-one seems to be challenging Skinny for Early Warfare, nor has anyone voiced concerns with three coords for WWII, I've taken the liberty of moving them in... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've done some shuffling around, entirely based how many TFs each coord has, and brought everyone who was on the "Interested" list up to 6 each. Tom as has been noted already has loads so more, at the expense of others, is probably inappropriate, no matter how talented or omnipotent Tom is :) This now only leaves Bryce and Lordoliver (do you mind if I call you Oliver? My republican streak etc etc) in contention for Bio. Once that's decided, perhaps someone could go and update all the TF headers? We used to have a table of task forces by coordinator but that seems to have gone in the re-organisation. Roger Davies talk 10:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Some months back my desktop got a hold of a file that set off my anti-virus programs. Because of its characteristics at the time I was and remain of the opinion that the bug could be the conflicker worm we have all been hearing so much about recently. Since no one seems to know exactly what the bug will do come April 1 I am leaving this here to notify everyone that if you see anything suspicious from my Wikipedia accounts (TomStar81 or TomStar810), block them asap and we will work the details out later. I wholeheartedly hope it does not come to that, but I am taking no chances, hence the disclosure. If the accounts are compromised MBK has the decrypted version of my committed ID, and should be able to tell the real me from an impostor if it comes to that. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Eyes are needed on the peer reviews, the latter half of which date back to February and January. At this point, they should be closed, archived, and moved off the milhist templates and the article alerts box. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
With the elections out of the way and a fine new (and old!) crop of coordinators raring to go, what do we think about the idea of producing a regular newsletter column between us? The idea was first mentioned here and had some support, but with the recent more important business has perhaps been forgotten. To recap, I suggested that it might be a useful and informative extension of our newsletter to include a monthly column on various aspects of milhist and related areas. We could cover subjects such as reviewing guides, image uploading/editing tips, writing engaging prose, the available awards for members and how to award them, taking an article through the GA/FA process, the origins of the project, the work of individual task-forces and so on. There's enough to keep going for years ;)
If there's interest in doing this, I would suggest the column should probably be kept fairly brief - 500 words or so; enough to give an overview of larger subjects or go into reasonable detail on smaller ones. Because most subjects are likely to be covered in detail elsewhere (or will be as the Academy develops), it would hopefully also attract more attention to some areas and pages that don't get visited too often, and with sixteen coordinators and six newsletter issues before the next round of elections, in collaboration/rotation it wouldn't be much work at all. It would be nice to get something sorted for the upcoming issue, though obviously time is now a factor. However, I'd be happy to throw something together if no-one else has any better suggestions. The only downside I can see is that it would increase the size of the newsletter. Thoughts? EyeSerene talk 08:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(od) I was wondering incidentally whether a capped transclusion link might be a better way of dealing with the newsletter. (I believe the transclusion only activates when the cap is "shown".) Roger Davies talk 11:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As reported in the Signpost this week, FAC pages underwent a change in their naming. The problem with this is that our template pointed to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Article. As a temporary fix, I changed this to have /archive1 at the end, but what about articles with multiple FACs that will be at /archive2, /archive3 etc.? — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(od) Thanks everyone. I'll finish off the March newsletter this evening/tomorrow morning and get it off for despatch. Roger Davies talk 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Târgu Frumos is closable by an uninvolved coordinator. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 18:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This may be due to the disruption caused by the coordinator elections, but the number of comments in A-class reviews and peer reviews seems to be declining at the moment. The small number of comments in PRs is particularly concerning to me, as this is the best opportunity for editors to receive constructive criticism of their work. Nick-D ( talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) This needs constantly staying on top of, I'm afraid, as we lose editors through natural wastage. Woody and Catalan for instance were both active reviewers. Last time, we had a crisis, I invited a dozen or so editors to participate, which kick started it. Best is if everyone invites one or two editors to start reviewing, and then keeps an eye on them for a while.
High profile barnstars work too. So maybe issuing the review barnstar monthly to deserving editors for a couple or three months? I'd avoid issuing it to top scoring, as this will encourage people to go for quantity not quality. Roger Davies talk 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've just posted a message asking for A-class reviews on the main project talk page. I hope that the emphasis on the articles which have attracted at least one support vote is OK - completing these reviews seems to be the best way to reduce the current backlog. Nick-D ( talk) 12:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed at StarCraft II and on several aviation pages that there are templates that generate hidden messages concerning the inclusion of external links for fan purposes ({{ NoMoreLinks}}) and what fictional appearances do not qualify for a mention in a wiki article ({{ NoMoreCruft}}), respectively. I wonder if we should consider creating such a template for our articles that outline what can go in and when. Standardizing this element of our project would likely be a good idea since articles such as Iowa class battleship and Strategic Defense Initiative already have hidden messages concerning what can and can not go in a pop culture section, but the two offer radically different approaches to the problem. I think it better to have a single hidden message with guidelines than several with varying degrees of interpretation on the guidelines. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nick-D ( talk) 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually like the imperious and unwelcoming tone of the previous one exactly becuase of its percieved rudeness to the new comers. Since its our new people that add this type of cruft to articles most often I think leaving the strong wording in would serve to hinder their adding anything to the section period, which would allow the more seasoned editors to keep pop culture sections lean and thin. In the sentence "Additions that appears to be insignificant...may be removed" I would strongly recommend that the word "may" be replaced with "will" since we all frown on pop culture sections, and tightening the wording there severely hinders any attempt to add trivial or otherwise unneeded information to such a section. The other thing I might recommend is creating a framework for those who will inevitably insist on fighting to add such cruft to an article. Something like:
(←) Looks good to me. EyeSerene talk 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears at this point that we have our basic template layout. Before creating it though I have a question: how do you subst a template? And should that be pursued here? TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It is time for the quarterly awarding of the Content Review Medal. If someone would like to take this task since I will be unable to do so for at least 12-24 hours. The task consists of going through the ACR and PR archives for 2009 and counting the number of reviews each editor performed in the 1st Quarter of 2009. Then report your findings here: User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST#Content Review Medal Tracking and notifying the others here and a small discussion occurs, the actual awards are presented. - MBK 004 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The tallies are as follows:
I believe tradition holds that the top 10 reviewers receive the CRM, but as there is a tie for the final place I advocate that top 11 receive the award. Thoughts? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 05:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank very much for that, Bryce. Let's change tradition in order to kickstart the process. Best, I think, to encourage participation is to give the Chevrons to the top twelve (10+ reviews) and the Content Review Medal to everyone (sixteen editors) who has done more than two. This will encourage those at the bottom to keep doing them, and hopefully do more. The awards also get seen by others, which enourages them to join in. If no one objects, I'll do this later.
I also suggest we award something next month too. We can create a special "thank you" award as well if needs be. This is just to keep the profile up. I'll write something up for the next newsletter once the whole strategy is sorted out. Roger Davies talk 06:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) We do by the way have the service awards, which with minimal work could be turned into "the Military History reviewer's stripes", for people doing one ot two ever so often. Roger Davies talk 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've distributed all the awards and I've got the announcements ready to post. Roger Davies talk 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Medal of Honor there is a icon in the upper right hand corner of the page similar to what you find on an FA-rated page that displays a Medal of Honor and the provides a link to the MoH article. Problem is, I can not find the discussion that supposedly took place conerning the use of the code, and it appears to have caught on in that our A-class review on the U-boat captian displaces a similar Icon with an award on its talk page. I recall no consesnus on this, and if this is a no-no then I would prefer to move on it now rather than wait and let it become a problem of epic proportions. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm very sorry to bear the bad news that a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia has impacted articles of interest to your project. Previously, I had thought it only impacted articles related to gastropods and mollusks. The short story version: User:GrahamBould, now blocked, copied text from books and non-free internet sources into literally thousands of articles over a span of perhaps three years. In its early days, the matter was addressed at the administrators' noticeboards, twice: here and here. Conversation about it is now taking place primarily at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. I do not yet know to what extent your articles are affected, but I have verified that at least one article still contains text copied directly from a book which I can only access in snippet: Pillbox affair. If you have interest in contributing to the evaluation or clean-up of these, or helping devise a constructive approach to the problem, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) The obvious thing to do is for someone to run through the list, extracting any articles within our scope. Once we've got a short list (may be a dozen or so?), we can check them individually, preferably not at a snail's pace. Roger Davies talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)Saw this last night; rather annoying, isn't it? Still, fortunately none of them seem to be particularly popular topics. I don't know anything about subs, but if someone wants to outline what the Pillbox Affair was, I might be able to at least stub it out, as it spunds vaguely familiar. Skinny87 ( talk) 07:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
A few more have been identified:
Nick-D ( talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Two articles which fall under our scope will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article within ten days. Ironclad warship will appear on 12 April and USS Iowa turret explosion will appear on 19 April. Any help to keep these articles clear of the vandalism that we all know accompanies these main page appearances would be appreciated. - MBK 004 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Earlier today, I scheduled the USS Iowa Turret Explosion article for April 19 as you requested. However, a few hours later an OTRSer emailed me asking me to reconsider, as there is an open OTRS ticket on a closely related (BLP) article, and featuring the turret explosion would very likely inflame the issue. I don't know yet what I'm going to do, but unscheduling it is a very real possibility. I'm giving you a heads-up in case that happens.
←Update on the turret explosion TFA: Per User_talk:Cla68#Iowa_Turret_explosion_main_page_request, the article will not appear, but will appear at a date in the future TBD by Raul. As I mentioned above, it looks like William IV of the United Kingdom will appear in the next few days though. - MBK 004 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<copied from my talk page: Roger Davies talk 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)>
Roger, there are many such out-of-date announcements on both the main project talk page and on task force pages, which I'm about to start removing. However when I double-checked the Coordinator task page, it declared we should "Manually archive any out-of-date A-Class, FAC or RfA announcements". Obviously discussion threads need to be archived but have you found there's great benefit in archiving simple announcements of reviews being opened, rather than simply removing them? Just want to get clarification before I start anything - and if announcements can simply be removed rather than archived we should change the wording on the Coordinator page (unless I've completely misinterpreted). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Shall we amend the handbook accordingly? Or is there benefit in keeping them? Roger Davies talk 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and started deleting outdated announcements. Have done all the 'general topic' taskforce talkpages; the nation/region & period/conflict talkpages could use the same treatment. Unfortunately, the main talkpage won't really benefit from this change, since it's on 7 day archiving. Maralia ( talk) 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
When I was scoring the contest results for March, I looked back at the previous month and misinterpreted what I saw so, as a result, the total articles, total points, and average points for twelve contestants were incorrect. I have now updated the scoreboard to reflect the accurate values for total articles, total points, and average points. The scores for March contest entries themselves are unaffected and have not been changed. (What I had done was to take the February totals and add in the February results, instead of the March results. For the corrections, I started over with the February totals and added in the March results.)
Also, after having to sort through the page history to find the errors of my ways, I have made the contest entries section its own subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries. So if any of y'all watch the contest page, you might consider adding the entries subpage to your watchlist, too. — Bellhalla ( talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The ACRs on Operation Deny Flight and Minas Gerais are ready to be closed by an uninvolved coordinator, I believe. I've supported both so can't. – Joe N 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The last five or so PRs, beginning with Kentucky and working backwards, all date back to January or February, and need to be archived badly. Anyone care to take up the challenge? TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that all editors who play a lead role in getting three articles to A-class standard are automatically eligible for this medal I don't think that we need to vote on it. I'd suggest that the procedures for closing ACRs be expanded to include updating the records of the number of editors who have developed an article to A-class standard and that the closing coordinator should award the medal each time its someone's third successful nomination, adding a note to the records page to allow for awards to be tracked. Nick-D ( talk) 09:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(od) Tracking ACRs and awarding medals automatically is going to make a whole load of extra work. My preference is to stay with the current system: many eyes does mean that errors do get picked up and the party atmosphere is good for morale/ésprit de corps. Roger Davies talk 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)