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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I've just unarchived the Preemptive disambiguation and Merging the Australian and New Zealand task forces discussions; they're mentioned in the current newsletter so I think the archiving was premature (blame the bots). However, the fact that they were archived indicates they may have run their course. I've left notes on each to the effect that they're coming to a close:
EyeSerene talk 12:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I was thinking along the lines of the request for copyedit department, but for maps & images. I pick up quite a few poor / lacking images in FACs and it would be good to be able to send authors to somewhere more personal and useful than the graphics lab. Graphics lab frequently just does touch-up / crop / convert to SVG, rather than real image generation. I'd love to see requests for copyedit and images on the "Military history WikiProject announcements and open tasks". I think people would be more inclined to contribute real content. Cheers Doug ( talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
(Background) - back in the September 2009 election, Doug supported me and left a thought about adding a MILHIST image department. I, of course, completely forgot about it until the last elections, so I left him a message. He's semi-active, so he just replied a couple days ago.
Does anyone think this would be a good idea, perhaps as part of
WP:MHL or perhaps as a sub-group of that? —
Ed
(talk •
majestic titan)
21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, can I please get a few more opinions in the discussion: here? The issue is mainly about the command structure field in the infobox on Australian Army units (i.e. whether it should be operational groupings such as brigade, or ceremonial such as Royal Australian Armoured Corps), with the flag icon useage secondary. I won't say more than that here, as I don't want to curry favour in any way, so please review the discussion and articles mentioned and provide your opinion. I'm happy to follow concensus however it pans out. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I've closed this discussion wince we have not past 23:59 UTC Friday, the consensus is that the best place to merge to would be Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific task force. Are we agreed to move forward with that name? TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No one has merged the task forces yet, I gathered that it was complicated to do, and that we needed Kirill's guidance to get through it. I was therefore waiting for the confirmation before asking how we go about merging. To be honest, I have no idea how to do that, which is why I have not do this myself. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion of the indefinite block I have placed on Blablaaa ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blablaaa which other admins and editors in this project may wish to comment on. Nick-D ( talk) 00:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Commanderu ( talk · contribs) tried adding a person called Hubert Biedermann to the list of KC recipients. I am 100% sure that such a person never existed. I added the {{ db-hoax}} to the page. Can someone here please check if I followed the process correctly. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been fairly busy the last couple of weeks, and I don't anticipate this changing anytime soon. From now until early June, I have two state championship, a national championship, and an all-star quiz bowl tournament to attend. I also have AP exams coming up in early May and exams for school shortly after, so I really ought to study for those. I will also be spending a week in early June visiting some colleges I've been looking at. Basically, my activity will range from low to zero for the next six to eight weeks. I'm sorry for not posting this sooner, but I've been too busy. – Joe N 23:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I too must apologise for my lack of activity at the moment. I keep meaning to post something here, but usually end up trying to review an article when I'm online instead (and then run out of time for that as well). I won't bore you with all the details, but I'm busy sorting out funding for a.... military history project! It does mean I'm horrifically busy at the moment, but I'm hoping it will settle down soon and I will be more active eventually. Ranger Steve ( talk) 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as this seems to be the thread for it, I'll be absent on-and-off until mid-June while I study for a qualification. I'll try to call in when I can though. EyeSerene talk 17:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that we now have the capability to add page notices to articles, I wanted to test the water for an idea to create a template for pages that are problematic either by virtue of their subject matter or by virtue of the number of different groups that have an interest in such articles. What I am thinking of is adding something in the page notice section like this:
This is a high profile article and/or high traffic article. Due to the nature of such articles the material presented below is often the result of multiple accumulated discussions on the talk page. Since the article deals with the subject matter is very broad terms it is often best to refrain from adding specific details of any particular battle of engagement here. Additionally, due to the communal nature of the article's material, changes to the article should be discussed before being implemented so that the edits are not reverted. |
The subject matter of this article is considered controversial. Due to the nature of such articles the material presented below is often the result of multiple accumulated discussions on the talk page. Since the article deals with controversial subject matter it is often best to discuss any changes to the article before being making them so as to allow all interested editors a chance to comment on the changes. |
What do you guys think about this? Is it something worth pursuing? TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Should we take this to the village pump(?) then? If it could benefit Wikipedia as a whole, we could get some praise for the idea assuming it hasn't already been though up. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This has now been set up through merging the Australian and NZ task forces as agreed. If someone cough...Kirill... could look over what I've done that would be great :) I've deleted the /Popular pages for each defunct TF but I'm not sure what to do (if anything) about creating a new one for the ANZSP TF. No coordinators are materially affected by the merger.
The issue of a suitable image for the new TF will need to be hashed out - I've mentioned it on the talk page there. I've also contacted the Australian WikiProject as they'll need to update parameters in their {{ WP Australia}} template to send their articles into the new categories. I think that's everything, but apologies if I've missed anything! EyeSerene talk 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/American Civil War Sesquicentennial#Drive logistics and naming; it looks like we're about to have a fourth special project up and running, and it would be good to come up with a clever name for it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Guys, just a quick note that I won't be able to contribute much for the next week due RL commitments; in the short term, that means I won't be able to take my usual active role in tallying up Monthly Contest points, handing out awards, etc -- so job opportunity there for a newbie coord, perhaps in concert with an old hand... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the editorial, is there anything else we need to add to this before we send it off to the waiting masses? TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Depending on what turns up in the next 24-hours, I would ask that you all keep an eye out on article that ends up created here on the matter. At the moment, I think that the incident will remain out of our hands, but my hunch here is that this is going to turn up an overseas terror link, and when that happens it will come under the greater heading of the war on terror, which would make it an article within our scope. This is going to be big, really big, when all is said and done, so lets make sure we do our very best to make sure everything stays in good order.
In short, "England expects that every man will do his duty." TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears at this point that the police are reporting that the suspect in this case may have received terror training in Pakistan. This has yet to be independently confirmed, but I would propose that if and when this is independently confirmed we add our project tag to the article. On a related note, the suspect himself now has an article here on Wikipedia; while I am inclined to believe that the page will end up deleted on one event grounds its presence here and now prompts me to input on whether both the person and the incident articles should be tagged for us if the pakistan terror training turns out to be correct. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As a consequence of the task force merge with the Australian and NZ task forces, there are now redlinked categories appearing at the bottom of Australian and New Zealand milhist articles. See for instance: [1]. Is there any way to fix this, so that the categories are blue linked, or don't appear? — AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the proposed reformatting for the Bugle; and I am curious to know if there would be any interest in turning our letter into something more closely resembling the Signpost? We could make a case for four independent sections: a page with major news of the month, a page for task force reports, a page dedicate to special project reports, and a page dedicated a monthly tally for the departments run. This would also allow our members to leave comments on the news items so we can feel them out for where they stand on such issues, and would solve the delivery problem by allowing "headlines" to go out such as they would exist. What do you guys think about this idea? TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
By and large its the coordinators that do the writing for the newsletter anyway; if not all the writing, then certainly the lion's share of it. As it currently stands, aside from the editorial and the from the coordinators sections, the the rest of the information added comes about largely as a result of due process from the assessment and contest results for any given month. That leaves project news as the wild card so to speak; we usually write that up based on whatever interesting discussions or events are happening here, but if we are to move to a knew format we could encourage more participation here by introducing an academy piece to be delivered at the time the new newsletter is rolled out so that our project members can see that they too are welcome to write for the newsletter. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I like it; in particular, I like the idea of having an editorial page as its own independent feature. This format would allow us to distribute more news across the project as a whole, and could help gain and retain readership. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Just spotted this, seems like a decent format we could base ours off of — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, let's restart this now so we have a chance at modifying the upcoming newsletter. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, can one or two (or more would be great) co-ords take a look at the unassessed and no task force articles listed on WP:MHA? There's a pretty big backlog at the moment (400 and 200). I spent most of yesterday going through them and got through about 50, but it doesn't feel like I made much of a dent really. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:MILMOS was recently untagged as a MoS page, presumably due to its location within the project's namespace rather than the main MoS one. I've left a note for Gnevin, who changed the tag, here, so we'll see what the response is; but I think that we'll probably wind up having to, at a minimum, move it to something like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military).
Beyond that, I suspect the question of having the MILMOS talk page redirect to the MILHIST one will be brought up, as it's an unusual arrangement. Generally speaking, would it be beneficial to have a separate MILMOS talk page, regardless of whether we're pushed to create one? MoS discussions tend to be lengthy and slow, and having a dedicated page for them might make things easier, at least in terms of not having to un-archive them all the time.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
An update on where things stand with this:
Any comments on these or any other issues with MILMOS would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, on the ANZSP task force talk page there is a query about the popular pages link. I'm not sure how to answer this question, so I'm posting here to see if any of the other co-ords know how to fix this. The thread is here. Any help answering this question would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a few things I wanted to bring up here briefly and cover:
These are my few points, if anyone else has something they would like to add please feel free to, otherwise feedback would be appreciated for the above points. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright then, we will leave the current practice of having non-OMT members close ACRs in place. I have to be honest and say that works best for both OMT and MILHIST, however it can be problematic at times when OMT noms stay open longer since some coordinators are a part of the project. As you the NYC bombing, I agree that we should pass on tagging it for now; I highly doubt that the event will result in a military response, and since the attack failed I see no pressing reason to tag the article as being within our scope. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal to indicate the article class on the front of articles much like the current FA start. The discussion is here. The proposal says nothing about our use of A-Class and I am assuming that the proposal will either demote our A-class articles to B or GA depending on their assessments in other classes. If this is indeed the case then this turn of events is rather worrisome and warrants our immediate attention. - MBK 004 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not absurd, but it is confusing to people not used to it. I know that it took me awhile to wrap my mind around the idea that Stub–A is [theoretically, at least] a separate scale from GA–FA. 09:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see WT:MOS#Erratum and proposal about unit conversions. - Dank ( push to talk) 04:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that our stress hotline hasn't seen any activity in almost a year (and saw fairly little before that), I wonder if it might be worthwhile to mothball it entirely and/or find a different way of running it (perhaps even as a section on this page?). Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
A common problem is that almost nobody knows about such projects, as they are buried deeply in the system. I find it interesting - maybe I would have used it in the past, IF I knew about it. And no, I don't have a good solution on how to make it better known (mention it in a newsletter?). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I need some help please. I tried implementing the article history for Jagdgeschwader 11. However I am too stupid to figure out how to retrieve the first oldid value for the review which failed on 23 February 2010. Can someone please help and let me know how to retrieve this value. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello guys! As you may have noticed, I was quite inactive during the last period and did not manage to take care of any coordinator tasks and responsabilities within my area of interest. Unfortunately work and other real life issues are starting to prevent me to make anymore significant contributions to Wikipedia and our project. Being part of the coordinating team of the Military history WikiProject was perhaps for me the most interesting interaction between people with same hobbies and cultural interests I had in my life. Moreover, during more than five terms as a coordinator, the project became like a family for me, everyday we coordinators decently discussing and struggling to improve this project and make it the best on wiki. Without such a wonderful team, I don't think I could have been able to make any achievements or share my knowledge on this encyclopedia. Although I'm deeply sorry to say this, it is impossible for me to continue around here on a regular basis and I'm forced to leave the team. I wish to thank my fellow coordinators for all we've achieved together and many thanks as well to the people who had confidence and supported me again and again during the coordinator elections!
With those being said, please accept my resignation as a Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject.
Thanks and... keep up the good work! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 09:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your kind words - they represent the best recognition I could get! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Considering that my resignation is now in effect, does anybody mind if I write an editorial for the May newsletter? It would represent a summary of coordinators' activity and examples of constructive behaviour when dealing with POV and other similar things. If nobody has anything against it, I could post it sometime during the next 3-4 days. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've made the inquires to Cbrown, so look for this to go out within the next 24-48 hours. Also, I could use some feedback in the June newsletter section below, if anyone gets a moment. TomStar81 ( Talk) 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. Coords who were here about 11/2 years ago may remember this, but sometime in early 2009 (I forget exactly when) Catalan ( talk · contribs) created the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-milhist. It was very underutilized and quickly died after Catalan retired. However, Griffinofwales ( talk · contribs), Ktr101 ( talk · contribs) and I have resurrected it, and the freenode staff granted me the founder right so that I can make ops (Catalan's account had expired, so it was a simple matter to transfer it). I'd like to get more coords in there. Anyone want to join? :) Chatzilla, a good way to access freenode, is a basic add-on for Firefox, making it easy to get online. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Before we go creating a bunch of unneeded pages I would like to here from you all what sub pages we should create to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010. I think the main page can remain since the new newsletter format should mirror the signpost, which would make this our new mainpage, but the subpages still need to be worked out. I think the most obvious one would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010/project news, which we can use to cover project news, editorials, and from the coordinators, but I am interested in here what other subsections we should adopt for this. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I like that, although a lot of the major changes are normally covered in the coordinator's editorial. Are we going to cover them in both? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this format (as I understand it) looks good and quite a convenient layout, so no problems for me. Ranger Steve ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've created a template, Template:WPMILHIST Newsletter header, for the newsletter page headers. It's a little crude at the moment but hopefully functional enough to test the concept. There are various things that could be added as we develop the idea (eg the editorial link could be made conditional as we may not always have this page).
At the moment the template parameters are in the form {{WPMILHIST Newsletter header|issue no|month & year|page title}}. I've also juggled content around to the various subpages, though I expect this needs considerable improvement. EyeSerene talk 10:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I get few more people to weigh in on this discussion? I feel at this point that we could get a lot out this proposal, but I want some additional input before green lighting it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys, just a note/reminder that I will be travelling (to Europe if anyone's interested) for approx. 6 weeks starting 10 June, so my participation will be limited in time and frequency over that period. Feel free to leave messages or email me but just be prepared for delays (and brevity!) in reply... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, There seem to be an unusually large number of ACRs and PRs languishing with low numbers of comments - the situation seems particularly bad for PRs. While I know that it's a busy time for the students among the project's membership (whom I would estimate at about 40-50% of regulars), could I suggest that it might be time for a push to encourage reviews? Nick-D ( talk) 11:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant to note this the other day, but forgot to: the article Gaza flotilla raid was weened off its full protection the the other day and now is now semi-protected, but since the Israeli operation has ruffled a lot of feathers and since the Jewish nation is not all that popular with the Muslim nation in the region I would ask that you all keep an eye on the article for the next few weeks to make sure the article stay policy and guideline compliant. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#IMPORTANT_NOTICE_-_Editor_reviewing_rights. I've set the reviewer/autoreviewer flag for a number of trusted editors within our project, but obviously I'm going to miss many more. Admin coords, if you know of any suitable editors who meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming_a_reviewer, please update their user rights :) Thanks, EyeSerene talk 11:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I was about to add a {{ style-guideline}} tag to the top of the article, but after a moment's thought I decided to bring this up here first. I think it would be wise to decide how much autonomy the special projects should have vis-a-vis the project as a whole. I have no problem with a special project getting creative with aesthetics and awards and such, but this move seems to border on independence from the project as a whole. I think this needs to be addressed before this turns into something like a revolt for us since our MoS is supposed to cover all aspect of the milhist operation. The question I pose then is should we allow the special projects to create guidelines of this nature, and if so, should we insist that these guidelines be subordinate to the main Mos and/or out MoS? TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How's this:
This is a page for internal operating guidelines for Brothers at War special project, and is intended to help members participating in the special project. Note that while these guidelines are applicable to the special project in question, any significant changes to the style/content guidelines should be added either to the Military history Project manual of style and/or the American Civil War task force. |
Would that work? TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at adding a project-specific search tool to {{ WPMILHIST Navigation}}. Any feedback on (a) whether the tool is something useful to have there and (b) whether the current configuration seems to produce useful results would be very appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, I’ve been meaning to write this for some time, but (for the reasons outlined below) I just haven’t been able to get round to writing it, at least not in the idealish way I’d have liked to.
This year, after living in a foreign country for 3 and a half years, full time volunteering for 18 months and then taking any underpaid/temp job I could get in order to get the experience and skills to do the sort of work I wanted, I seem to have finally got somewhere. Perhaps it was a bit unwise of me to stand as a co-ordinator when I did, just at the time this all came around (I didn’t actually know it would until after I’d stood), but I really do enjoy Wikipedia, and saw this role as an interesting and positive expansion of my online activities.
I always imagined that increased responsibility should result in some increased activity, but in my online case it seems to have been the reverse. I always start the day with the best of intentions; read a bit of TFA, check the watchlist and address major issues, then struggle to review an ACR or so on and run out of time to comment or work on it (or anything else). You see, I’ve gone and got a pleasant job where I get to do a whole heap of military history research (as well as ancient history, my other interest), and to be fair, I think I probably owe wiki’s editors for teaching me a few of the odds and sods I’d forgotten about good writing and research. Downside of course, is that I have a bit less time to dedicate to my voluntary interests nowadays (and that includes offline too), because someone is paying me to produce. For the last 2 weeks I've barely even had time to log on and have been working (usually away from computers) every day of the week.
I don’t want to give up being a co-ordinator, but I’m very aware that I’m only just treading water here, and not really pulling my weight. I keep hoping that the workload will ease off a bit, but it really isn’t that much (I freely admit that this is more my fault than work’s; I sink my teeth into my projects and tend to ‘live’ them a bit) and I don’t have a massive amount of time online, even on my days off. It’s giving me a genuine sense of unease and guilt that I’m not really doing as much as I should here, and to be honest I’m probably starting to wind myself up about it a bit. Wikipedia is perhaps ‘just’ a voluntary project, but I’m proud to be part of it, enjoy it, and definitely don’t want to let anyone down.
I’m pretty sure all of this will change and that new Britain will enact some sort of law preventing people from enjoying their jobs too much, but that might not be for a few months yet and in the meantime, I’d like to ask for some opinions. I can’t currently commit to as many pages as I intended to when I applied for this role (I can easily continue to monitor all the task forces I cover for example, but whince when I see an ACR for closure and don't have time to do it) and, if everyone feels it best, would welcome some advice on where it might be easiest to phase out some attention where I won’t be missed (in the hope that this will reduce my attentions in one place and allow me to concentrate and actually get something done in another). Equally, if the consensus of opinion is that I should hand over the reigns to another, I’ll go with the vote (I’m not requesting that, but will understand).
So, to summarise; a) I’m deeply sorry about this, and b) any thoughts would be welcomed. Thanks in advance, Ranger Steve ( talk) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks folks, you've made me feel a fair bit better 'bout this. I'll try and have a go at all of these suggestions over the next week and see what I mess up the least! Cheers, Ranger Steve ( talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised to see Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is the TFA. While the article is in OK shape, it has large slabs of unreferenced text (most notably in the 'U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard' section (which also seems grossly over-long) and some awkward prose. Yesterday's TFA Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back had similar problems. Does anyone know if TFA standards have changed? Nick-D ( talk) 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This goes back to FA maintenance and its a point I've brought up before (if I recall correctly): We really need to find and track the articles within our scope that have gone longer than a year at GA, A, or FA class and make sure they all still meet the current standards for excellence. I admit that I remain upset about the loss of the Iowa class battleship article and the that I am bothered by the constant nagging about the ship articles themselves, but to my credit I do make a point to cycle the articles through PR or FAR and a semi-regular basis just to get feedback from the community. Some articles haven't even been through a PR since they were last promoted, and that results in articles of currently iffy quality but FA-class none-the-less due to a lack of maintenance ending up on the main page or other spots of interest. If anyone has any ideas about how we should deal with the issue then I would be happy to inaugurate the newly-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank with our brainstorming. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
For a while now, we've had quite a backlog at GAN (with the exception of during the drive WP:WGA recently conducted). There has also been a chronic shortage of reviewers at Milhist (especially with peer reviews), and FACs could always use more eyes. I'm wondering if we could create a review contest similar to the article writing one we currently have to drum up participation. People do like shiny awards they can display on their userpage, afterall. Say, filling out B-class checklists are worth 5 points, in-scope GA reviews are 10, PRs and ACRs worth 15, and FACs are 20—just an example, I'm not wedded to anything at this point. Much like the article contest, this could be self-reporting, so it shouldn't be too time-intensive to maintain. We could announce it on the various talk pages within the project and/or put a blurb in this month's newsletter to ensure wide visibility. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else have any comments/suggestions/ideas on this? I think that if this has a chance of increasing the number of reviewers, then it's worth at least a trial run. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yahoo! news is reporting that, among other things, "June 16, 2010: WikiLeaks announces that it will soon release leaked military video of a U.S. gunship attack near Garani, Afghanistan, that killed nearly 150 civilians, including women and children, in May 2009." This on top of General Stanley A. McChrystal's comments leads me to believe that soon these articles may become the targets of high strung editing. Stanley A. McChrystal's article is already semi-protected (and has that annoying edit protection thing they just recently dumped on us which I still have no idea how to use), but the former info from WikiLeaks has yet to be released and when it is will likely see an article here within a few hours on the info going public. Just to let everyone know, its going to get interesting again. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In accordance with the 90-day timeline for lag between checks, I have inspected the articles listed at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Black project working group and Category:Black projects. I make the following findings related to this inspection:
Additionally, I would like input on the following websites as they relate to the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia:
If you don't mind me joining this discussion as I did with the previous report, I have analysed some of the space-related links in the same way that I did before.
Link | Analysis | Rationale/Remarks |
---|---|---|
http://www.archive.org/details/point_in_time | Reliable | Documentary produced by the CIA, Archive.org are just making it available (they also run the Internet Archive) |
http://www.fas.org ... | Reliable | This is the Federation of American Scientists |
http://thespacereview.com/article/576/1 | Reliable | Well-published author |
http://samadhi.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/Programs/corona.html | Reliable | NASA (US Government) source |
http://www.sworld.com.au/ | Handle with care | Unchanged from previous report |
http://www.satobs.org/ | Handle with care | Unchanged from previous report |
http://www.n2yo.com | Reliable | Major satellite tracking websites, known for accuracy and most of their data can be experimentally verified. |
http://www.heavens-above.com | ||
http://space.skyrocket.de | Can't remember | Unchanged from previous report |
I made a pass at improving the layout of part of the Assessment department. Specifically it pertained to the part with the taskforce statistics counters. Please take a look at it and tell me if you think that this would be an improvement over that section's current state and if there is some manner of agreement to that regard, I'll post the change. Or one of the coordinators may if they feel it would be more appropriate to have solely coordinators editing department-level main pages.
Thanks, LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 06:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to let all of you know, I will not be on the computer at all for a few days due to an impromptu vacation. I'll be back early (UTC) on 28 June. - MBK 004 07:46, 25 June 2010 (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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I've just unarchived the Preemptive disambiguation and Merging the Australian and New Zealand task forces discussions; they're mentioned in the current newsletter so I think the archiving was premature (blame the bots). However, the fact that they were archived indicates they may have run their course. I've left notes on each to the effect that they're coming to a close:
EyeSerene talk 12:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I was thinking along the lines of the request for copyedit department, but for maps & images. I pick up quite a few poor / lacking images in FACs and it would be good to be able to send authors to somewhere more personal and useful than the graphics lab. Graphics lab frequently just does touch-up / crop / convert to SVG, rather than real image generation. I'd love to see requests for copyedit and images on the "Military history WikiProject announcements and open tasks". I think people would be more inclined to contribute real content. Cheers Doug ( talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
(Background) - back in the September 2009 election, Doug supported me and left a thought about adding a MILHIST image department. I, of course, completely forgot about it until the last elections, so I left him a message. He's semi-active, so he just replied a couple days ago.
Does anyone think this would be a good idea, perhaps as part of
WP:MHL or perhaps as a sub-group of that? —
Ed
(talk •
majestic titan)
21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, can I please get a few more opinions in the discussion: here? The issue is mainly about the command structure field in the infobox on Australian Army units (i.e. whether it should be operational groupings such as brigade, or ceremonial such as Royal Australian Armoured Corps), with the flag icon useage secondary. I won't say more than that here, as I don't want to curry favour in any way, so please review the discussion and articles mentioned and provide your opinion. I'm happy to follow concensus however it pans out. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I've closed this discussion wince we have not past 23:59 UTC Friday, the consensus is that the best place to merge to would be Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific task force. Are we agreed to move forward with that name? TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No one has merged the task forces yet, I gathered that it was complicated to do, and that we needed Kirill's guidance to get through it. I was therefore waiting for the confirmation before asking how we go about merging. To be honest, I have no idea how to do that, which is why I have not do this myself. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion of the indefinite block I have placed on Blablaaa ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blablaaa which other admins and editors in this project may wish to comment on. Nick-D ( talk) 00:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Commanderu ( talk · contribs) tried adding a person called Hubert Biedermann to the list of KC recipients. I am 100% sure that such a person never existed. I added the {{ db-hoax}} to the page. Can someone here please check if I followed the process correctly. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been fairly busy the last couple of weeks, and I don't anticipate this changing anytime soon. From now until early June, I have two state championship, a national championship, and an all-star quiz bowl tournament to attend. I also have AP exams coming up in early May and exams for school shortly after, so I really ought to study for those. I will also be spending a week in early June visiting some colleges I've been looking at. Basically, my activity will range from low to zero for the next six to eight weeks. I'm sorry for not posting this sooner, but I've been too busy. – Joe N 23:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I too must apologise for my lack of activity at the moment. I keep meaning to post something here, but usually end up trying to review an article when I'm online instead (and then run out of time for that as well). I won't bore you with all the details, but I'm busy sorting out funding for a.... military history project! It does mean I'm horrifically busy at the moment, but I'm hoping it will settle down soon and I will be more active eventually. Ranger Steve ( talk) 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as this seems to be the thread for it, I'll be absent on-and-off until mid-June while I study for a qualification. I'll try to call in when I can though. EyeSerene talk 17:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that we now have the capability to add page notices to articles, I wanted to test the water for an idea to create a template for pages that are problematic either by virtue of their subject matter or by virtue of the number of different groups that have an interest in such articles. What I am thinking of is adding something in the page notice section like this:
This is a high profile article and/or high traffic article. Due to the nature of such articles the material presented below is often the result of multiple accumulated discussions on the talk page. Since the article deals with the subject matter is very broad terms it is often best to refrain from adding specific details of any particular battle of engagement here. Additionally, due to the communal nature of the article's material, changes to the article should be discussed before being implemented so that the edits are not reverted. |
The subject matter of this article is considered controversial. Due to the nature of such articles the material presented below is often the result of multiple accumulated discussions on the talk page. Since the article deals with controversial subject matter it is often best to discuss any changes to the article before being making them so as to allow all interested editors a chance to comment on the changes. |
What do you guys think about this? Is it something worth pursuing? TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Should we take this to the village pump(?) then? If it could benefit Wikipedia as a whole, we could get some praise for the idea assuming it hasn't already been though up. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This has now been set up through merging the Australian and NZ task forces as agreed. If someone cough...Kirill... could look over what I've done that would be great :) I've deleted the /Popular pages for each defunct TF but I'm not sure what to do (if anything) about creating a new one for the ANZSP TF. No coordinators are materially affected by the merger.
The issue of a suitable image for the new TF will need to be hashed out - I've mentioned it on the talk page there. I've also contacted the Australian WikiProject as they'll need to update parameters in their {{ WP Australia}} template to send their articles into the new categories. I think that's everything, but apologies if I've missed anything! EyeSerene talk 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/American Civil War Sesquicentennial#Drive logistics and naming; it looks like we're about to have a fourth special project up and running, and it would be good to come up with a clever name for it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Guys, just a quick note that I won't be able to contribute much for the next week due RL commitments; in the short term, that means I won't be able to take my usual active role in tallying up Monthly Contest points, handing out awards, etc -- so job opportunity there for a newbie coord, perhaps in concert with an old hand... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the editorial, is there anything else we need to add to this before we send it off to the waiting masses? TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Depending on what turns up in the next 24-hours, I would ask that you all keep an eye out on article that ends up created here on the matter. At the moment, I think that the incident will remain out of our hands, but my hunch here is that this is going to turn up an overseas terror link, and when that happens it will come under the greater heading of the war on terror, which would make it an article within our scope. This is going to be big, really big, when all is said and done, so lets make sure we do our very best to make sure everything stays in good order.
In short, "England expects that every man will do his duty." TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears at this point that the police are reporting that the suspect in this case may have received terror training in Pakistan. This has yet to be independently confirmed, but I would propose that if and when this is independently confirmed we add our project tag to the article. On a related note, the suspect himself now has an article here on Wikipedia; while I am inclined to believe that the page will end up deleted on one event grounds its presence here and now prompts me to input on whether both the person and the incident articles should be tagged for us if the pakistan terror training turns out to be correct. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As a consequence of the task force merge with the Australian and NZ task forces, there are now redlinked categories appearing at the bottom of Australian and New Zealand milhist articles. See for instance: [1]. Is there any way to fix this, so that the categories are blue linked, or don't appear? — AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the proposed reformatting for the Bugle; and I am curious to know if there would be any interest in turning our letter into something more closely resembling the Signpost? We could make a case for four independent sections: a page with major news of the month, a page for task force reports, a page dedicate to special project reports, and a page dedicated a monthly tally for the departments run. This would also allow our members to leave comments on the news items so we can feel them out for where they stand on such issues, and would solve the delivery problem by allowing "headlines" to go out such as they would exist. What do you guys think about this idea? TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
By and large its the coordinators that do the writing for the newsletter anyway; if not all the writing, then certainly the lion's share of it. As it currently stands, aside from the editorial and the from the coordinators sections, the the rest of the information added comes about largely as a result of due process from the assessment and contest results for any given month. That leaves project news as the wild card so to speak; we usually write that up based on whatever interesting discussions or events are happening here, but if we are to move to a knew format we could encourage more participation here by introducing an academy piece to be delivered at the time the new newsletter is rolled out so that our project members can see that they too are welcome to write for the newsletter. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I like it; in particular, I like the idea of having an editorial page as its own independent feature. This format would allow us to distribute more news across the project as a whole, and could help gain and retain readership. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Just spotted this, seems like a decent format we could base ours off of — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, let's restart this now so we have a chance at modifying the upcoming newsletter. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, can one or two (or more would be great) co-ords take a look at the unassessed and no task force articles listed on WP:MHA? There's a pretty big backlog at the moment (400 and 200). I spent most of yesterday going through them and got through about 50, but it doesn't feel like I made much of a dent really. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:MILMOS was recently untagged as a MoS page, presumably due to its location within the project's namespace rather than the main MoS one. I've left a note for Gnevin, who changed the tag, here, so we'll see what the response is; but I think that we'll probably wind up having to, at a minimum, move it to something like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military).
Beyond that, I suspect the question of having the MILMOS talk page redirect to the MILHIST one will be brought up, as it's an unusual arrangement. Generally speaking, would it be beneficial to have a separate MILMOS talk page, regardless of whether we're pushed to create one? MoS discussions tend to be lengthy and slow, and having a dedicated page for them might make things easier, at least in terms of not having to un-archive them all the time.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
An update on where things stand with this:
Any comments on these or any other issues with MILMOS would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, on the ANZSP task force talk page there is a query about the popular pages link. I'm not sure how to answer this question, so I'm posting here to see if any of the other co-ords know how to fix this. The thread is here. Any help answering this question would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a few things I wanted to bring up here briefly and cover:
These are my few points, if anyone else has something they would like to add please feel free to, otherwise feedback would be appreciated for the above points. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright then, we will leave the current practice of having non-OMT members close ACRs in place. I have to be honest and say that works best for both OMT and MILHIST, however it can be problematic at times when OMT noms stay open longer since some coordinators are a part of the project. As you the NYC bombing, I agree that we should pass on tagging it for now; I highly doubt that the event will result in a military response, and since the attack failed I see no pressing reason to tag the article as being within our scope. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal to indicate the article class on the front of articles much like the current FA start. The discussion is here. The proposal says nothing about our use of A-Class and I am assuming that the proposal will either demote our A-class articles to B or GA depending on their assessments in other classes. If this is indeed the case then this turn of events is rather worrisome and warrants our immediate attention. - MBK 004 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not absurd, but it is confusing to people not used to it. I know that it took me awhile to wrap my mind around the idea that Stub–A is [theoretically, at least] a separate scale from GA–FA. 09:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see WT:MOS#Erratum and proposal about unit conversions. - Dank ( push to talk) 04:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that our stress hotline hasn't seen any activity in almost a year (and saw fairly little before that), I wonder if it might be worthwhile to mothball it entirely and/or find a different way of running it (perhaps even as a section on this page?). Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
A common problem is that almost nobody knows about such projects, as they are buried deeply in the system. I find it interesting - maybe I would have used it in the past, IF I knew about it. And no, I don't have a good solution on how to make it better known (mention it in a newsletter?). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I need some help please. I tried implementing the article history for Jagdgeschwader 11. However I am too stupid to figure out how to retrieve the first oldid value for the review which failed on 23 February 2010. Can someone please help and let me know how to retrieve this value. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello guys! As you may have noticed, I was quite inactive during the last period and did not manage to take care of any coordinator tasks and responsabilities within my area of interest. Unfortunately work and other real life issues are starting to prevent me to make anymore significant contributions to Wikipedia and our project. Being part of the coordinating team of the Military history WikiProject was perhaps for me the most interesting interaction between people with same hobbies and cultural interests I had in my life. Moreover, during more than five terms as a coordinator, the project became like a family for me, everyday we coordinators decently discussing and struggling to improve this project and make it the best on wiki. Without such a wonderful team, I don't think I could have been able to make any achievements or share my knowledge on this encyclopedia. Although I'm deeply sorry to say this, it is impossible for me to continue around here on a regular basis and I'm forced to leave the team. I wish to thank my fellow coordinators for all we've achieved together and many thanks as well to the people who had confidence and supported me again and again during the coordinator elections!
With those being said, please accept my resignation as a Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject.
Thanks and... keep up the good work! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 09:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your kind words - they represent the best recognition I could get! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Considering that my resignation is now in effect, does anybody mind if I write an editorial for the May newsletter? It would represent a summary of coordinators' activity and examples of constructive behaviour when dealing with POV and other similar things. If nobody has anything against it, I could post it sometime during the next 3-4 days. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've made the inquires to Cbrown, so look for this to go out within the next 24-48 hours. Also, I could use some feedback in the June newsletter section below, if anyone gets a moment. TomStar81 ( Talk) 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. Coords who were here about 11/2 years ago may remember this, but sometime in early 2009 (I forget exactly when) Catalan ( talk · contribs) created the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-milhist. It was very underutilized and quickly died after Catalan retired. However, Griffinofwales ( talk · contribs), Ktr101 ( talk · contribs) and I have resurrected it, and the freenode staff granted me the founder right so that I can make ops (Catalan's account had expired, so it was a simple matter to transfer it). I'd like to get more coords in there. Anyone want to join? :) Chatzilla, a good way to access freenode, is a basic add-on for Firefox, making it easy to get online. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Before we go creating a bunch of unneeded pages I would like to here from you all what sub pages we should create to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010. I think the main page can remain since the new newsletter format should mirror the signpost, which would make this our new mainpage, but the subpages still need to be worked out. I think the most obvious one would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010/project news, which we can use to cover project news, editorials, and from the coordinators, but I am interested in here what other subsections we should adopt for this. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I like that, although a lot of the major changes are normally covered in the coordinator's editorial. Are we going to cover them in both? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this format (as I understand it) looks good and quite a convenient layout, so no problems for me. Ranger Steve ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've created a template, Template:WPMILHIST Newsletter header, for the newsletter page headers. It's a little crude at the moment but hopefully functional enough to test the concept. There are various things that could be added as we develop the idea (eg the editorial link could be made conditional as we may not always have this page).
At the moment the template parameters are in the form {{WPMILHIST Newsletter header|issue no|month & year|page title}}. I've also juggled content around to the various subpages, though I expect this needs considerable improvement. EyeSerene talk 10:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I get few more people to weigh in on this discussion? I feel at this point that we could get a lot out this proposal, but I want some additional input before green lighting it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys, just a note/reminder that I will be travelling (to Europe if anyone's interested) for approx. 6 weeks starting 10 June, so my participation will be limited in time and frequency over that period. Feel free to leave messages or email me but just be prepared for delays (and brevity!) in reply... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, There seem to be an unusually large number of ACRs and PRs languishing with low numbers of comments - the situation seems particularly bad for PRs. While I know that it's a busy time for the students among the project's membership (whom I would estimate at about 40-50% of regulars), could I suggest that it might be time for a push to encourage reviews? Nick-D ( talk) 11:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant to note this the other day, but forgot to: the article Gaza flotilla raid was weened off its full protection the the other day and now is now semi-protected, but since the Israeli operation has ruffled a lot of feathers and since the Jewish nation is not all that popular with the Muslim nation in the region I would ask that you all keep an eye on the article for the next few weeks to make sure the article stay policy and guideline compliant. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#IMPORTANT_NOTICE_-_Editor_reviewing_rights. I've set the reviewer/autoreviewer flag for a number of trusted editors within our project, but obviously I'm going to miss many more. Admin coords, if you know of any suitable editors who meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming_a_reviewer, please update their user rights :) Thanks, EyeSerene talk 11:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I was about to add a {{ style-guideline}} tag to the top of the article, but after a moment's thought I decided to bring this up here first. I think it would be wise to decide how much autonomy the special projects should have vis-a-vis the project as a whole. I have no problem with a special project getting creative with aesthetics and awards and such, but this move seems to border on independence from the project as a whole. I think this needs to be addressed before this turns into something like a revolt for us since our MoS is supposed to cover all aspect of the milhist operation. The question I pose then is should we allow the special projects to create guidelines of this nature, and if so, should we insist that these guidelines be subordinate to the main Mos and/or out MoS? TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How's this:
This is a page for internal operating guidelines for Brothers at War special project, and is intended to help members participating in the special project. Note that while these guidelines are applicable to the special project in question, any significant changes to the style/content guidelines should be added either to the Military history Project manual of style and/or the American Civil War task force. |
Would that work? TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at adding a project-specific search tool to {{ WPMILHIST Navigation}}. Any feedback on (a) whether the tool is something useful to have there and (b) whether the current configuration seems to produce useful results would be very appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, I’ve been meaning to write this for some time, but (for the reasons outlined below) I just haven’t been able to get round to writing it, at least not in the idealish way I’d have liked to.
This year, after living in a foreign country for 3 and a half years, full time volunteering for 18 months and then taking any underpaid/temp job I could get in order to get the experience and skills to do the sort of work I wanted, I seem to have finally got somewhere. Perhaps it was a bit unwise of me to stand as a co-ordinator when I did, just at the time this all came around (I didn’t actually know it would until after I’d stood), but I really do enjoy Wikipedia, and saw this role as an interesting and positive expansion of my online activities.
I always imagined that increased responsibility should result in some increased activity, but in my online case it seems to have been the reverse. I always start the day with the best of intentions; read a bit of TFA, check the watchlist and address major issues, then struggle to review an ACR or so on and run out of time to comment or work on it (or anything else). You see, I’ve gone and got a pleasant job where I get to do a whole heap of military history research (as well as ancient history, my other interest), and to be fair, I think I probably owe wiki’s editors for teaching me a few of the odds and sods I’d forgotten about good writing and research. Downside of course, is that I have a bit less time to dedicate to my voluntary interests nowadays (and that includes offline too), because someone is paying me to produce. For the last 2 weeks I've barely even had time to log on and have been working (usually away from computers) every day of the week.
I don’t want to give up being a co-ordinator, but I’m very aware that I’m only just treading water here, and not really pulling my weight. I keep hoping that the workload will ease off a bit, but it really isn’t that much (I freely admit that this is more my fault than work’s; I sink my teeth into my projects and tend to ‘live’ them a bit) and I don’t have a massive amount of time online, even on my days off. It’s giving me a genuine sense of unease and guilt that I’m not really doing as much as I should here, and to be honest I’m probably starting to wind myself up about it a bit. Wikipedia is perhaps ‘just’ a voluntary project, but I’m proud to be part of it, enjoy it, and definitely don’t want to let anyone down.
I’m pretty sure all of this will change and that new Britain will enact some sort of law preventing people from enjoying their jobs too much, but that might not be for a few months yet and in the meantime, I’d like to ask for some opinions. I can’t currently commit to as many pages as I intended to when I applied for this role (I can easily continue to monitor all the task forces I cover for example, but whince when I see an ACR for closure and don't have time to do it) and, if everyone feels it best, would welcome some advice on where it might be easiest to phase out some attention where I won’t be missed (in the hope that this will reduce my attentions in one place and allow me to concentrate and actually get something done in another). Equally, if the consensus of opinion is that I should hand over the reigns to another, I’ll go with the vote (I’m not requesting that, but will understand).
So, to summarise; a) I’m deeply sorry about this, and b) any thoughts would be welcomed. Thanks in advance, Ranger Steve ( talk) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks folks, you've made me feel a fair bit better 'bout this. I'll try and have a go at all of these suggestions over the next week and see what I mess up the least! Cheers, Ranger Steve ( talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised to see Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is the TFA. While the article is in OK shape, it has large slabs of unreferenced text (most notably in the 'U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard' section (which also seems grossly over-long) and some awkward prose. Yesterday's TFA Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back had similar problems. Does anyone know if TFA standards have changed? Nick-D ( talk) 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This goes back to FA maintenance and its a point I've brought up before (if I recall correctly): We really need to find and track the articles within our scope that have gone longer than a year at GA, A, or FA class and make sure they all still meet the current standards for excellence. I admit that I remain upset about the loss of the Iowa class battleship article and the that I am bothered by the constant nagging about the ship articles themselves, but to my credit I do make a point to cycle the articles through PR or FAR and a semi-regular basis just to get feedback from the community. Some articles haven't even been through a PR since they were last promoted, and that results in articles of currently iffy quality but FA-class none-the-less due to a lack of maintenance ending up on the main page or other spots of interest. If anyone has any ideas about how we should deal with the issue then I would be happy to inaugurate the newly-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank with our brainstorming. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
For a while now, we've had quite a backlog at GAN (with the exception of during the drive WP:WGA recently conducted). There has also been a chronic shortage of reviewers at Milhist (especially with peer reviews), and FACs could always use more eyes. I'm wondering if we could create a review contest similar to the article writing one we currently have to drum up participation. People do like shiny awards they can display on their userpage, afterall. Say, filling out B-class checklists are worth 5 points, in-scope GA reviews are 10, PRs and ACRs worth 15, and FACs are 20—just an example, I'm not wedded to anything at this point. Much like the article contest, this could be self-reporting, so it shouldn't be too time-intensive to maintain. We could announce it on the various talk pages within the project and/or put a blurb in this month's newsletter to ensure wide visibility. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else have any comments/suggestions/ideas on this? I think that if this has a chance of increasing the number of reviewers, then it's worth at least a trial run. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yahoo! news is reporting that, among other things, "June 16, 2010: WikiLeaks announces that it will soon release leaked military video of a U.S. gunship attack near Garani, Afghanistan, that killed nearly 150 civilians, including women and children, in May 2009." This on top of General Stanley A. McChrystal's comments leads me to believe that soon these articles may become the targets of high strung editing. Stanley A. McChrystal's article is already semi-protected (and has that annoying edit protection thing they just recently dumped on us which I still have no idea how to use), but the former info from WikiLeaks has yet to be released and when it is will likely see an article here within a few hours on the info going public. Just to let everyone know, its going to get interesting again. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In accordance with the 90-day timeline for lag between checks, I have inspected the articles listed at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Black project working group and Category:Black projects. I make the following findings related to this inspection:
Additionally, I would like input on the following websites as they relate to the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia:
If you don't mind me joining this discussion as I did with the previous report, I have analysed some of the space-related links in the same way that I did before.
Link | Analysis | Rationale/Remarks |
---|---|---|
http://www.archive.org/details/point_in_time | Reliable | Documentary produced by the CIA, Archive.org are just making it available (they also run the Internet Archive) |
http://www.fas.org ... | Reliable | This is the Federation of American Scientists |
http://thespacereview.com/article/576/1 | Reliable | Well-published author |
http://samadhi.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/Programs/corona.html | Reliable | NASA (US Government) source |
http://www.sworld.com.au/ | Handle with care | Unchanged from previous report |
http://www.satobs.org/ | Handle with care | Unchanged from previous report |
http://www.n2yo.com | Reliable | Major satellite tracking websites, known for accuracy and most of their data can be experimentally verified. |
http://www.heavens-above.com | ||
http://space.skyrocket.de | Can't remember | Unchanged from previous report |
I made a pass at improving the layout of part of the Assessment department. Specifically it pertained to the part with the taskforce statistics counters. Please take a look at it and tell me if you think that this would be an improvement over that section's current state and if there is some manner of agreement to that regard, I'll post the change. Or one of the coordinators may if they feel it would be more appropriate to have solely coordinators editing department-level main pages.
Thanks, LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 06:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to let all of you know, I will not be on the computer at all for a few days due to an impromptu vacation. I'll be back early (UTC) on 28 June. - MBK 004 07:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)