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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Backlog reduction drive. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If anyone hasn't seen it, a question about links to the task force discussion archives has been brought up at WT:MILHIST#Consolidation of talk pages; any suggestions for a neat way to deal with this would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
We've reached the point on our task force restructuring where we need to begin contacting other projects about task forces that are considered part of MILHIST but are held under other projects' space. These can be noted by looking at the table created by Kirill above - those marked with "not sure" are the projects we need to contact. Here is a proposed text for contacting these projects:
Greetings from the Military History WikiProject! In recent months, we have been working on transfering our project task forces into a standardized style, in order to make them more readable and user friendly, especially for new editors. We have also been redirecting the talk pages of those task forces to our main project talk page. The latter is partially because many of the posts on the task force pages are duplicates of those on the main talk page. It is also partially because the main talk page has many more watchers than the individual task force pages, and so discussions will have more input and queries will be less likely to become "lost" or otherwise go unanswered. You can see a sample of the new style and the talk page redirection at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force or many of our other task forces. We would like to do the same to [insert task force name here]. However, as this is located at [enter location], which is part of this project's space, we would like to make sure there is no objection to us changing the style or redirecting the talk page. We would also be willing to move the task force into our project's space, with a redirect from your project's space, if that is preferable. [signature], on behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject.
Please feel free to tweak, add, delete or otherwise change as you see fit. Once we have this where we like it, it needs to be posted to the main talk page of the half dozen or so projects affected and any resulting discussion monitored. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 03:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we can proceed with this now. None of the other projects has raised objections; comments at the Film and Middle Ages projects suggested moving the TF pages into our space, although I'm not sure how strongly anyone there feels about the matter. Thoughts on how we should move forward? Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Task force | Page restructured | Talk page redirected | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Korean military history | Done | Done | |
Military biography | Done | Done | |
War films | Done | Done | Open to moving page to location within MILHIST - Done |
Crusades | Done | Done | Open to moving page to location within MILHIST - Done |
Great work! Thanks to all those who made this happen; sorry I wasn't much help. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Following the completion of the recent arbitration case (decision here for those who haven't seen; all findings concerned Communicat ( talk · contribs) who has since stated that he or she intends to leave Wikipedia in protest), I'm planning to reduce my involvement in the World War II article as it's been eating up a lot of my editing time. I became involved in this article during my time as a coordinator, and I think that it's important that some of this project's coordinators continue to keep a watching brief on it as for some reason it's a magnet for POV pushers and cranks. On the flip side, it can be a really fun article to work on - due to its very high profile and need to maintain it at GA standard its regular editors are very collegial and knowledgeable. Nick-D ( talk) 10:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This would be a really good time for uninvolved editors to keep an eye on the article and it's talk page - there's been a sudden influx of editors involved with some of the Eastern European arbitration cases, all discussing Eastern Europe. I can't see any problems so far, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Nick-D ( talk) 07:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a template similar to {{ Cent}} that could list the ongoing SST discussions and other large scale discussions that relate to the project? I know we have the main milhist page which lists open tasks and to a lesser extent general discussions, but it seems to me that the SST discussions are getting low participation, and I think if we had a template like the milhist review alerts one that people could park in their userspace that listed these matters we could get some additional feedback in these matters. As a bonus, we could list major discussions of note in such a template as well (such as the proposed drive) to get people's attention. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I may have something workable here:
I'd appreciate any comments on either the overall approach or the specifics of the technical setup, as well as help with testing all of this to make sure it works as expected. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone care which endsection the portal link is in when there's no "See also" section? WP:LAYOUT and WP:PORTAL only say it should be in the "See also" section, and don't say what to do when there isn't one. If there's no such section, Sandy has objected for years at FAC if the portal link isn't in the top endsection. I'll keep an eye on this if no one cares. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Funny you would bring this up because I made mention of this (and other portal matters) and my suggestions on some the problematic elements of the current portal scheme a full month ago and at the time no one seemed all that interested in the matter. Despite moving the discussion to the strategy center and leaving a link here where the thread originated the only reply I got was from Kirill. Just some food for thought. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get more copy editors involved in our A-class review. That's why I'm referring to specific sections of the checklist after some of my comments ... it's code for "I think it's reasonable to ask you to do better with this in the future ... there are only (currently) 11 points in the checklist, and they're not trivial to learn but they're not that hard either." In theory, I'll start opposing if I don't see improvement over time, not to enshrine myself as the Big Daddy of A-class review, but to even out the workload and make A-class a more attractive place for competent copy editors to work. The checklist is aimed at those things that are either hard for a copy editor to fix without your input ( WP:MHCL#clarity, WP:MHCL#conciseness) or tedious to fix (for example, simple comma errors repeated many times in the same article, or using different names for the same thing throughout an article). If I leave a note on the A-class page but don't follow it with a checklist point, I'm making a judgment call that that's not something copy editors will expect you to know, I'm just giving my rationale in case I'm wrong and in case writers or copy editors want to discuss the point. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well ... just like that, we've got a test case; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manhattan Project. Consider this a request for dispute resolution. This may be the age-old non-American-English vs. AmEng thing ... I need to give a little background here. In the 1970s, any American writer who carefully followed style guides of the time wasn't taken seriously; it was understood that in order to be hip, you had to break the rules, and break them well. That was the culture, and the style guides were also to blame ... like many products of academia, they were stuffy and out of touch. And of course, American English itself was hopelessly fragmented; different writers wrote for completely different reasons for completely different readerships. I don't recall that anyone at the time expected any of this to change, and my sense is that all of that is still true to some extent for BritEng style guides. But over time, a miracle happened ... publishers, copy editors and writers largely decided to start valuing conformity over individualism, in the interest of "sounding professional". Stuffy academics were ignored. And style guides in general, and in particular Chicago, got much, much better at describing the language as it's actually written by professionals. There are still specific style guides for specific purposes, but 99% of what's in the latest edition of Chicago isn't being actively opposed by anyone in the industry (that I can see from a quick tour of relevant blogs) ... in fact, they're all purring over it, even writers who are required to follow a different style guide.
I've seen this cultural divide on Wikipedia for years, including in our style guidelines themselves. AmEng writers, on average, tend to be more positive on the idea that we can and should just look things up or sample sources and figure it out. NonAmEng (I don't want to single the Brits out here) editors are more likely to shout, "Ignore the fussy copy editors! Do whatever looks good to you!" NonAmEng editors are also the ones who are more likely to believe that we can make it work if our style guidelines are different than current American style guides; Americans who have some professional experience are more likely to believe that most style issues are more or less settled and Wikipedians aren't in a position to change them. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Since we've now reached (and immediately passed!) the 500 FA milestone mark, two questions occur to me:
Comments would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
750 would be reasonable, I think; it's likely to take another year or two to reach that number, in any case.
Has anyone contacted the Signpost about this yet, incidentally? Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost doesn't seem to have gone with this, which is unfortunate. In any case, as we're now setting up for the March drive, I've gone ahead and set the next FA target to 750 per the discussion above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Since we're almost done with the task force restructuring work—the last four task forces are just waiting on comments from the other parent projects, at this point—I think we can now deal with the old working group system. We currently have 11 working groups, most of which are terminally inactive; I would propose that we deal with them as follows:
Working group | Action to be taken | Done? |
---|---|---|
Airborne warfare | Absorb into aviation TF/ WWII TF | Done |
Battle of Jutland | Move to incubator or absorb into WP:OMT | Done |
Black projects | Move to incubator | Done |
Iraq War | Absorb into US TF | Done |
Italian Wars | Move to incubator | Done |
Japanese swords | Absorb into Japanese TF | Done |
Large cruiser classes | Absorb into maritime TF | Done |
Militias | Absorb into US TF | Done |
Napoleonic fiction | Move to incubator | Done |
Paraguay | Absorb into South American TF | Done |
Submarine | Move to incubator | Done |
Any comments on the overall approach or the individual proposals would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, folks, I've not been around much recently, but hopefully my name will still look vaguely familiar to one or two of the coords. I recently raised an issue on the main WT:MILHIST, relating to problems at George S. Patton and the Battle of Cambrai (1917). Now it seems there are quite a few sources out there that say that Patton had some sort of involvement at Cambrai, though apaprently his own papers make no mention of this, and the most comprehensive biog is pretty clear he wasn't there. To some extent this kicked off as a "ha-ha look at hopeless Wikipedia and the rubbish in it" on various WWI related forums, and one member dived in to try and correct things (came across this via the Great War Forum). Now obviously he was inexperienced and made some fairly typical newbie mistakes, but I don't think the attitude of members here was particularly great. Now, a lot of the people on these forums are incredibly knowledgeable, and usually generous with that knowledge (and several are published authors in their own right). At the moment, most don't have a particularly high opinion of Wikipedia, and as a result of this episode are having those prejudices reinforced, but ti seems to me taht there's an opportunity to win some of these guys over by showing that the process can work, if you understand how it works, and given a bit of help and encouragement. David Underdown ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just been informed that due to the incompetence of the El Paso Electric Company we are now in stage 2 mandatory water restrictions as a result of the blizzard that passed through. If the water service can not be restored fully in the next two weeks than I may have no choice but to evacuate the city and seek shelter with relatives elsewhere. God willing it doesn't come to that, but in the event it does I wanted to let you all know about it in advance so you would not wonder where I've been. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Update: after 48 grueling hours of uncertainty, the Water Utility has reported that they have managed to raise most of the local reservoir water levels to a point where the city has elected to declare an end to the water shortage emergency; however, we've another winter storm knocking on our door out here, and with the electric grid still not 100% restored and the Water and Gas companies both reeling from the recent blizzard this second wave, if it impacts us as hard as the first one, could result in similar damage and similar restrictions. I should know by Friday if I am going to have to take shelter elsewhere or whether I'll be able to remain here in the city. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, Kumioko ( talk · contribs) got dragged into a messy ANI situation over AWB usage and has opted to retire from Wikipedia altogether. I have no other details to report at the moment, save that I sent him an e-mail urging him to reconsider. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The preparations for the drive are just about complete, but there are still a couple of matters that could use more input; if anyone has a bit of free time, please stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Starting the drive and comment. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the various discussions taking place regarding collaborations with museums and other external entities (first the GLAM partnership with the National Maritime Museum, and now the discussion about establishing an ambassador program to the US military), would it be worthwhile to revive the old outreach department as a place to host these sorts of external-facing efforts (or links to them, in the case of efforts located outside our project space)? Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The current ACM nomination for Sturmvogel 66 has been sitting for a few days now, and could use a few more comments. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a silly question but it's one I've been meaning to ask for a while: is there a reason we use such a complicated way of recording diffs on the above page? EyeSerene talk 08:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
For clarification, I mean why this:
(Awarded [{{fullurl:User_talk:MBK004|diff=194884683&oldid=194883213}} February 2008])
rather than this:
(Awarded [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/?title=User_talk:MBK004&diff=194884683&oldid=194883213 January 2009])
I'd like to suggest counting FAC reviews along with the peer reviews and A-class reviews in the next quarterly tallies and awards. My feeling is that whether we want to encourage reviews at FAC depends entirely on how things are going at FAC ... and things are going pretty well. An objection that's raised from time to time at WT:FAC is that incentives to review result in drive-by reviews, but that doesn't seem like a problem for our wikiproject; no one is racking up skimpy reviews at peer review or A-class just to try to win a contest, so I don't see why they'd suddenly start doing that at FAC (and anyway, I'll notice if they do). Encouraging people to review at FAC may mean that those people get more experienced and more comfortable with nominating their A-class articles for FAC. FAC reviews can be as limited or as expansive as you like; I have a standard disclaimer on what I cover, and I encourage others to do the same, so that the FAC delegates will know what your "support" vote means. - Dank ( push to talk) 05:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize in advance, because this is one of those "Do as I say not as I do" things ... I only do copyediting, and rarely check sources, at our A-class review. Nevertheless: I'd like to ask reviewers to be more careful in light of one current FAC and another recent one. I want to use the words "copyright" and "plagiarism" carefully, because a few people have left the project after the words were thrown around carelessly. Technically, you have committed "copyright infringement" only at the point where a court says you've committed copyright infringement; everyone's guesses about what a court would or wouldn't say if they heard the case are just that, guesses. But I think everyone around here would agree that the last 3 points Cunard makes in the current FAC are what we call a copyright problem: they all point to text that's identical or very similar to 2 copyrighted sources and one CC-BY-SA-NC (noncommercial) source. Some of the text changed a lot since the A-class review of that article 10 months ago, and I'm not assigning any blame to the nominator or reviewers. (Speaking of which ... should we add advice to A-class nominators that if significant changes are made to an article that passes A-class, they may want to run it through peer review again to address the changes before taking it to FAC?) I'm also happy to point out that this is the first time I've seen this in a MILHIST FAC ... and hopefully it won't happen again.
The other FAC I linked above didn't have any copyright problems, because the sources were all public domain. The problem was that text lifted word-for-word from the PD sources wasn't cited to those sources, it was cited to different sources. The nominator said that he had been told that was okay ... and if anyone has been saying that, please don't. Taking something word-for-word from one text, even a PD text, and citing it to somewhere else has at least the appearance of plagiarism. Again, I think we can be proud of our record on this at FAC ... I've only seen it happen this once.
Check out the "In the news" section of today's WP:Signpost ... it's got several accusations of copyright infringement and plagiarism on Wikipedia, and these are hot-button issues. Be afraid. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
First I want to thank the team here for bringing out "The Bugle" every month. I am not sure if one of you has noticed this too, but the current format is practically unreadable on a mobile device such as the iPhone. Only when you switch the viewing mode to its native Wikipedia view can you read it. I think the problem is with the table to the right of the "The Bugle" image. The mobile site tends to serialize images and text which doesn't seem to work correctly here. Moving forward I want to suggest that it might be good practice to include reviewing articles for A-Class for its readability from a mobile device. Just an idea. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be dumb about this, I don't pay any attention to number and unit issues, but at the moment, I have to. Who has a script to add nbsp's (non-breaking spaces) to at least dates? Sandy has asked for them in one of my FACs, and I'm not going to take 30 minutes to insert them by hand. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you all know that there are more credo reference accounts available for content contributors, 400 to be precise. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts for more information and for the eligibility criteria. I've left a note on the main talkpage at WT:MILHIST#More Credo Reference accounts available.
If anybody here thinks an account would be useful to them make sure you add your name to the list. Regards, Woody ( talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, the quarterly content review tallies and awards are now due. In the past this has been just focused on ACRs and PRs, but I think (per the above conversation) we are now tallying FAs as well. Does anyone feel like volunteering to do tally up the contributions? If someone wants to have a go, I am able to help hand out the awards once the tallies have been done (usually a couple of people help with the awards as it can be time consuming). For reference, a link to the last tally is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 34#Content review awards. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've tallied up the peer review and ACR contributions for January to end of March. Dank, if you can add the FAC contributions and total, we can then start handing out the awards. I think I've gotten all contributions, but my eyes glazed over halfway through (it took about four hours), so if I missed one or two, I do apologise. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Username | PR Jan–Mar 2011 |
ACR Jan–Mar 2011 |
FAC Jan–Mar 2011 |
Total Jan–Mar 2011 |
Anotherclown | 14 | 14 | ||
Auntieruth55 | 1 | 1 | ||
AustralianRupert | 4 | 31 | 1 | 36 |
bahamut0013 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Brad101 | 1 | 1 | ||
Buckshot06 | 1 | 1 | ||
Cla68 | 1 | 1 | ||
Cam | 1 | 1 | ||
Cs32en | 1 | 1 | ||
Cuprum17 | 1 | 1 | ||
D2306 | 2 | 2 | ||
Dana boomer | 2 | 2 | ||
Dank | 11 | 33 | 12 | 56 |
David Fuchs | 1 | 1 | ||
Demiurge1000 | 1 | 1 | ||
Ed! | 4 | 4 | ||
Fifelfoo | 3 | 14 | 3 | 20 |
Georgejdorner | 1 | 1 | ||
GregorB | 1 | 1 | ||
Hawkeye7 | 1 | 1 | ||
Hchc2009 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 |
HJ Mitchell | 1 | 1 | ||
Ian Rose | 9 | 5 | 14 | |
Intothatdarkness | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Jim Sweeney | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
Justice and Arbitration | 1 | 1 | ||
Kebeta | 1 | 1 | ||
Kirk | 6 | 3 | 9 | |
Kumioko | 1 | 1 | ||
Kyteto | 1 | 1 | ||
MisterBee1966 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
Nev1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Newm30 | 2 | 2 | ||
Nick-D | 7 | 13 | 4 | 24 |
Nikkimaria | 1 | 1 | ||
PINTofCARLING | 1 | 1 | ||
Protonk | 1 | 1 | ||
P. S. Burton | 1 | 1 | ||
Rumiton | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 |
Spinningspark | 1 | 1 | ||
Sturmvogel 66 | 6 | 3 | 9 | |
The Bushranger | 1 | 1 | ||
Ed | 1 | 1 | ||
The Land | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
TomStar81 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
UltimaRatio | 1 | 1 | ||
WikiCopter | 1 | 1 | ||
XavierGreen | 2 | 3 | 5 |
The award templates are here. In the past the awards have been handed out as follows: WikiChevrons to those completing 10 or more reviews, Content Review Medal to those with 3-9, two stripes for 2 reviews, and one stripe for 1 review. I will start handing out the chevrons now (but can someone else please award mine - it wouldn't be good form to award something to myself). Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has a bit of free time, the entries for the March 2011 backlog reduction drive need to be scored, and appropriate announcements made and awards handed out. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Username | Points |
MacMed | 80 |
Arcaad | 15 |
SMasters | 125 |
Wild Wolf | 65 |
Macarenses | 30 |
Wegates | 0 |
Kirill Lokshin | 40 |
AustralianRupert | 260 |
Kirk | 2910 |
PINTofCARLING | 90 |
Sturmvogel 66 | 4525 |
WikiCopter | 0 |
Is anyone able to start handing out the awards for this? I'm still working on the content review awards and need to take a break (she who must be obeyed is laying down the law). AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay this has been at peer review for a while without any new comments. It passed our A-class review last spring, and bombed recently at FAC. Since it's not getting peer reviews, I think I'd recommend some other review process before it heads back to FAC, either WP:PR or an A-class reassessment at WP:MHRA. Suggestions? - Dank ( push to talk) 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
After a long hiatus, a brutal second semester and enough writing to render most normal people inoperable, I am pleased to announce that I will be coming back in force to MilHist over the next 4-5 months (and hopefully beyond). My sincerest apologies for the sparse activity of the past four months; I hope I can make up for it by redoubling my efforts over the summer. Cam ( Chat)( Prof) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A rather sheepish hello all. Apologies for my rather sudden and total departure from the scene. Its quite a long story that I'd rather not go into (not in any way bad, just boring), but I'm pleased to say that the better half and I are now very happily settled in our new home, complete with a whole wall dedicated to books and another to music. I will slowly start reintegrating myself into the online world again soon, but I do expect it to be sporadic for a short while.
This is hardly a good approach for a coordinator though. I've spent the last few hours going through some of the discussions I've missed, and there do seem to be a lot. If everyone would prefer it I could resign, or I could carry on until the end of this term and do the best I can. Opinions either way are welcome! Ranger Steve Talk 09:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks folks, I'll keep plugging away! Ranger Steve Talk 09:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Since MBKbot is down, could we sign up for WP:AALERTS? It's a bit tedious to manually format and add and remove FACs from Template:WPMILHIST Announcements and WP:MHR (or is there an easier way?) - Dank ( push to talk) 21:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I asked a bunch of people, "Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful?" I got more replies than I was expecting, and I've posted the results at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2011/Editorials. Any massaging anyone wants to do would be great. I got interrupted halfway through posting questions; apologies to all the people I didn't get around to asking, and please, add your responses to the list so that we can take everyone's viewpoint into account. I'm thinking we'll have enough for this month's and next month's editorials ... maybe we can start off with a column for people who aren't at all familiar with FAC, perhaps giving them advice on how they can help some of the frequent reviewers with simple tasks, then graduate to more difficult reviewing tasks next month. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
... are long, even when Wikipedia is running fast, which isn't often. We have a lot more articles being reviewed at the same time than we used to, and I'm wondering if it's time to put A-class reviews on their own page, FACs on their own page, etc. (either instead of or in addition to our current review page). - Dank ( push to talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
On the Frank Buckles A-Class review, User:Brad101 is being insanely unhelpful, giving short answers as to what is wrong with the article, not being forthcoming with information, and generally not responding to posts. My first two posts were ignored essentially, and my third was a pure frustration post for his post to the A-Class review page that read simply: "Oppose Overlinked article per MoS. Good luck at FAC." I asked MuZemike what to do, as I unsure how to respond any other way to this user and really feel they are holding up the review by not being helpful or responding. Mike asked what the overlinking problem was and Brad101 responded back with this, saying it was his last post on the subject.
I am afraid with the oppose, it will keep the article from going to A-Class and on top of that, I feel I am going to have to go through this all over again on FAC. I have posted to others for this final opinions and have three "supports" (to the one "oppose"), the only ones left that haven't responded are GraemeLeggett and HJ (the latter can't respond due to computer problems). What should I do? -
While, as an Australian, I am driven largely by a desire to collect things which aren't actually mine (as far as I can tell, both sides of my family arrived in Australia after being convicted of stealing cutlery from their employers), I think that I should be at 0 points at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM/Eligibility tracking rather than 2 points as I've since had another ACR pass ( John Treloar (museum administrator)) and was awarded the Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves for this. Nick-D ( talk) 10:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Just noting that we're currently 3 articles away from this milestone... :) EyeSerene talk 11:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Its up on the main page, and will be a major pics of news for the next few weeks. I expect that there will be some major developments with US forces and the with the war on terror articles we have, so if a few good coordinators could make a point to keep those watchlisted for the next couple of weeks that would be awesome. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, at the moment I've got two problematic pages: The main US Navy SEAL page, where the information on Bin Laden's death is being reported at times in multiple sections, and at the page United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (aka SEAL team 6), where its being alleged that this unit was selected to storm the compound. The former is a simple matter of ensuring that the info stays in one section, but the latter is an issue because no one has said Seal Team 6 in any official capacity, and the source provided took me a web cite with a 404 error. I removed the section, but there is a good chance it will end up in the article again with questionable cites (unless something changes between now and when I wake up again). As to the death article, it looks like there is a push to get one of our conflict infoboxes into the article, but there is not yet enough info to justify adding one yet. That'll likely change in the next few hours though. In addition, there have been some efforts to add a death image to the article, but that keeps getting thrown out at the moment. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:28, 2 May 2011 (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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Backlog reduction drive. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If anyone hasn't seen it, a question about links to the task force discussion archives has been brought up at WT:MILHIST#Consolidation of talk pages; any suggestions for a neat way to deal with this would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
We've reached the point on our task force restructuring where we need to begin contacting other projects about task forces that are considered part of MILHIST but are held under other projects' space. These can be noted by looking at the table created by Kirill above - those marked with "not sure" are the projects we need to contact. Here is a proposed text for contacting these projects:
Greetings from the Military History WikiProject! In recent months, we have been working on transfering our project task forces into a standardized style, in order to make them more readable and user friendly, especially for new editors. We have also been redirecting the talk pages of those task forces to our main project talk page. The latter is partially because many of the posts on the task force pages are duplicates of those on the main talk page. It is also partially because the main talk page has many more watchers than the individual task force pages, and so discussions will have more input and queries will be less likely to become "lost" or otherwise go unanswered. You can see a sample of the new style and the talk page redirection at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force or many of our other task forces. We would like to do the same to [insert task force name here]. However, as this is located at [enter location], which is part of this project's space, we would like to make sure there is no objection to us changing the style or redirecting the talk page. We would also be willing to move the task force into our project's space, with a redirect from your project's space, if that is preferable. [signature], on behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject.
Please feel free to tweak, add, delete or otherwise change as you see fit. Once we have this where we like it, it needs to be posted to the main talk page of the half dozen or so projects affected and any resulting discussion monitored. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 03:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we can proceed with this now. None of the other projects has raised objections; comments at the Film and Middle Ages projects suggested moving the TF pages into our space, although I'm not sure how strongly anyone there feels about the matter. Thoughts on how we should move forward? Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Task force | Page restructured | Talk page redirected | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Korean military history | Done | Done | |
Military biography | Done | Done | |
War films | Done | Done | Open to moving page to location within MILHIST - Done |
Crusades | Done | Done | Open to moving page to location within MILHIST - Done |
Great work! Thanks to all those who made this happen; sorry I wasn't much help. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Following the completion of the recent arbitration case (decision here for those who haven't seen; all findings concerned Communicat ( talk · contribs) who has since stated that he or she intends to leave Wikipedia in protest), I'm planning to reduce my involvement in the World War II article as it's been eating up a lot of my editing time. I became involved in this article during my time as a coordinator, and I think that it's important that some of this project's coordinators continue to keep a watching brief on it as for some reason it's a magnet for POV pushers and cranks. On the flip side, it can be a really fun article to work on - due to its very high profile and need to maintain it at GA standard its regular editors are very collegial and knowledgeable. Nick-D ( talk) 10:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This would be a really good time for uninvolved editors to keep an eye on the article and it's talk page - there's been a sudden influx of editors involved with some of the Eastern European arbitration cases, all discussing Eastern Europe. I can't see any problems so far, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Nick-D ( talk) 07:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a template similar to {{ Cent}} that could list the ongoing SST discussions and other large scale discussions that relate to the project? I know we have the main milhist page which lists open tasks and to a lesser extent general discussions, but it seems to me that the SST discussions are getting low participation, and I think if we had a template like the milhist review alerts one that people could park in their userspace that listed these matters we could get some additional feedback in these matters. As a bonus, we could list major discussions of note in such a template as well (such as the proposed drive) to get people's attention. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I may have something workable here:
I'd appreciate any comments on either the overall approach or the specifics of the technical setup, as well as help with testing all of this to make sure it works as expected. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone care which endsection the portal link is in when there's no "See also" section? WP:LAYOUT and WP:PORTAL only say it should be in the "See also" section, and don't say what to do when there isn't one. If there's no such section, Sandy has objected for years at FAC if the portal link isn't in the top endsection. I'll keep an eye on this if no one cares. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Funny you would bring this up because I made mention of this (and other portal matters) and my suggestions on some the problematic elements of the current portal scheme a full month ago and at the time no one seemed all that interested in the matter. Despite moving the discussion to the strategy center and leaving a link here where the thread originated the only reply I got was from Kirill. Just some food for thought. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get more copy editors involved in our A-class review. That's why I'm referring to specific sections of the checklist after some of my comments ... it's code for "I think it's reasonable to ask you to do better with this in the future ... there are only (currently) 11 points in the checklist, and they're not trivial to learn but they're not that hard either." In theory, I'll start opposing if I don't see improvement over time, not to enshrine myself as the Big Daddy of A-class review, but to even out the workload and make A-class a more attractive place for competent copy editors to work. The checklist is aimed at those things that are either hard for a copy editor to fix without your input ( WP:MHCL#clarity, WP:MHCL#conciseness) or tedious to fix (for example, simple comma errors repeated many times in the same article, or using different names for the same thing throughout an article). If I leave a note on the A-class page but don't follow it with a checklist point, I'm making a judgment call that that's not something copy editors will expect you to know, I'm just giving my rationale in case I'm wrong and in case writers or copy editors want to discuss the point. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well ... just like that, we've got a test case; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manhattan Project. Consider this a request for dispute resolution. This may be the age-old non-American-English vs. AmEng thing ... I need to give a little background here. In the 1970s, any American writer who carefully followed style guides of the time wasn't taken seriously; it was understood that in order to be hip, you had to break the rules, and break them well. That was the culture, and the style guides were also to blame ... like many products of academia, they were stuffy and out of touch. And of course, American English itself was hopelessly fragmented; different writers wrote for completely different reasons for completely different readerships. I don't recall that anyone at the time expected any of this to change, and my sense is that all of that is still true to some extent for BritEng style guides. But over time, a miracle happened ... publishers, copy editors and writers largely decided to start valuing conformity over individualism, in the interest of "sounding professional". Stuffy academics were ignored. And style guides in general, and in particular Chicago, got much, much better at describing the language as it's actually written by professionals. There are still specific style guides for specific purposes, but 99% of what's in the latest edition of Chicago isn't being actively opposed by anyone in the industry (that I can see from a quick tour of relevant blogs) ... in fact, they're all purring over it, even writers who are required to follow a different style guide.
I've seen this cultural divide on Wikipedia for years, including in our style guidelines themselves. AmEng writers, on average, tend to be more positive on the idea that we can and should just look things up or sample sources and figure it out. NonAmEng (I don't want to single the Brits out here) editors are more likely to shout, "Ignore the fussy copy editors! Do whatever looks good to you!" NonAmEng editors are also the ones who are more likely to believe that we can make it work if our style guidelines are different than current American style guides; Americans who have some professional experience are more likely to believe that most style issues are more or less settled and Wikipedians aren't in a position to change them. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Since we've now reached (and immediately passed!) the 500 FA milestone mark, two questions occur to me:
Comments would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
750 would be reasonable, I think; it's likely to take another year or two to reach that number, in any case.
Has anyone contacted the Signpost about this yet, incidentally? Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost doesn't seem to have gone with this, which is unfortunate. In any case, as we're now setting up for the March drive, I've gone ahead and set the next FA target to 750 per the discussion above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Since we're almost done with the task force restructuring work—the last four task forces are just waiting on comments from the other parent projects, at this point—I think we can now deal with the old working group system. We currently have 11 working groups, most of which are terminally inactive; I would propose that we deal with them as follows:
Working group | Action to be taken | Done? |
---|---|---|
Airborne warfare | Absorb into aviation TF/ WWII TF | Done |
Battle of Jutland | Move to incubator or absorb into WP:OMT | Done |
Black projects | Move to incubator | Done |
Iraq War | Absorb into US TF | Done |
Italian Wars | Move to incubator | Done |
Japanese swords | Absorb into Japanese TF | Done |
Large cruiser classes | Absorb into maritime TF | Done |
Militias | Absorb into US TF | Done |
Napoleonic fiction | Move to incubator | Done |
Paraguay | Absorb into South American TF | Done |
Submarine | Move to incubator | Done |
Any comments on the overall approach or the individual proposals would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, folks, I've not been around much recently, but hopefully my name will still look vaguely familiar to one or two of the coords. I recently raised an issue on the main WT:MILHIST, relating to problems at George S. Patton and the Battle of Cambrai (1917). Now it seems there are quite a few sources out there that say that Patton had some sort of involvement at Cambrai, though apaprently his own papers make no mention of this, and the most comprehensive biog is pretty clear he wasn't there. To some extent this kicked off as a "ha-ha look at hopeless Wikipedia and the rubbish in it" on various WWI related forums, and one member dived in to try and correct things (came across this via the Great War Forum). Now obviously he was inexperienced and made some fairly typical newbie mistakes, but I don't think the attitude of members here was particularly great. Now, a lot of the people on these forums are incredibly knowledgeable, and usually generous with that knowledge (and several are published authors in their own right). At the moment, most don't have a particularly high opinion of Wikipedia, and as a result of this episode are having those prejudices reinforced, but ti seems to me taht there's an opportunity to win some of these guys over by showing that the process can work, if you understand how it works, and given a bit of help and encouragement. David Underdown ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just been informed that due to the incompetence of the El Paso Electric Company we are now in stage 2 mandatory water restrictions as a result of the blizzard that passed through. If the water service can not be restored fully in the next two weeks than I may have no choice but to evacuate the city and seek shelter with relatives elsewhere. God willing it doesn't come to that, but in the event it does I wanted to let you all know about it in advance so you would not wonder where I've been. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Update: after 48 grueling hours of uncertainty, the Water Utility has reported that they have managed to raise most of the local reservoir water levels to a point where the city has elected to declare an end to the water shortage emergency; however, we've another winter storm knocking on our door out here, and with the electric grid still not 100% restored and the Water and Gas companies both reeling from the recent blizzard this second wave, if it impacts us as hard as the first one, could result in similar damage and similar restrictions. I should know by Friday if I am going to have to take shelter elsewhere or whether I'll be able to remain here in the city. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, Kumioko ( talk · contribs) got dragged into a messy ANI situation over AWB usage and has opted to retire from Wikipedia altogether. I have no other details to report at the moment, save that I sent him an e-mail urging him to reconsider. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The preparations for the drive are just about complete, but there are still a couple of matters that could use more input; if anyone has a bit of free time, please stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Starting the drive and comment. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the various discussions taking place regarding collaborations with museums and other external entities (first the GLAM partnership with the National Maritime Museum, and now the discussion about establishing an ambassador program to the US military), would it be worthwhile to revive the old outreach department as a place to host these sorts of external-facing efforts (or links to them, in the case of efforts located outside our project space)? Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The current ACM nomination for Sturmvogel 66 has been sitting for a few days now, and could use a few more comments. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a silly question but it's one I've been meaning to ask for a while: is there a reason we use such a complicated way of recording diffs on the above page? EyeSerene talk 08:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
For clarification, I mean why this:
(Awarded [{{fullurl:User_talk:MBK004|diff=194884683&oldid=194883213}} February 2008])
rather than this:
(Awarded [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/?title=User_talk:MBK004&diff=194884683&oldid=194883213 January 2009])
I'd like to suggest counting FAC reviews along with the peer reviews and A-class reviews in the next quarterly tallies and awards. My feeling is that whether we want to encourage reviews at FAC depends entirely on how things are going at FAC ... and things are going pretty well. An objection that's raised from time to time at WT:FAC is that incentives to review result in drive-by reviews, but that doesn't seem like a problem for our wikiproject; no one is racking up skimpy reviews at peer review or A-class just to try to win a contest, so I don't see why they'd suddenly start doing that at FAC (and anyway, I'll notice if they do). Encouraging people to review at FAC may mean that those people get more experienced and more comfortable with nominating their A-class articles for FAC. FAC reviews can be as limited or as expansive as you like; I have a standard disclaimer on what I cover, and I encourage others to do the same, so that the FAC delegates will know what your "support" vote means. - Dank ( push to talk) 05:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize in advance, because this is one of those "Do as I say not as I do" things ... I only do copyediting, and rarely check sources, at our A-class review. Nevertheless: I'd like to ask reviewers to be more careful in light of one current FAC and another recent one. I want to use the words "copyright" and "plagiarism" carefully, because a few people have left the project after the words were thrown around carelessly. Technically, you have committed "copyright infringement" only at the point where a court says you've committed copyright infringement; everyone's guesses about what a court would or wouldn't say if they heard the case are just that, guesses. But I think everyone around here would agree that the last 3 points Cunard makes in the current FAC are what we call a copyright problem: they all point to text that's identical or very similar to 2 copyrighted sources and one CC-BY-SA-NC (noncommercial) source. Some of the text changed a lot since the A-class review of that article 10 months ago, and I'm not assigning any blame to the nominator or reviewers. (Speaking of which ... should we add advice to A-class nominators that if significant changes are made to an article that passes A-class, they may want to run it through peer review again to address the changes before taking it to FAC?) I'm also happy to point out that this is the first time I've seen this in a MILHIST FAC ... and hopefully it won't happen again.
The other FAC I linked above didn't have any copyright problems, because the sources were all public domain. The problem was that text lifted word-for-word from the PD sources wasn't cited to those sources, it was cited to different sources. The nominator said that he had been told that was okay ... and if anyone has been saying that, please don't. Taking something word-for-word from one text, even a PD text, and citing it to somewhere else has at least the appearance of plagiarism. Again, I think we can be proud of our record on this at FAC ... I've only seen it happen this once.
Check out the "In the news" section of today's WP:Signpost ... it's got several accusations of copyright infringement and plagiarism on Wikipedia, and these are hot-button issues. Be afraid. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
First I want to thank the team here for bringing out "The Bugle" every month. I am not sure if one of you has noticed this too, but the current format is practically unreadable on a mobile device such as the iPhone. Only when you switch the viewing mode to its native Wikipedia view can you read it. I think the problem is with the table to the right of the "The Bugle" image. The mobile site tends to serialize images and text which doesn't seem to work correctly here. Moving forward I want to suggest that it might be good practice to include reviewing articles for A-Class for its readability from a mobile device. Just an idea. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be dumb about this, I don't pay any attention to number and unit issues, but at the moment, I have to. Who has a script to add nbsp's (non-breaking spaces) to at least dates? Sandy has asked for them in one of my FACs, and I'm not going to take 30 minutes to insert them by hand. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you all know that there are more credo reference accounts available for content contributors, 400 to be precise. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts for more information and for the eligibility criteria. I've left a note on the main talkpage at WT:MILHIST#More Credo Reference accounts available.
If anybody here thinks an account would be useful to them make sure you add your name to the list. Regards, Woody ( talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, the quarterly content review tallies and awards are now due. In the past this has been just focused on ACRs and PRs, but I think (per the above conversation) we are now tallying FAs as well. Does anyone feel like volunteering to do tally up the contributions? If someone wants to have a go, I am able to help hand out the awards once the tallies have been done (usually a couple of people help with the awards as it can be time consuming). For reference, a link to the last tally is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 34#Content review awards. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've tallied up the peer review and ACR contributions for January to end of March. Dank, if you can add the FAC contributions and total, we can then start handing out the awards. I think I've gotten all contributions, but my eyes glazed over halfway through (it took about four hours), so if I missed one or two, I do apologise. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Username | PR Jan–Mar 2011 |
ACR Jan–Mar 2011 |
FAC Jan–Mar 2011 |
Total Jan–Mar 2011 |
Anotherclown | 14 | 14 | ||
Auntieruth55 | 1 | 1 | ||
AustralianRupert | 4 | 31 | 1 | 36 |
bahamut0013 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Brad101 | 1 | 1 | ||
Buckshot06 | 1 | 1 | ||
Cla68 | 1 | 1 | ||
Cam | 1 | 1 | ||
Cs32en | 1 | 1 | ||
Cuprum17 | 1 | 1 | ||
D2306 | 2 | 2 | ||
Dana boomer | 2 | 2 | ||
Dank | 11 | 33 | 12 | 56 |
David Fuchs | 1 | 1 | ||
Demiurge1000 | 1 | 1 | ||
Ed! | 4 | 4 | ||
Fifelfoo | 3 | 14 | 3 | 20 |
Georgejdorner | 1 | 1 | ||
GregorB | 1 | 1 | ||
Hawkeye7 | 1 | 1 | ||
Hchc2009 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 |
HJ Mitchell | 1 | 1 | ||
Ian Rose | 9 | 5 | 14 | |
Intothatdarkness | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Jim Sweeney | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
Justice and Arbitration | 1 | 1 | ||
Kebeta | 1 | 1 | ||
Kirk | 6 | 3 | 9 | |
Kumioko | 1 | 1 | ||
Kyteto | 1 | 1 | ||
MisterBee1966 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
Nev1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Newm30 | 2 | 2 | ||
Nick-D | 7 | 13 | 4 | 24 |
Nikkimaria | 1 | 1 | ||
PINTofCARLING | 1 | 1 | ||
Protonk | 1 | 1 | ||
P. S. Burton | 1 | 1 | ||
Rumiton | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 |
Spinningspark | 1 | 1 | ||
Sturmvogel 66 | 6 | 3 | 9 | |
The Bushranger | 1 | 1 | ||
Ed | 1 | 1 | ||
The Land | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
TomStar81 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
UltimaRatio | 1 | 1 | ||
WikiCopter | 1 | 1 | ||
XavierGreen | 2 | 3 | 5 |
The award templates are here. In the past the awards have been handed out as follows: WikiChevrons to those completing 10 or more reviews, Content Review Medal to those with 3-9, two stripes for 2 reviews, and one stripe for 1 review. I will start handing out the chevrons now (but can someone else please award mine - it wouldn't be good form to award something to myself). Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has a bit of free time, the entries for the March 2011 backlog reduction drive need to be scored, and appropriate announcements made and awards handed out. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Username | Points |
MacMed | 80 |
Arcaad | 15 |
SMasters | 125 |
Wild Wolf | 65 |
Macarenses | 30 |
Wegates | 0 |
Kirill Lokshin | 40 |
AustralianRupert | 260 |
Kirk | 2910 |
PINTofCARLING | 90 |
Sturmvogel 66 | 4525 |
WikiCopter | 0 |
Is anyone able to start handing out the awards for this? I'm still working on the content review awards and need to take a break (she who must be obeyed is laying down the law). AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay this has been at peer review for a while without any new comments. It passed our A-class review last spring, and bombed recently at FAC. Since it's not getting peer reviews, I think I'd recommend some other review process before it heads back to FAC, either WP:PR or an A-class reassessment at WP:MHRA. Suggestions? - Dank ( push to talk) 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
After a long hiatus, a brutal second semester and enough writing to render most normal people inoperable, I am pleased to announce that I will be coming back in force to MilHist over the next 4-5 months (and hopefully beyond). My sincerest apologies for the sparse activity of the past four months; I hope I can make up for it by redoubling my efforts over the summer. Cam ( Chat)( Prof) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A rather sheepish hello all. Apologies for my rather sudden and total departure from the scene. Its quite a long story that I'd rather not go into (not in any way bad, just boring), but I'm pleased to say that the better half and I are now very happily settled in our new home, complete with a whole wall dedicated to books and another to music. I will slowly start reintegrating myself into the online world again soon, but I do expect it to be sporadic for a short while.
This is hardly a good approach for a coordinator though. I've spent the last few hours going through some of the discussions I've missed, and there do seem to be a lot. If everyone would prefer it I could resign, or I could carry on until the end of this term and do the best I can. Opinions either way are welcome! Ranger Steve Talk 09:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks folks, I'll keep plugging away! Ranger Steve Talk 09:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Since MBKbot is down, could we sign up for WP:AALERTS? It's a bit tedious to manually format and add and remove FACs from Template:WPMILHIST Announcements and WP:MHR (or is there an easier way?) - Dank ( push to talk) 21:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I asked a bunch of people, "Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful?" I got more replies than I was expecting, and I've posted the results at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2011/Editorials. Any massaging anyone wants to do would be great. I got interrupted halfway through posting questions; apologies to all the people I didn't get around to asking, and please, add your responses to the list so that we can take everyone's viewpoint into account. I'm thinking we'll have enough for this month's and next month's editorials ... maybe we can start off with a column for people who aren't at all familiar with FAC, perhaps giving them advice on how they can help some of the frequent reviewers with simple tasks, then graduate to more difficult reviewing tasks next month. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
... are long, even when Wikipedia is running fast, which isn't often. We have a lot more articles being reviewed at the same time than we used to, and I'm wondering if it's time to put A-class reviews on their own page, FACs on their own page, etc. (either instead of or in addition to our current review page). - Dank ( push to talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
On the Frank Buckles A-Class review, User:Brad101 is being insanely unhelpful, giving short answers as to what is wrong with the article, not being forthcoming with information, and generally not responding to posts. My first two posts were ignored essentially, and my third was a pure frustration post for his post to the A-Class review page that read simply: "Oppose Overlinked article per MoS. Good luck at FAC." I asked MuZemike what to do, as I unsure how to respond any other way to this user and really feel they are holding up the review by not being helpful or responding. Mike asked what the overlinking problem was and Brad101 responded back with this, saying it was his last post on the subject.
I am afraid with the oppose, it will keep the article from going to A-Class and on top of that, I feel I am going to have to go through this all over again on FAC. I have posted to others for this final opinions and have three "supports" (to the one "oppose"), the only ones left that haven't responded are GraemeLeggett and HJ (the latter can't respond due to computer problems). What should I do? -
While, as an Australian, I am driven largely by a desire to collect things which aren't actually mine (as far as I can tell, both sides of my family arrived in Australia after being convicted of stealing cutlery from their employers), I think that I should be at 0 points at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM/Eligibility tracking rather than 2 points as I've since had another ACR pass ( John Treloar (museum administrator)) and was awarded the Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves for this. Nick-D ( talk) 10:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Just noting that we're currently 3 articles away from this milestone... :) EyeSerene talk 11:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Its up on the main page, and will be a major pics of news for the next few weeks. I expect that there will be some major developments with US forces and the with the war on terror articles we have, so if a few good coordinators could make a point to keep those watchlisted for the next couple of weeks that would be awesome. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, at the moment I've got two problematic pages: The main US Navy SEAL page, where the information on Bin Laden's death is being reported at times in multiple sections, and at the page United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (aka SEAL team 6), where its being alleged that this unit was selected to storm the compound. The former is a simple matter of ensuring that the info stays in one section, but the latter is an issue because no one has said Seal Team 6 in any official capacity, and the source provided took me a web cite with a 404 error. I removed the section, but there is a good chance it will end up in the article again with questionable cites (unless something changes between now and when I wake up again). As to the death article, it looks like there is a push to get one of our conflict infoboxes into the article, but there is not yet enough info to justify adding one yet. That'll likely change in the next few hours though. In addition, there have been some efforts to add a death image to the article, but that keeps getting thrown out at the moment. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)