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 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Hi, could someone please close the three ACRs listed above? I'm involved in all three (though, if no-one complains, I could close the first as my vote wasn't crucial to making up the numbers). Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 10:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that I'll be travelling to the US during September and the first half of October, and will likely be checking in only occasionally. I should be able to do my part on this month's Bugle, and October's, while Nick has kindly offered to assist Ed with the September issue during my absence that month. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There's been some unpleasantness recently around TFA. The part that is most likely to be relevant to Milhist is that some are claiming that the reviewers there operate semi-autonomously, setting different standards and making different requests than are generally made during FAC. I can only speak concerning prose, myself, and I haven't noticed any prose requests that seem like a problem. Have requests concerning references, infoboxes, WP:ACCESS, or anything else been a problem for military history articles at TFA? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Any suggestions on ways to get articles through all the review processes faster? Reviews are sporadic, and we're losing editors, or at least losing their attention. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I know I've got a nerve coming here and moaning about a backlog considering I've just returned from a spell of minimal activity on WP, but the A-Class Medal nominations could do with the attention of a few coords. One is ready to be awarded and another three are in need of votes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
All the medals have now been awarded. As a friendly reminder, each nomination only needs three coordinators to verify that it's good to go, so if you're the fourth coordinator to come along, please award the medal rather than add another support ;) (as far as I'm aware, nominators can also award the medals once the nomination has been verified). Nick-D ( talk) 11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Ian and I have finally tallied up the points, updated the scoreboard, and I've awarded the second-place finisher his barnstar, but I'd be obliged if someone could give the winner his trinket.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Since we're getting close to that time of year again: what's our election timetable for this year? We've bounced between three-week (one week for nominations and two for voting, or two for nominations and one for voting) and four-week (two weeks for nominations and two for voting) arrangements, and I can't recall what the consensus regarding the most effective arrangement was the last time around. Kirill [talk] 00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of elections, I've struggled with when to vote and what to say in all the coord elections. Since we don't generally vote for ourselves, if I hold off voting till the end, that has the effect of artificially raising my vote total by one during most of the election, and doesn't offer the early support that might be reassuring for new candidates. If I vote early but don't say anything about what I think or feel about the candidates, that could easily come across as cold; I've worked with some of you for years. But if project leaders all vote early and speak candidly, all that mutual (and deserved) admiration could have the unintended consequence of intimidating outsiders, which would be a problem, since we could really use more help. What I'm going to try this year is giving out barnstars to all my long-time friends and coworkers who sign up, and then when voting starts, I'll just offer "support", and leave it at that. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Just as an observation, I had asked some months back if Parsecboy had interest in being named a Coordinator Emeritus, and he said he was open to the idea. If anyone on the current tranche feels that we could use another Coordinator Emeritus than we can add a motion to that effect during this election. I'm indifferent to the idea, I just wanted that to be made known here ahead of the actual election in case anyone wanted to run with it. On an unrelated note, should we delegate coordinators to the Special Projects like we do with the Task Forces? OMT is by far the busiest of the four we currently have running, but since the special projects do cover a large swath of articles I thought it might be worth raising the idea here to test the waters for it. Finally, you guys may want to ping users who you think would be good coordinators and encourage them to run, seeing as how Wikiactivity has been down across the board for the last few years (or so it surely feels like). TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit, I have doubts regarding Ed17's faith in the Bugle. Given that these stats show only 117 views of the Bugle main page, as there was no mention of the elections in the maildrop itself, and given that currently coords are hardly jumping at the chance to indicate their position regarding standing again, I don't see us getting 14 coords this term.. which could mean another weak year in terms of activity and overall advancement of the project. I think this thing needs to be sent out sooner, and not rely on late entries.. worst case does have a downside - less votes means the resulting Lead Coord had an unfair advantage and that does not inspire confidence in a team effort. I personally don't like the way this election is being coordinated this year, it's not transparent, and too cloak and dagger by only being hinted at on a couple of internal pages. I'd like to see more public effort so that we can reach a wider range of potential candidates and voters.. nothing against this terms coords, but overall, it has been a fairly uninspiring year, a couple of coords dropped out, most coords have drifted away from regular input.. fresh blood is required. What with so much focus on OMT, I often feel the rest of MilHist is neglected.. most special projects and task-forces are quite literally dead - their pages and portals are rarely updated. We need to attract members covering a wider areas of topics. I honestly don't think just having the same coords will result in that any time soon. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 11:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a pointer to a discussion. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day, as Ian is travelling at the moment, he might be too busy to finalise this month's contest. I've made a start by initialising the table for this month, and verified a few entries. Is anyone able to finish the job? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, just a friendly reminder, one of the co-ord responsibilities is to welcome new members of the project. This important to try to get members actively involved in all aspects of the project. While it is difficult to have oversight of who considers themselves a part of Milhist and who doesn't, in the past co-ords have formally welcomed members shortly after the member signs up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active. This has been done by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}} to the newly signed up member's talk page. In the past, I had the Active member's page on my watchlist and I would add the welcome when a new member signed up. I think that there have been a number of new project members recently who may have missed this welcome. I know this sounds rich coming from me as I took a break from co-ord duties last year. As pennance, I've welcomed some of the recent additions. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Every New Years I have an installment of this: User:AustralianRupert/New Year Honours List, which is my attempt at recognising the broad contributions of editors in the Milhist sphere. I tend to try to mix my awards, giving some to those that are "unsung" in order to encourage further involvement as well as awarding those upon whose contributions we rely significantly. This is very subjective and isn't quite the same thing as welcoming new talent, but I wonder if the idea could be developed further. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone object to me adding the following edit notice to the election page? Its intended to help keep the tally up to date. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Note:
When you have finished voting for the candidates please update the vote tally to reflect the current number of votes each candidate has so we can keep the numbers in the table current. You can get to the tally table by clicking
here. |
Not a particularly helpful title I know, but I just wanted to get my suggestion in before the end of the co-ordinator elections because I don't want it caught up in that. I don't know if it's been tried before, but I feel the membership of MILHIST, and potentially the number of reviewers could be strengthened by identifying the nominators of current Good Articles and suggesting they nominate the article for A-class, join the project, solicit feedback, or a combination of the above. Obviously the main focus would be on nominators who are not already very active in the project, but it need not be totally that. I did a rough poll of 5 "warfare" GAs. Their nominators were:
So that's a very small number I've had the time to check out, but there seems like there might be enough potential there even if it is one-in-five or so. (5 was hardly enough to gauge the overall number, but seems about right.) Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. Please accept my sincere apologies for dropping so completely off the radar for so long, to the point where I've even missed the coord election. I've been so insanely busy that the days and weeks have just slipped by without my realising how quickly it was all going. My RL job is expanding to the point where I could do with an extra day (or possibly two) in the week, and my kids have reached that age where moving away from home and higher education have eaten up what little free time I've had. However, that doesn't excuse me not making the time to post something here and again I apologise for that. Clearly I'm not standing for re-election as a coord (and wouldn't have been if I had remembered about the election in time). I do hate leaving unfinished jobs behind me though, so I'd very much appreciate it if the standing coords wouldn't mind me finally tinkering with the Academy content... if I ever get the time. If not, no worries.
The last six months have shown me that the best laid plans of mice and men etc, but I dearly hope I'm only saying au revoir and not adieu. It's been an immense pleasure and privilege serving Milhist with you all.
Best regards, EyeSerene talk 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, with only about four days to go in the co-ord election and a relatively low turn out, what do people think about sending out a reminder about the election? Unless a few more people stop in to vote, we will have a fairly small tranche. There are probably another four or five nominees that are within striking distance of qualifying and it would make the job of being a co-ord a lot easier if we were to have a full compliment of 15. Of course, I don't want this to be seen as asking for votes myself, so I would be more than happy if those who respond to this don't vote for me. I just think we have a number of good candidates who need some support to get over the line so that they can keep on helping the project. What does everyone think? AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that only 46 people have edited the election page, bearing in mind how many of those are current coords and new candidates, it seems a piss-poor turnout from our " ~1000 members".. I think another reminder would be worthwhile, asap, as well as extension to 23:59 of 30 September, if that seems prudent for busy editors who don't get much time online mid-week. If 46 represents the current "active interest" in the project, I don't hold much hope for activity and progression next year.. it's hard to remain optimistic with 46/1171 bothering to spend just 2 minutes getting involved in voting, so you have to wonder why so few don't want to lend their weight to tagging, reviews, backlogs, and all the other things that get brought up as holding the project back from developing. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
At the moment we have 12 on over 20 votes, with a thirteenth on 18. Looking back at the history finding 15 co-ords is no more difficult now that it was in 2008 (in September, only 13 people stood). Only 2010 elections would have produced 15 viable candidates, and even then only just. of 13 would seem a perfectly feasible number, with any others co-opted if found to be necessary. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Are we definitely extending this until 23:59 30 September? If so I'll adjust the heading on the vote page to indicate this. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 23:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
As a note (mainly for the benefit of Dank and AustralianRupert), I've just updated
This user is the lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. |
to reflect that there's now more than one lead coordinator (though on the 4-months on model we've suggested, I guess there'll also be a senior lead coordinator!). Hopefully this is OK. Nick-D ( talk) 11:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This is going to require an admin, due to Template:WPMILHIST being edit-protected.
Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles is currently picking up articles with words that include "list" in them, so http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:WikiProject_Military_history&action=edit needs amending to make sure only the word "list" is filtered to prevent is mistakenly listing other articles in the backlog, as they can't be manually removed being part of the template.
I can see the block that needs adjusting, it's the very last bit in the banner's code:
{{#ifexist:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}||{{#ifeq:{{WPMILHIST/Class|class={{{class|}}} |list={{{list|}}} |A-Class={{{A-Class|}}} |B-Class-1={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-1|}}}|{{{B-1|}}}|{{{B1|}}}|{{{b-1|}}}|{{{b1|}}}}} |B-Class-2={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-2|}}}|{{{B-2|}}}|{{{B2|}}}|{{{b-2|}}}|{{{b2|}}}}} |B-Class-3={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-3|}}}|{{{B-3|}}}|{{{B3|}}}|{{{b-3|}}}|{{{b3|}}}}} |B-Class-4={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-4|}}}|{{{B-4|}}}|{{{B4|}}}|{{{b-4|}}}|{{{b4|}}}}} |B-Class-5={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-5|}}}|{{{B-5|}}}|{{{B5|}}}|{{{b-5|}}}|{{{b5|}}}}}}}|IMG||[[Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{padleft:|4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}|list|{{#ifeq:{{WPMILHIST/YesNo|{{{list|}}}}}|yes||[[Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>
If any admin knows how to correct this, it would get rid of this minor bug.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, now that the election is concluded, I would like to outline a few ideas that I have for the coming year. I would also like to invite other co-ords and any other interested members to also take the opportunity to outline any ideas that they have at this time.
A couple of the ideas that I would like to discuss at this point are:
Does anyone have any thoughts on these? AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Just going to toss my ensemble of ideas below, straight from my sandbox.. anyone feels like commenting on any of them, go ahead. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Project calendar
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ok so I'm a bit of a dummy. I closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (F) today but mucked a couple of things up. As a result I think it might be helpful if we consider rewording the Academy article on this a liite - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review.
Thoughts? Anotherclown ( talk) 07:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
People are asking above about coord jobs, one of which is keeping our announcements template updated ... it automagically updates a number of other widely used templates, including Template:WPMILHIST Review alerts. To make November's Bugle page that lists A-class and Featured promotions easier to update, if you remove the listing for a promoted Featured page from Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, please either say in the edit summary what the page was promoted to, or list at least the name of the article yourself at the proper Bugle page, so we won't miss it in the next edition. Thanks. (Edit summaries are preferred, including for A-class, because some people watchlist the template to keep up with nominations and promotions.) - Dank ( push to talk) 14:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, I've initialised the table for October's contest and started verifying the entries for September. As it is late here, I'm heading to bed. If one of the co-ords on the other side of the world are free, would you mind finishing the verification? The link is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest. Once the scores are verified, the scores need to be tallied, the October Bugle needs to be updated and awards handed out. I don't mind mind doing the tallying, Bugle and awarding, but if someone can help with verification, that would be great. (Particuarly my entries as I can't verify my own).
On a side note, I would like to propose removing the scoreboard from the monthly contest. My reasoning is that there is no real end state that we are working to for the contest, so a scoreboard doesn't really make sense. If we were to change it to a scoreboard that ran for a set period (say a quarter or a year) with the editor with the most points at the end of the period receiving something, then it would probably make sense, but currently all it serves is to add more work for the tallying co-ord. That's just my opinion, does anyone have any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
BTW I've awarded ARs Wikichevrons now. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, if I am not mistaken, the quarterly review tallies are due. Is anyone in a position to start going through the related PR, ACR and FACs for the Jul, Aug & Sep period? If not, I might be able to take a look on Friday night. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikki and Rupert. Not entirely relevant, but I'm going to be too busy this month to keep an eye on the comings and goings at FAC. If I've supported an article on prose at A-class and I see from our announcements template that it's at FAC, I'll have a look. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that this request for mediation might benefit from input from other coordinators who are familiar with the kind of disputes which spring up over infoboxes. The editors there are at risk of trying to reinvent the wheel, when this is the same kind of issue which has been discussed many times previously ;) Nick-D ( talk) 03:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a way forward for this hotly debated page which has attracted a large number of SPAs and sockpuppets. Would somebody (Kirill, can you spare five minutes?) take a quick look at what I'm doing and give me any suggestions/thoughts, either here or on my talkpage? Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we're debating reforms above, but here's an idea for a bold step in a new direction: a Wikimedia Thematic Organization (one of the affiliation models). As described on the linked page, WTOs are "independent organizations founded to support and promote the Wikimedia projects within a specified focal area." More simply speaking, WTOs are similar in mission to the geographically defined chapters, but are instead defined by subject.
There is precedent for an English-language WikiProject to organize like this – see Medicine WikiProject and the WTO Wikimedia Medicine, which are currently applying to be the first thematic organization. In my opinion, forming a thematic organization is the next logical step for us: it would allow us to have a greater voice in the Wikimedia movement; to receive and give grants to support the development of military history on Wikipedia, and not just in English; an area to collaborate with similarly minded editors in other languages, which we'll have to to anyway if we form this; and give us an 'official' organization from which we could liaison with museums, organizations, and government institutions. I'm very interested in hearing your opinions before possibly presenting this to the Milhist members as a whole. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Another angle: last week's News and Notes mentioned Sue's planned presentation at the October WMF board meeting; it's mainly about shifting money around. For instance, it sounds like they're going to be giving less money to chapters: "The core purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation is [no longer] to ensure the chapters grow and develop". I'm wondering if this is a time when they're regretting some of their expenditures, and looking for new subgroups of WPians to invest in. If that's the case, then we probably don't want to be last in line ... I don't know if this would be an especially good time to ask them for money, but if it is, we should ask. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if a few coordinators could contribute to this Signpost interview (I can't, for obvious reasons). Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:24, 22 October 2012 (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 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Hi, could someone please close the three ACRs listed above? I'm involved in all three (though, if no-one complains, I could close the first as my vote wasn't crucial to making up the numbers). Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 10:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that I'll be travelling to the US during September and the first half of October, and will likely be checking in only occasionally. I should be able to do my part on this month's Bugle, and October's, while Nick has kindly offered to assist Ed with the September issue during my absence that month. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There's been some unpleasantness recently around TFA. The part that is most likely to be relevant to Milhist is that some are claiming that the reviewers there operate semi-autonomously, setting different standards and making different requests than are generally made during FAC. I can only speak concerning prose, myself, and I haven't noticed any prose requests that seem like a problem. Have requests concerning references, infoboxes, WP:ACCESS, or anything else been a problem for military history articles at TFA? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Any suggestions on ways to get articles through all the review processes faster? Reviews are sporadic, and we're losing editors, or at least losing their attention. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I know I've got a nerve coming here and moaning about a backlog considering I've just returned from a spell of minimal activity on WP, but the A-Class Medal nominations could do with the attention of a few coords. One is ready to be awarded and another three are in need of votes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
All the medals have now been awarded. As a friendly reminder, each nomination only needs three coordinators to verify that it's good to go, so if you're the fourth coordinator to come along, please award the medal rather than add another support ;) (as far as I'm aware, nominators can also award the medals once the nomination has been verified). Nick-D ( talk) 11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Ian and I have finally tallied up the points, updated the scoreboard, and I've awarded the second-place finisher his barnstar, but I'd be obliged if someone could give the winner his trinket.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Since we're getting close to that time of year again: what's our election timetable for this year? We've bounced between three-week (one week for nominations and two for voting, or two for nominations and one for voting) and four-week (two weeks for nominations and two for voting) arrangements, and I can't recall what the consensus regarding the most effective arrangement was the last time around. Kirill [talk] 00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of elections, I've struggled with when to vote and what to say in all the coord elections. Since we don't generally vote for ourselves, if I hold off voting till the end, that has the effect of artificially raising my vote total by one during most of the election, and doesn't offer the early support that might be reassuring for new candidates. If I vote early but don't say anything about what I think or feel about the candidates, that could easily come across as cold; I've worked with some of you for years. But if project leaders all vote early and speak candidly, all that mutual (and deserved) admiration could have the unintended consequence of intimidating outsiders, which would be a problem, since we could really use more help. What I'm going to try this year is giving out barnstars to all my long-time friends and coworkers who sign up, and then when voting starts, I'll just offer "support", and leave it at that. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Just as an observation, I had asked some months back if Parsecboy had interest in being named a Coordinator Emeritus, and he said he was open to the idea. If anyone on the current tranche feels that we could use another Coordinator Emeritus than we can add a motion to that effect during this election. I'm indifferent to the idea, I just wanted that to be made known here ahead of the actual election in case anyone wanted to run with it. On an unrelated note, should we delegate coordinators to the Special Projects like we do with the Task Forces? OMT is by far the busiest of the four we currently have running, but since the special projects do cover a large swath of articles I thought it might be worth raising the idea here to test the waters for it. Finally, you guys may want to ping users who you think would be good coordinators and encourage them to run, seeing as how Wikiactivity has been down across the board for the last few years (or so it surely feels like). TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit, I have doubts regarding Ed17's faith in the Bugle. Given that these stats show only 117 views of the Bugle main page, as there was no mention of the elections in the maildrop itself, and given that currently coords are hardly jumping at the chance to indicate their position regarding standing again, I don't see us getting 14 coords this term.. which could mean another weak year in terms of activity and overall advancement of the project. I think this thing needs to be sent out sooner, and not rely on late entries.. worst case does have a downside - less votes means the resulting Lead Coord had an unfair advantage and that does not inspire confidence in a team effort. I personally don't like the way this election is being coordinated this year, it's not transparent, and too cloak and dagger by only being hinted at on a couple of internal pages. I'd like to see more public effort so that we can reach a wider range of potential candidates and voters.. nothing against this terms coords, but overall, it has been a fairly uninspiring year, a couple of coords dropped out, most coords have drifted away from regular input.. fresh blood is required. What with so much focus on OMT, I often feel the rest of MilHist is neglected.. most special projects and task-forces are quite literally dead - their pages and portals are rarely updated. We need to attract members covering a wider areas of topics. I honestly don't think just having the same coords will result in that any time soon. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 11:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a pointer to a discussion. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day, as Ian is travelling at the moment, he might be too busy to finalise this month's contest. I've made a start by initialising the table for this month, and verified a few entries. Is anyone able to finish the job? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, just a friendly reminder, one of the co-ord responsibilities is to welcome new members of the project. This important to try to get members actively involved in all aspects of the project. While it is difficult to have oversight of who considers themselves a part of Milhist and who doesn't, in the past co-ords have formally welcomed members shortly after the member signs up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active. This has been done by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}} to the newly signed up member's talk page. In the past, I had the Active member's page on my watchlist and I would add the welcome when a new member signed up. I think that there have been a number of new project members recently who may have missed this welcome. I know this sounds rich coming from me as I took a break from co-ord duties last year. As pennance, I've welcomed some of the recent additions. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Every New Years I have an installment of this: User:AustralianRupert/New Year Honours List, which is my attempt at recognising the broad contributions of editors in the Milhist sphere. I tend to try to mix my awards, giving some to those that are "unsung" in order to encourage further involvement as well as awarding those upon whose contributions we rely significantly. This is very subjective and isn't quite the same thing as welcoming new talent, but I wonder if the idea could be developed further. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone object to me adding the following edit notice to the election page? Its intended to help keep the tally up to date. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Note:
When you have finished voting for the candidates please update the vote tally to reflect the current number of votes each candidate has so we can keep the numbers in the table current. You can get to the tally table by clicking
here. |
Not a particularly helpful title I know, but I just wanted to get my suggestion in before the end of the co-ordinator elections because I don't want it caught up in that. I don't know if it's been tried before, but I feel the membership of MILHIST, and potentially the number of reviewers could be strengthened by identifying the nominators of current Good Articles and suggesting they nominate the article for A-class, join the project, solicit feedback, or a combination of the above. Obviously the main focus would be on nominators who are not already very active in the project, but it need not be totally that. I did a rough poll of 5 "warfare" GAs. Their nominators were:
So that's a very small number I've had the time to check out, but there seems like there might be enough potential there even if it is one-in-five or so. (5 was hardly enough to gauge the overall number, but seems about right.) Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. Please accept my sincere apologies for dropping so completely off the radar for so long, to the point where I've even missed the coord election. I've been so insanely busy that the days and weeks have just slipped by without my realising how quickly it was all going. My RL job is expanding to the point where I could do with an extra day (or possibly two) in the week, and my kids have reached that age where moving away from home and higher education have eaten up what little free time I've had. However, that doesn't excuse me not making the time to post something here and again I apologise for that. Clearly I'm not standing for re-election as a coord (and wouldn't have been if I had remembered about the election in time). I do hate leaving unfinished jobs behind me though, so I'd very much appreciate it if the standing coords wouldn't mind me finally tinkering with the Academy content... if I ever get the time. If not, no worries.
The last six months have shown me that the best laid plans of mice and men etc, but I dearly hope I'm only saying au revoir and not adieu. It's been an immense pleasure and privilege serving Milhist with you all.
Best regards, EyeSerene talk 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, with only about four days to go in the co-ord election and a relatively low turn out, what do people think about sending out a reminder about the election? Unless a few more people stop in to vote, we will have a fairly small tranche. There are probably another four or five nominees that are within striking distance of qualifying and it would make the job of being a co-ord a lot easier if we were to have a full compliment of 15. Of course, I don't want this to be seen as asking for votes myself, so I would be more than happy if those who respond to this don't vote for me. I just think we have a number of good candidates who need some support to get over the line so that they can keep on helping the project. What does everyone think? AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that only 46 people have edited the election page, bearing in mind how many of those are current coords and new candidates, it seems a piss-poor turnout from our " ~1000 members".. I think another reminder would be worthwhile, asap, as well as extension to 23:59 of 30 September, if that seems prudent for busy editors who don't get much time online mid-week. If 46 represents the current "active interest" in the project, I don't hold much hope for activity and progression next year.. it's hard to remain optimistic with 46/1171 bothering to spend just 2 minutes getting involved in voting, so you have to wonder why so few don't want to lend their weight to tagging, reviews, backlogs, and all the other things that get brought up as holding the project back from developing. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
At the moment we have 12 on over 20 votes, with a thirteenth on 18. Looking back at the history finding 15 co-ords is no more difficult now that it was in 2008 (in September, only 13 people stood). Only 2010 elections would have produced 15 viable candidates, and even then only just. of 13 would seem a perfectly feasible number, with any others co-opted if found to be necessary. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Are we definitely extending this until 23:59 30 September? If so I'll adjust the heading on the vote page to indicate this. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 23:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
As a note (mainly for the benefit of Dank and AustralianRupert), I've just updated
This user is the lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. |
to reflect that there's now more than one lead coordinator (though on the 4-months on model we've suggested, I guess there'll also be a senior lead coordinator!). Hopefully this is OK. Nick-D ( talk) 11:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This is going to require an admin, due to Template:WPMILHIST being edit-protected.
Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles is currently picking up articles with words that include "list" in them, so http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:WikiProject_Military_history&action=edit needs amending to make sure only the word "list" is filtered to prevent is mistakenly listing other articles in the backlog, as they can't be manually removed being part of the template.
I can see the block that needs adjusting, it's the very last bit in the banner's code:
{{#ifexist:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}||{{#ifeq:{{WPMILHIST/Class|class={{{class|}}} |list={{{list|}}} |A-Class={{{A-Class|}}} |B-Class-1={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-1|}}}|{{{B-1|}}}|{{{B1|}}}|{{{b-1|}}}|{{{b1|}}}}} |B-Class-2={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-2|}}}|{{{B-2|}}}|{{{B2|}}}|{{{b-2|}}}|{{{b2|}}}}} |B-Class-3={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-3|}}}|{{{B-3|}}}|{{{B3|}}}|{{{b-3|}}}|{{{b3|}}}}} |B-Class-4={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-4|}}}|{{{B-4|}}}|{{{B4|}}}|{{{b-4|}}}|{{{b4|}}}}} |B-Class-5={{WPMILHIST/Any|{{{B-Class-5|}}}|{{{B-5|}}}|{{{B5|}}}|{{{b-5|}}}|{{{b5|}}}}}}}|IMG||[[Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{padleft:|4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}|list|{{#ifeq:{{WPMILHIST/YesNo|{{{list|}}}}}|yes||[[Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>
If any admin knows how to correct this, it would get rid of this minor bug.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, now that the election is concluded, I would like to outline a few ideas that I have for the coming year. I would also like to invite other co-ords and any other interested members to also take the opportunity to outline any ideas that they have at this time.
A couple of the ideas that I would like to discuss at this point are:
Does anyone have any thoughts on these? AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Just going to toss my ensemble of ideas below, straight from my sandbox.. anyone feels like commenting on any of them, go ahead. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Project calendar
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ok so I'm a bit of a dummy. I closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (F) today but mucked a couple of things up. As a result I think it might be helpful if we consider rewording the Academy article on this a liite - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review.
Thoughts? Anotherclown ( talk) 07:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
People are asking above about coord jobs, one of which is keeping our announcements template updated ... it automagically updates a number of other widely used templates, including Template:WPMILHIST Review alerts. To make November's Bugle page that lists A-class and Featured promotions easier to update, if you remove the listing for a promoted Featured page from Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, please either say in the edit summary what the page was promoted to, or list at least the name of the article yourself at the proper Bugle page, so we won't miss it in the next edition. Thanks. (Edit summaries are preferred, including for A-class, because some people watchlist the template to keep up with nominations and promotions.) - Dank ( push to talk) 14:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, I've initialised the table for October's contest and started verifying the entries for September. As it is late here, I'm heading to bed. If one of the co-ords on the other side of the world are free, would you mind finishing the verification? The link is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest. Once the scores are verified, the scores need to be tallied, the October Bugle needs to be updated and awards handed out. I don't mind mind doing the tallying, Bugle and awarding, but if someone can help with verification, that would be great. (Particuarly my entries as I can't verify my own).
On a side note, I would like to propose removing the scoreboard from the monthly contest. My reasoning is that there is no real end state that we are working to for the contest, so a scoreboard doesn't really make sense. If we were to change it to a scoreboard that ran for a set period (say a quarter or a year) with the editor with the most points at the end of the period receiving something, then it would probably make sense, but currently all it serves is to add more work for the tallying co-ord. That's just my opinion, does anyone have any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
BTW I've awarded ARs Wikichevrons now. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, if I am not mistaken, the quarterly review tallies are due. Is anyone in a position to start going through the related PR, ACR and FACs for the Jul, Aug & Sep period? If not, I might be able to take a look on Friday night. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikki and Rupert. Not entirely relevant, but I'm going to be too busy this month to keep an eye on the comings and goings at FAC. If I've supported an article on prose at A-class and I see from our announcements template that it's at FAC, I'll have a look. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that this request for mediation might benefit from input from other coordinators who are familiar with the kind of disputes which spring up over infoboxes. The editors there are at risk of trying to reinvent the wheel, when this is the same kind of issue which has been discussed many times previously ;) Nick-D ( talk) 03:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a way forward for this hotly debated page which has attracted a large number of SPAs and sockpuppets. Would somebody (Kirill, can you spare five minutes?) take a quick look at what I'm doing and give me any suggestions/thoughts, either here or on my talkpage? Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we're debating reforms above, but here's an idea for a bold step in a new direction: a Wikimedia Thematic Organization (one of the affiliation models). As described on the linked page, WTOs are "independent organizations founded to support and promote the Wikimedia projects within a specified focal area." More simply speaking, WTOs are similar in mission to the geographically defined chapters, but are instead defined by subject.
There is precedent for an English-language WikiProject to organize like this – see Medicine WikiProject and the WTO Wikimedia Medicine, which are currently applying to be the first thematic organization. In my opinion, forming a thematic organization is the next logical step for us: it would allow us to have a greater voice in the Wikimedia movement; to receive and give grants to support the development of military history on Wikipedia, and not just in English; an area to collaborate with similarly minded editors in other languages, which we'll have to to anyway if we form this; and give us an 'official' organization from which we could liaison with museums, organizations, and government institutions. I'm very interested in hearing your opinions before possibly presenting this to the Milhist members as a whole. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Another angle: last week's News and Notes mentioned Sue's planned presentation at the October WMF board meeting; it's mainly about shifting money around. For instance, it sounds like they're going to be giving less money to chapters: "The core purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation is [no longer] to ensure the chapters grow and develop". I'm wondering if this is a time when they're regretting some of their expenditures, and looking for new subgroups of WPians to invest in. If that's the case, then we probably don't want to be last in line ... I don't know if this would be an especially good time to ask them for money, but if it is, we should ask. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if a few coordinators could contribute to this Signpost interview (I can't, for obvious reasons). Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)