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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I've been keeping an eye on this as it develops, nothing editorial per se, just to see the information build in it. I noticed in the article that it now states that the Massachusetts National Guard in Boston has been mobilized to some extent to assist, and that the US Navy has sent an explosives team to aid the police as well. Given this, do you guys want to add the milhist tag the article, or do you want to wait and see what happens? I favor the latter approach at the moment, but since its news and the US is still technically fighting the war on terror I thought it might merit some discussion. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, have the January to March reviews been totalled and awarded? As I've been away for a bit, I might have missed it, so I thought it best to ask. If not, from what I can tell there has been some discussion above about what should be included (GAN) etc. Was anything decided? Is anyone in a position to start compiling the data? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
G'day, I've started tallying the reviews. I've done the ACRs and PRs. The PRs are not an exact science as there doesn't seem to be a central listing of all Milhist ones, so I may have missed a couple. Apologies. I only gave credit for PRs to those that had participated in at least one project-based review (i.e. ACR). In terms of GAN, I think it is going to be difficult to capture the data (even more so than PR). Does anyone know of a way to determine all the Milhist articles that had a GA review in Jan-Mar period? If not, then I don't think it is workable to include this in our tally. Additionally, is someone in a position to tally the FAs? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll give out the awards for the 1s and 2s. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of the closers for the current RfA-related RfC, and I've been active in this role in the past and will be again in the near future. It's too early to say (but some have said) that the recent big RfC failed; we should give the new wikiproject for RfA nominators a chance to work. But if it doesn't work, then I'm inclined to agree with the majority view that there's a real problem to be solved. I'd like to get feedback from active wikiprojects: now that we're promoting less than a tenth as many admins as previously, what useful jobs that admins used to do aren't getting done properly, in your view? Suggested solutions are welcome, but at this point, I'm mainly trying to get a feel for the size of the problem. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, I think somebody suggested a while ago that a mailing list might improve communication between coords and allow us to discuss things slightly closer to "real time" than this talk page. If memory serves, it was generally felt that this was a decent idea and I think a request might have been made to the WMF, but it seems to have been forgotten. Anyway, WMUK now has its own server and developers and, among other things, hosts a few mailing lists, so if you guys think it's a good idea, I could ask if they'd be willing to set one up for us. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. We haven't done a drive for a while so I think its about time we co-ords actually co-orded. Most of us seem fairly busy ATM but I think we need to make a chop at this. The digs seem to be getting restless at least [3], so I think there would be some support for this. Essentially I propose a drive similar to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March 2011 backlog reduction drive. But would also add in Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. Happy to try and set this up myself but would probably need some advice on some of the technical stuff and help tallying and handing out awards at the end. Also wouldn't hurt if people helped advertise the imitative. Propose the drive for the month of June. Anotherclown ( talk) 04:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
G'day, I added a bit to your draft, in an effort to clarify the different ways editors can accumulate points (i.e content work or assessment). Please check you are happy with what I added. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The draft looks pretty good so far. A couple of minor comments, in no particular order:
Kirill [talk] 11:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a chance that B-class assessment will wind up being important for Level 2. (In what follows, I prefer the more neutral terms "working version" and "published version" to terms like "approved version" ... besides, non-Wikipedians understand perfectly well what it means to work on something and then publish it, they have no idea what it means that that a "reviewer" hasn't "approved" their edit yet, and those aren't very attractive words in this setting.) One of the criticisms of Level 2 is the claim that it unintentionally creates OWNership:
So for the trial on a handful of articles, we probably want to stick to Good Articles or better. But if the trial is deemed successful and people want to use the tool for real, some are going to want to use the tool on B-class articles, and if so, an important question will be how "mature" B-class articles are, that is, how far along in the review process they are. If they're not very far along, then Wikipedians in general aren't going to be on board with using a tool that tends to inhibit editing. So, please be thinking about this as you consider the application of B-class criteria. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, WP:OPNORMANDY will be in the Signpost this week. Could I tempt any coords into answering questions about the future of our 'operations' and what other projects can learn from them? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
There has recently been a discussion at Talk:Rape during the liberation of France#Until the article meets basic quality standards… about whether the article should be retained, moved to an incubator or deleted (in which I'm very much involved). This discussion appears to have concluded, and it would be great if an uninvolved coordinator with the admin tools could please close the discussion and take the steps which they judge reflect the consensus. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, in case someone's asking, the tallies were Parsecboy - 119 (from 18), Ed! - 70 (from eight), Tomobe03 - 32 (from seven), Ian Rose - 31 (from four), Peacemaker67 - 28 (from five), The ed17 - 23 (from one), Zawed - 22 (from four), RoslynSKP - 21 (from four), Abraham B.S. - 21 (from one), Inkbug - 10 (from two) and Djmaschek - 6 (from one). Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor has made questionable non-standard (i.e. non-MOS) changes to the {{ kia}} template, but refuses to address the technical or accessibility issues that I have raised repeatedly, and is favouring other editors views without consideration for consensus. More opinions needed, as there is a conflict of interest in my view here, and lack of correct procedure given how many articles use this template.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 01:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
We all generally keep a positive attitude about drama on Wikipedia, but I believe it's time to brainstorm some solutions to a looming problem, while things are still going well (at Milhist, anyway). Quantitatively, we used to promote many hundreds of admins per year; we've been averaging close to 2 per month for a while now. (We had 4 or 5 per month in the first quarter of this year, but we always get small bumps during big relevant RfCs.) RfA itself is part of the problem, but the main problem is that the total amount of suitable volunteer labor available is less than it used to be, not just in admin roles but in other roles as well. I'm seeing ample evidence that we're not getting as much help as we used to from outside Milhist when editors are behaving badly. Part of the problem is that our writers are often seeking "historical consensus", not just random data from reliable sources, but Wikipedians are generally unwilling these days to support protection or blocks if the problem is that some editors doggedly insert material against consensus, as long as those editors are otherwise well-behaved and use reliable sources. (Generally, the lack of help from admins and others has led to frustration and drama, but I really think the detractors are missing the big picture: if you've got fewer firefighters than fires, they're only going to deal with the biggest fires. And this is only going to get worse year by year, because replacements aren't coming close to keeping up with the loss rate.) Let me be clear: I think we do a better job than anyone has a right to expect dealing with conflicts at WT:MIL, so I'm not talking about an immediate disaster. I'm talking about the increasing distance between those Wikipedians seeking to do a good job with historical consensus and those who have other legitimate priorities, and the fact that we're having to shoulder a larger and larger share of burdens such as conflict resolution ... not that we aren't doing a great job, for the moment. I could throw out some suggestions, but I want to make sure first that we're all on the same page. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, I noticed we don't have an A Class content target in the main page. Is there any technical reason we couldn't set a target of say, 500? Given the standard of our A Class articles and the fairly short distance to FA/FL from there, I thought it might be a useful addition to the project targets. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If the idea is simply to get a count of successful nominations, then we could do it by having the project banner automatically put the applicable articles into a category and then querying the number of articles there. Kirill [talk] 12:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that the upcoming edit-a-thons on World War I have sort-of passed us by. I knew about the Australian one and have advertised it, but had no idea that this was being organised to take place simulatenously in several countries. Ads for the global and Belgian events have also been posted at WT:MILHIST, and I've just added it to the WPMILHIST Announcements banner. Is there anything else we should be doing to encourage participation? ( HJ, is there anything we can do to promote the WMUK-sponsored event in particular?). Nick-D ( talk) 11:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a Barnstar award for extraordinary contributions to the furthering knowledge concerning the German Wehrmacht prior to and during the Second World War. I have created a prototype and placed it here. I'd like some feedback before continuing on to putting this onto the Barnstar page. Here's the prototype [4] Dmanrock29 ( talk) 17:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Backlog drive for June is coming to an end. I've drafted the points table here for ease of tallying and will populate when it concludes. Anotherclown ( talk) 21:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Rank | Username | Coverage (15 pts) |
Expert attn (15 pts) |
Refs (15 pts) |
Grammar (10 pts) |
Structure (5 pts) |
Photos (10 pts) |
Spting Mats (5 pts) |
B-class C/L (5 pts) |
WP:MHA (5 pts) |
Total | Award(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21 | Adamdaley | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (1) | 5 | One Stripe [7] |
7 | Anotherclown | 30 (2) | 0 (0) | 45 (3) | 100 (10) | 0 (0) | 20 (2) | 105 (21) | 740 (148*) | 100 (20) | 1140 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [8] |
18 | Arius1998 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 20 (2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 110 (22) | 0 (0) | 130 | Three Stripes [9] |
6 | AustralianRupert | 210 (14) | 45 (3) | 270 (18) | 60 (6) | 30 (6) | 130 (13) | 35 (7) | 210 (42) | 160 (32) | 1150 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [10] |
19 | Cdtew | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 70 (14) | 0 (0) | 70 | Two Stripes [11] |
4 | Dumelow | 150 (10) | 0 (0) | 105 (7) | 100 (10) | 40 (8) | 230 (23) | 25 (5) | 875 (175) | 0 (0) | 1525 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [12] |
20 | EricSerge | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 60 (12) | 0 (0) | 60 | Two Stripes [13] |
16 | Gavbadger | 90 (6) | 0 (0) | 30 (2) | 0 (0) | 50 (10) | 0 (0) | 20 (4) | 0 (0) | 25 (5) | 215 | Three Stripes [14] |
12 | gbawden | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 460 (46) | 0 (0) | 10 (2) | 0 (0) | 470 | Three Stripes [15] |
15 | Grandiose | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (2) | 10 (1) | 0 (0) | 220 (44) | 0 (0) | 240 | Three Stripes [16] |
13 | Ian Rose | 120 (8) | 0 (0) | 90 (6) | 10 (1) | 15 (3) | 10 (1) | 15 (3) | 50 (10) | 105 (21) | 415 | Three Stripes [17] |
17 | Inkbug | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 15 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 175 (35) | 0 (0) | 190 | Three Stripes [18] |
22 | Lee Tru. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 | |
5 | Lineagegeek | 210 (14) | 0 (0) | 60 (4) | 290 (29) | 20 (4) | 0 (0) | 15 (3) | 630 (126*) | 15 (3) | 1240 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [19] |
14 | Nick-D | 45 (3) | 45 (3) | 45 (3) | 30 (3) | 15 (3) | 140 (14) | 15 (3) | 0 (0) | 35 (7) | 370 | Three Stripes [20] |
11 | Parsecboy | 225 (15) | 0 (0) | 240 (16) | 0 (0) | 35 (7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 85 (17) | 10 (2) | 595 | WikiChevrons [21] |
2 | Peacemaker67 | 75 (5) | 30 (2) | 75 (5) | 20 (2) | 5 (1) | 60 (6) | 0 (0) | 3645 (729) | 50 (10) | 3960 | Barnstar of Diligence and Silver Wiki [22] |
3 | PINTofCARLING | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 15 (3) | 2500 (500) | 0 (0) | 2515 | Working Man's Barnstar and Bronze Wiki [23] |
10 | Sturmvogel_66 | 165 (11) | 0 (0) | 210 (14) | 0 (0) | 20 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 100 (20) | 200 (40) | 695 | WikiChevrons [24] |
8 | Tomobe03 | 15 (1) | 0 (0) | 45 (3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1060 (212) | 0 (0) | 1120 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [25] |
1 | Wild Wolf | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4000 (800) | 0 (0) | 4000 | Barnstar of Diligence and Golden Wiki [26] |
9 | Zawed | 90 (6) | 0 (0) | 120 (8) | 0 (0) | 20 (4) | 10 (1) | 15 (3) | 625 (125) | 60 (12) | 930 | WikiChevrons [27] |
Type | Target reduction | Actual articles claimed |
---|---|---|
Military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy | 1,620 | 95 |
Military history articles needing expert attention | 13 | 8 |
Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation | 1,772 | 64 |
Military history articles needing attention to grammar | 410 | 63 |
Wikipedia requested photographs of military history | 123 | 107 |
Military history articles needing attention to structure | 386 | 52 |
Military history articles needing attention to supporting materials | 905 | 52 |
Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists | 2,567 | 3,033 |
Counts duplicates twice, and ignores those removed but not claimed for. I think it is obvious that success has been small in areas other than, first, a huge contribution to reducing the B-class assessment backlog; and, second, the removal of several articles incorrectly tagged as need photographs and/or expert attention. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for setting this up Anotherclown - it was a significant success. We should probably make it an annual or six-monthly event. Nick-D ( talk) 11:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, the tallies were Parsecboy - 204! (from 22!), Ian Rose - 121 (from 17), Tomobe03 - 60 (from 11), Zawed - 58 (from ten) Peacemaker67 - 44 (from nine), Cdtew - 20 (from four), Inkbug - 15 (from two), RoslynSKP - 12 (from two), Djmaschek - 6 (from one) and Arius1998 - 2 (from one). Thanks to Zawed for verifying mine. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 07:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, I have made a start on tallying these. I only looked at peer reviews and ACRs. Can someone else please tally FAC, and GAN (if that has been agreed upon). If I have missed anything with the PR and ACR counts, please let me know. Once done, we can start handing out the awards. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am hoping start handing out the awards today. The templates can be found here. Based on a previous thread last quarter, we appear to have agreed upon a revised award schedule as follows: "chevrons...15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3". Based on that schedule, the following awards are proposed:
Are there any objections to this? AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
From memory, the procedure in which three coordinators need to confirm editors' eligibility for an A-class medal prevents one accidental (generally too early) award per year out of about 100 awarded. Again from memory, the first coordinator to check the nomination is always the one who spots the problem. As such, I'd like to suggest that we change Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review#Step 8: Tracking award eligibility (and any other relevant wording) to require that only one other coordinator needs to confirm the nomination or drop this requirement altogether. I'm raising this as I've just awarded five A-class medals, including four whose nominations had not attracted the three confirmations needed despite being open for over two weeks, and am concerned that this procedural step is overly complex and is delaying editors being recognised for good work. What do others think? Nick-D ( talk) 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Could we re-visit whether we have consensus for this? I believe all the current arrangement does is slow down the award process. As all good soldiers know, awards should be timely. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Would it be useful to create a joint notification template for the coordinator team, to allow people to easily ping us from discussions on other pages?
For anyone who hasn't played with the notification templates yet, this would work like a specialized version of {{ ping}}; however, it would automatically notify all of us, without the user having to individually enter usernames. For example, a user might enter:
which would automatically generate a notification to the entire group:
This could potentially make it easier for people to request assistance from us without having to either contact some/all of us individually or find this page and leave messages here.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] 00:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I was just having a nosy at the showcase and realised there was something of a discrepancy between the Milhist showcase and Category:FA-Class military history articles. Take FAs as an example, 668 on our showcase, 716 in the category. It looks like Legobot was going to be used to update given the page history but a bot edit doesn't seem to have been successful. The page itself hasn't really been updated as a going concern since August barring Maralia's heroic efforts in February. My question to Coords is whether there is still an appetite to keep these updated? Woody ( talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The scores were: Parsecboy - 103 points (from 12 articles), Tomobe03 - 66 points (from 11 articles), Ian Rose - 61 points (from six articles), Peacemaker67 - 41 points (from six articles), Abraham, B.S. - 15 points (from two articles), Djmaschek - 12 points (from two articles), and Zawed - 3 points (from one article). Bring on the August contest! Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, I'll be offline for a week or so, if someone could maintain the announcements template in my absence that would be good. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:05, 29 August 2013 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I've been keeping an eye on this as it develops, nothing editorial per se, just to see the information build in it. I noticed in the article that it now states that the Massachusetts National Guard in Boston has been mobilized to some extent to assist, and that the US Navy has sent an explosives team to aid the police as well. Given this, do you guys want to add the milhist tag the article, or do you want to wait and see what happens? I favor the latter approach at the moment, but since its news and the US is still technically fighting the war on terror I thought it might merit some discussion. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, have the January to March reviews been totalled and awarded? As I've been away for a bit, I might have missed it, so I thought it best to ask. If not, from what I can tell there has been some discussion above about what should be included (GAN) etc. Was anything decided? Is anyone in a position to start compiling the data? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
G'day, I've started tallying the reviews. I've done the ACRs and PRs. The PRs are not an exact science as there doesn't seem to be a central listing of all Milhist ones, so I may have missed a couple. Apologies. I only gave credit for PRs to those that had participated in at least one project-based review (i.e. ACR). In terms of GAN, I think it is going to be difficult to capture the data (even more so than PR). Does anyone know of a way to determine all the Milhist articles that had a GA review in Jan-Mar period? If not, then I don't think it is workable to include this in our tally. Additionally, is someone in a position to tally the FAs? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll give out the awards for the 1s and 2s. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of the closers for the current RfA-related RfC, and I've been active in this role in the past and will be again in the near future. It's too early to say (but some have said) that the recent big RfC failed; we should give the new wikiproject for RfA nominators a chance to work. But if it doesn't work, then I'm inclined to agree with the majority view that there's a real problem to be solved. I'd like to get feedback from active wikiprojects: now that we're promoting less than a tenth as many admins as previously, what useful jobs that admins used to do aren't getting done properly, in your view? Suggested solutions are welcome, but at this point, I'm mainly trying to get a feel for the size of the problem. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, I think somebody suggested a while ago that a mailing list might improve communication between coords and allow us to discuss things slightly closer to "real time" than this talk page. If memory serves, it was generally felt that this was a decent idea and I think a request might have been made to the WMF, but it seems to have been forgotten. Anyway, WMUK now has its own server and developers and, among other things, hosts a few mailing lists, so if you guys think it's a good idea, I could ask if they'd be willing to set one up for us. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. We haven't done a drive for a while so I think its about time we co-ords actually co-orded. Most of us seem fairly busy ATM but I think we need to make a chop at this. The digs seem to be getting restless at least [3], so I think there would be some support for this. Essentially I propose a drive similar to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March 2011 backlog reduction drive. But would also add in Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. Happy to try and set this up myself but would probably need some advice on some of the technical stuff and help tallying and handing out awards at the end. Also wouldn't hurt if people helped advertise the imitative. Propose the drive for the month of June. Anotherclown ( talk) 04:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
G'day, I added a bit to your draft, in an effort to clarify the different ways editors can accumulate points (i.e content work or assessment). Please check you are happy with what I added. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The draft looks pretty good so far. A couple of minor comments, in no particular order:
Kirill [talk] 11:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a chance that B-class assessment will wind up being important for Level 2. (In what follows, I prefer the more neutral terms "working version" and "published version" to terms like "approved version" ... besides, non-Wikipedians understand perfectly well what it means to work on something and then publish it, they have no idea what it means that that a "reviewer" hasn't "approved" their edit yet, and those aren't very attractive words in this setting.) One of the criticisms of Level 2 is the claim that it unintentionally creates OWNership:
So for the trial on a handful of articles, we probably want to stick to Good Articles or better. But if the trial is deemed successful and people want to use the tool for real, some are going to want to use the tool on B-class articles, and if so, an important question will be how "mature" B-class articles are, that is, how far along in the review process they are. If they're not very far along, then Wikipedians in general aren't going to be on board with using a tool that tends to inhibit editing. So, please be thinking about this as you consider the application of B-class criteria. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, WP:OPNORMANDY will be in the Signpost this week. Could I tempt any coords into answering questions about the future of our 'operations' and what other projects can learn from them? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
There has recently been a discussion at Talk:Rape during the liberation of France#Until the article meets basic quality standards… about whether the article should be retained, moved to an incubator or deleted (in which I'm very much involved). This discussion appears to have concluded, and it would be great if an uninvolved coordinator with the admin tools could please close the discussion and take the steps which they judge reflect the consensus. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, in case someone's asking, the tallies were Parsecboy - 119 (from 18), Ed! - 70 (from eight), Tomobe03 - 32 (from seven), Ian Rose - 31 (from four), Peacemaker67 - 28 (from five), The ed17 - 23 (from one), Zawed - 22 (from four), RoslynSKP - 21 (from four), Abraham B.S. - 21 (from one), Inkbug - 10 (from two) and Djmaschek - 6 (from one). Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor has made questionable non-standard (i.e. non-MOS) changes to the {{ kia}} template, but refuses to address the technical or accessibility issues that I have raised repeatedly, and is favouring other editors views without consideration for consensus. More opinions needed, as there is a conflict of interest in my view here, and lack of correct procedure given how many articles use this template.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 01:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
We all generally keep a positive attitude about drama on Wikipedia, but I believe it's time to brainstorm some solutions to a looming problem, while things are still going well (at Milhist, anyway). Quantitatively, we used to promote many hundreds of admins per year; we've been averaging close to 2 per month for a while now. (We had 4 or 5 per month in the first quarter of this year, but we always get small bumps during big relevant RfCs.) RfA itself is part of the problem, but the main problem is that the total amount of suitable volunteer labor available is less than it used to be, not just in admin roles but in other roles as well. I'm seeing ample evidence that we're not getting as much help as we used to from outside Milhist when editors are behaving badly. Part of the problem is that our writers are often seeking "historical consensus", not just random data from reliable sources, but Wikipedians are generally unwilling these days to support protection or blocks if the problem is that some editors doggedly insert material against consensus, as long as those editors are otherwise well-behaved and use reliable sources. (Generally, the lack of help from admins and others has led to frustration and drama, but I really think the detractors are missing the big picture: if you've got fewer firefighters than fires, they're only going to deal with the biggest fires. And this is only going to get worse year by year, because replacements aren't coming close to keeping up with the loss rate.) Let me be clear: I think we do a better job than anyone has a right to expect dealing with conflicts at WT:MIL, so I'm not talking about an immediate disaster. I'm talking about the increasing distance between those Wikipedians seeking to do a good job with historical consensus and those who have other legitimate priorities, and the fact that we're having to shoulder a larger and larger share of burdens such as conflict resolution ... not that we aren't doing a great job, for the moment. I could throw out some suggestions, but I want to make sure first that we're all on the same page. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, I noticed we don't have an A Class content target in the main page. Is there any technical reason we couldn't set a target of say, 500? Given the standard of our A Class articles and the fairly short distance to FA/FL from there, I thought it might be a useful addition to the project targets. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If the idea is simply to get a count of successful nominations, then we could do it by having the project banner automatically put the applicable articles into a category and then querying the number of articles there. Kirill [talk] 12:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that the upcoming edit-a-thons on World War I have sort-of passed us by. I knew about the Australian one and have advertised it, but had no idea that this was being organised to take place simulatenously in several countries. Ads for the global and Belgian events have also been posted at WT:MILHIST, and I've just added it to the WPMILHIST Announcements banner. Is there anything else we should be doing to encourage participation? ( HJ, is there anything we can do to promote the WMUK-sponsored event in particular?). Nick-D ( talk) 11:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a Barnstar award for extraordinary contributions to the furthering knowledge concerning the German Wehrmacht prior to and during the Second World War. I have created a prototype and placed it here. I'd like some feedback before continuing on to putting this onto the Barnstar page. Here's the prototype [4] Dmanrock29 ( talk) 17:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Backlog drive for June is coming to an end. I've drafted the points table here for ease of tallying and will populate when it concludes. Anotherclown ( talk) 21:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Rank | Username | Coverage (15 pts) |
Expert attn (15 pts) |
Refs (15 pts) |
Grammar (10 pts) |
Structure (5 pts) |
Photos (10 pts) |
Spting Mats (5 pts) |
B-class C/L (5 pts) |
WP:MHA (5 pts) |
Total | Award(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21 | Adamdaley | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (1) | 5 | One Stripe [7] |
7 | Anotherclown | 30 (2) | 0 (0) | 45 (3) | 100 (10) | 0 (0) | 20 (2) | 105 (21) | 740 (148*) | 100 (20) | 1140 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [8] |
18 | Arius1998 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 20 (2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 110 (22) | 0 (0) | 130 | Three Stripes [9] |
6 | AustralianRupert | 210 (14) | 45 (3) | 270 (18) | 60 (6) | 30 (6) | 130 (13) | 35 (7) | 210 (42) | 160 (32) | 1150 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [10] |
19 | Cdtew | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 70 (14) | 0 (0) | 70 | Two Stripes [11] |
4 | Dumelow | 150 (10) | 0 (0) | 105 (7) | 100 (10) | 40 (8) | 230 (23) | 25 (5) | 875 (175) | 0 (0) | 1525 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [12] |
20 | EricSerge | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 60 (12) | 0 (0) | 60 | Two Stripes [13] |
16 | Gavbadger | 90 (6) | 0 (0) | 30 (2) | 0 (0) | 50 (10) | 0 (0) | 20 (4) | 0 (0) | 25 (5) | 215 | Three Stripes [14] |
12 | gbawden | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 460 (46) | 0 (0) | 10 (2) | 0 (0) | 470 | Three Stripes [15] |
15 | Grandiose | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (2) | 10 (1) | 0 (0) | 220 (44) | 0 (0) | 240 | Three Stripes [16] |
13 | Ian Rose | 120 (8) | 0 (0) | 90 (6) | 10 (1) | 15 (3) | 10 (1) | 15 (3) | 50 (10) | 105 (21) | 415 | Three Stripes [17] |
17 | Inkbug | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 15 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 175 (35) | 0 (0) | 190 | Three Stripes [18] |
22 | Lee Tru. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 | |
5 | Lineagegeek | 210 (14) | 0 (0) | 60 (4) | 290 (29) | 20 (4) | 0 (0) | 15 (3) | 630 (126*) | 15 (3) | 1240 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [19] |
14 | Nick-D | 45 (3) | 45 (3) | 45 (3) | 30 (3) | 15 (3) | 140 (14) | 15 (3) | 0 (0) | 35 (7) | 370 | Three Stripes [20] |
11 | Parsecboy | 225 (15) | 0 (0) | 240 (16) | 0 (0) | 35 (7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 85 (17) | 10 (2) | 595 | WikiChevrons [21] |
2 | Peacemaker67 | 75 (5) | 30 (2) | 75 (5) | 20 (2) | 5 (1) | 60 (6) | 0 (0) | 3645 (729) | 50 (10) | 3960 | Barnstar of Diligence and Silver Wiki [22] |
3 | PINTofCARLING | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 15 (3) | 2500 (500) | 0 (0) | 2515 | Working Man's Barnstar and Bronze Wiki [23] |
10 | Sturmvogel_66 | 165 (11) | 0 (0) | 210 (14) | 0 (0) | 20 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 100 (20) | 200 (40) | 695 | WikiChevrons [24] |
8 | Tomobe03 | 15 (1) | 0 (0) | 45 (3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1060 (212) | 0 (0) | 1120 | Tireless Contributor Barnstar [25] |
1 | Wild Wolf | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4000 (800) | 0 (0) | 4000 | Barnstar of Diligence and Golden Wiki [26] |
9 | Zawed | 90 (6) | 0 (0) | 120 (8) | 0 (0) | 20 (4) | 10 (1) | 15 (3) | 625 (125) | 60 (12) | 930 | WikiChevrons [27] |
Type | Target reduction | Actual articles claimed |
---|---|---|
Military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy | 1,620 | 95 |
Military history articles needing expert attention | 13 | 8 |
Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation | 1,772 | 64 |
Military history articles needing attention to grammar | 410 | 63 |
Wikipedia requested photographs of military history | 123 | 107 |
Military history articles needing attention to structure | 386 | 52 |
Military history articles needing attention to supporting materials | 905 | 52 |
Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists | 2,567 | 3,033 |
Counts duplicates twice, and ignores those removed but not claimed for. I think it is obvious that success has been small in areas other than, first, a huge contribution to reducing the B-class assessment backlog; and, second, the removal of several articles incorrectly tagged as need photographs and/or expert attention. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for setting this up Anotherclown - it was a significant success. We should probably make it an annual or six-monthly event. Nick-D ( talk) 11:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, the tallies were Parsecboy - 204! (from 22!), Ian Rose - 121 (from 17), Tomobe03 - 60 (from 11), Zawed - 58 (from ten) Peacemaker67 - 44 (from nine), Cdtew - 20 (from four), Inkbug - 15 (from two), RoslynSKP - 12 (from two), Djmaschek - 6 (from one) and Arius1998 - 2 (from one). Thanks to Zawed for verifying mine. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 07:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, I have made a start on tallying these. I only looked at peer reviews and ACRs. Can someone else please tally FAC, and GAN (if that has been agreed upon). If I have missed anything with the PR and ACR counts, please let me know. Once done, we can start handing out the awards. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am hoping start handing out the awards today. The templates can be found here. Based on a previous thread last quarter, we appear to have agreed upon a revised award schedule as follows: "chevrons...15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3". Based on that schedule, the following awards are proposed:
Are there any objections to this? AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
From memory, the procedure in which three coordinators need to confirm editors' eligibility for an A-class medal prevents one accidental (generally too early) award per year out of about 100 awarded. Again from memory, the first coordinator to check the nomination is always the one who spots the problem. As such, I'd like to suggest that we change Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review#Step 8: Tracking award eligibility (and any other relevant wording) to require that only one other coordinator needs to confirm the nomination or drop this requirement altogether. I'm raising this as I've just awarded five A-class medals, including four whose nominations had not attracted the three confirmations needed despite being open for over two weeks, and am concerned that this procedural step is overly complex and is delaying editors being recognised for good work. What do others think? Nick-D ( talk) 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Could we re-visit whether we have consensus for this? I believe all the current arrangement does is slow down the award process. As all good soldiers know, awards should be timely. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Would it be useful to create a joint notification template for the coordinator team, to allow people to easily ping us from discussions on other pages?
For anyone who hasn't played with the notification templates yet, this would work like a specialized version of {{ ping}}; however, it would automatically notify all of us, without the user having to individually enter usernames. For example, a user might enter:
which would automatically generate a notification to the entire group:
This could potentially make it easier for people to request assistance from us without having to either contact some/all of us individually or find this page and leave messages here.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] 00:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I was just having a nosy at the showcase and realised there was something of a discrepancy between the Milhist showcase and Category:FA-Class military history articles. Take FAs as an example, 668 on our showcase, 716 in the category. It looks like Legobot was going to be used to update given the page history but a bot edit doesn't seem to have been successful. The page itself hasn't really been updated as a going concern since August barring Maralia's heroic efforts in February. My question to Coords is whether there is still an appetite to keep these updated? Woody ( talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The scores were: Parsecboy - 103 points (from 12 articles), Tomobe03 - 66 points (from 11 articles), Ian Rose - 61 points (from six articles), Peacemaker67 - 41 points (from six articles), Abraham, B.S. - 15 points (from two articles), Djmaschek - 12 points (from two articles), and Zawed - 3 points (from one article). Bring on the August contest! Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, I'll be offline for a week or so, if someone could maintain the announcements template in my absence that would be good. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)