![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Please remember to add an awarded ACM to the medals page - I went through and added a few missing ones just now, and Sturmvogel's most recent two are also missing, which leads me to believe there are probably others. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, At the risk of being too ambitious, our last discussion on this issue resulted in a consensus that the ACM w/Diamonds should top out at 15 groups of three. I'd like to proceed on that basis to decide on the name and number of A-Class articles/lists needed to gain the A-Class Cross. My feeling from the previous discussion was that the ACC should be more difficult per level than the ACM. Perhaps five A-class articles (after you top out with the ACM w/Diamonds) to qualify for each ACC, and making it five ACCs before you go to ACC w/Oak Leaves (which would be six groups of three)? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I took the original A-Class Medals and exchanged the blue crosses with red crosses for a start. Please let me know how to tweak them, what to change and also how you think a third class should of A-Class medals should look. cheers, noclador ( talk) 03:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I did some updates of the Cross series now:
best regards, noclador ( talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know if there are any changes desired for the new A-Class cross series and the Grand Cross. I have time this weekend and could create new versions for review. best, noclador ( talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A pleasure. I'm going to take it we have sufficient consensus, with TomStar81, Harry, Rupert, Ian, Kirill, Ac and I all expressing support for the ACC series designs, and Hawkeye and Ed supportive of the project generally prior to completion of the design. I'll put some words together for the Awards page so we can agree on how we express this next tier. Thanks everyone for expressing views and supporting, and especial thanks to @ Noclador: for his excellent and timely design work. He has been a great supporter of MILHIST over the years, especially with graphics. I think we can put the Grand Cross to one side for a bit, in case some great new design idea pops up. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 02:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably need to update the awards page to clarify when the ACC is awarded vice the ACM w/Diamonds as I'm not sure that I understand it myself. Not really relevant for quite a while yet, but best to deal with it now, I'd think.
Hey all, any thoughts on a leaflet for this year's Wikimania? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Guys, I've been fairly useless over the past six months. I'm sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused, but my professional life is a little busier than I expected it would be, and I'm finding that I am hardly on here at all anymore. For that reason, I will be offering my retirement. Thank you so much for your interactions with me - I have cherished and valued my time with Milhist, and Wikipedia, although I have been neglectful of late. Take care, and best of luck in the future! Cdtew ( talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Check out WT:MILHIST#Milhist is like the bar car on Connecticut trains (minus the part where they just got rid of them). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh baby, what an ordeal that was. They have finally certified the elimination of the mold in the half of the house that housed my computer, so I've Jerry-rigged my computer back together and am now back online again. The tower should be back up and running for the time being, so hopefully I'll be in a position to remain active here (insofar as I do remain active anymore). TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
When I originally saw the checklist for promoting an article to A class I found the number of steps daunting, and wrote a Bot to assist. Over time I have refined, tested and improved the Bot. Now I am proposing that it be made more widely available. My proposal is that the coordinator change the entry on the talk page to say "A-Class=pass" or "A-Class=fail" and the Bot will take it from there. Any thoughts? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I put the bot on trial. Let's see. Sorry it took so long. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Bot completed day 1 of trial. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am considering to approve the bot tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, so if there are spotted problems and/or concerns please report them asap. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Bot approved. The bot still needs a user page. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There's been a long, steady decline in the quality of my copyediting at A-class ... and that's not so much a bad thing as the inevitable result of working on copyediting software. When I'm reading quickly (and I don't usually have time to read slowly), I'm seeing things that interest me and missing some other things. So starting today, at A-class and FAC, I'm only claiming that I've copyedited articles, not that I'm supporting them ... unless an article is showing up that I've already supported before at either A-class or FAC, in which case I'll make an effort to support again, as long as the diff between the old and new versions isn't too obnoxious. Hopefully I can start sharing the software soon ... it's taking a while, but I hope it will be worth it. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've been out of action for a while due to some rather unpleasant health issues. Normally, I manage to check in here at least every few days, but I ended up back in hospital at very sort notice. Anyway, I'm scheduled for an operation on 3 June, so the good news is that once I'm recovered (which should take a couple of weeks), there shouldn't be any more abrupt disappearances. Sorry if anyone felt left in the lurch. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I personally really don't have much to do with this project, but I would like to ask for some input from the coordinators of maybe the best organized WikiProject out there, this one. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Might wikipedia WikiProjects expand a little into other WF entities? I've started a possible discussion about maybe getting some editors who work with WikiProjects here maybe spending a little time with some of the material relevant to their topics in the other WF entities. So, for instance, editors dealing with Military history might (but also might not, and I hope no one thinks I'm trying to boss anyone here) be among the better people to proofread texts related to military history at Wikisource, assemble books related to military history at Wikibooks and Wikiversity, get together news stories about current military issues at Wikinews, develop pieces about historical battle sites at Wikivoyage, etc. I figure any past or present coordinators here would know better than me how to arrange this if they think it is a good idea, although I guess one starter idea might be to have maybe a "MILHIST wiki(x) collaboration of the month" for some entities, like maybe choosing one page from one (or more) WF entities as a monthly point of collaboration. Maybe. Like I said, you all know this better than me, and I would very much welcome any input at the above about any particular specific ideas which might be thought by you all to be good ways to at least start. John Carter ( talk) 18:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If I remember right, this category used to include templates which lacked a checklist entirely. Is there any way of having these article included in this category again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.124.31 ( talk • contribs)
G'day all, as I was the inaugural recipient, I am naturally reluctant to blow smoke up my own proverbial, but for the longer-term, perhaps we should place the record of Newcomer of the Year awards under the MH of the Year awards on the Awards page? Feel free to shoot me down here. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The three definitions of militarism in the article are all poor.
The first: " ... belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests" does not allow differentiation between the use of military means for political ends, and the use of the military instrument as an end in itself.
The second: "It may also imply the glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" leaves completely undefined what the ideals of a professional military class are. For example, the ideals of the current professional military class in Britain are to do a professional job as dictated by Whitehall, which, as often as not in living memory, is peacekeeping. Amos Perlmutter in his The Military and Politics in Modern Times: On Professionals, Praetorians, and Revolutionary Soldiers (1977) shows how it is more likely that Praetorians will use the military instrument as a first resort, and that revolutionary soldiers are the most likely to, but that even they, when sober, subordinate military means to political ends.
The third: "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state". This completely confuses militarism with aspects of civilian-military relations in which the military are just another power elite just as are the bureaucracy, business owners, trades union leaders, the medical lobby, political parties, or any other group exerting pressure of political decision-making. There is now a huge body of work on civil-military relations, most of which stands a long way from the idea of violence as an end in itself.
Indeed, Volker Berghahn identifies these and other confusions surrounding this essentially-contested concept in his Militarism: The History of an International Debate 1861-1979 (1981).
G'day all, I've just initialised the table using the usual suspects from a previous quarter, haven't done any tallying yet, so names will need to be added and subtracted, no doubt. If someone can point me to the easiest way of tallying ACR reviews, I'd appreciate it. Unless we just do it manually... Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dan. I think I'm right to go ahead with the awards now. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 02:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it OK that I (A) lack a degree? (B) lack combat experience? (C) am not an expert? Erik L'Ensle :) ( talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, I don't know if any of you are planning to come to Wikimania this year, but I'd like to organise a meetup for MilHist folks while people are in London. If you're interested, please sign up at wm2014:MilHist meetup (or email me at harry@wikimanialondon.org if you don't want to sign up publicly) so I know whether there's interest! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
When someone who can spell and gramarize gets a moment can they have another pass through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2014/Op-ed to make sure that all the sp&g issues have been covered? I'd appreciate it.
I'm currently revising, updating and expanding Military production during World War II. There were a lot of "issues" with the data, imagery, written content and analysis. There was a very heavy spin to the US experience and data. To rectify the page and make something interesting of it I would like to ask for some advice and help. Am I at the right place? In short, I need help beating off random bot attacks on file uploads, protecting the editorial integrity and balance, and accessing source data in German and Cyrillic languages. I'm sure there is more. Anyone?
-- Brukner ( talk) 02:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There has been a recent spreading of national-specific "Campaign boxes" which aren't. Examples are Template:Campaignbox Free French and Template:Campaignbox Vichy France Military in World War II. My thought is that 1. They don't cover real campaigns, 2. If you have one of these in an article, then logically you should have one for every single national grouping involved in that subject (Syria Lebanon campaign you should also have one for Britain. Australia, India, Transjordan whatever...causing a huge impenetrable block of such boxes). 3. They are unnecessary in that by following the link to, say the Free French article, the info will be there (and indeed an infobox for navigation might be appropriate on the the Free French article).
So I thought I would remove them but decided to check with the project to see if there was a policy. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I've been contacted by Dominic, who wants to run an informal contest. Basically, he'll list articles on User:Dominic/Challenge, and those who can write a C-class article or above will receive a poster. How can we get this out to the membership? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been working to substantially update and improve Military production during World War II since June. Today Bender235 deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work and that of others, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this "editor". Can you please help me reverse all the deletions and keep this guy off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this -or point me in the right direction. -- Brukner ( talk) 19:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. As co-ordinators we are all fairly involved in the detail of this project and hence (hopefully) have a fairly good idea of some of the issues we face or the areas that need attention (not that many of us often have the time to actually do anything about it). In the past we have attempted to co-ordinate the efforts of our membership towards these areas via discussion on our central talk page or through drives, contests, awards etc. In recent times though my impression is that we have been fairly unsuccessful in obtaining the involvement of any more than the usual handful of helpful editors in many tasks (i.e. backlog drives, tag and assessment, reviews etc). The Bugle is sent out monthly direct to our members, but is possibly underutilised as a tool of mass communication (no criticism at all towards the various editors of the Bugle who do a fantastic job that I have never once ever helped with). What about including a regular section highlighting an area where we are trying to get more / new editors involved (e.g. GA and A class reviewing, b class checklists [boring I know], vital topics, etc)? In my mind I would see it being a small section, perhaps suitably illustrated in some way to capture attention (e.g. propaganda poster / interesting image), probably on the Project News page. For instance this month's segment on the NARA Challenge. Thoughts? Anotherclown ( talk) 06:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok so I guess its time to discuss the focus of this section for the next edition of the Bugle. My proposal would be on attempting to get more people involved in reviewing at GA and A class, as I think this is key to the success or otherwise of the project. Anyone with any counter suggestions? Anotherclown ( talk) 06:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts for this month's "help needed" section of the bugle is to highlight our Open Tasks list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks in particular the "Articles to be created" component as there are surprisingly quite a few redlinks. The draft wording for this month is located here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2014/Project news. Are there any cmts / objections. I will amend if req'd. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I recall we agreed on a September/October drive, September to mid-October. We were going to have a general drive, given we had a WWI-focussed one earlier in the year. Any repechages? Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This keeps coming up every year because we forget about it until election time. Currently, the lead coordinator is the one who receives the most votes, but often that person is reluctant to accept the role. I propose changing the rules so that the lead coordinator can be selected from the coordinators amongst themselves. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: Anybody else like to weigh in here? TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! There's a gentleman at the West Los Angeles VA, in the patient advocate office who is a survivor of the Bataan Death March, he escaped and then was later captured again at a different point. Do you think he's worthy of an article? http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/11/former-west-la-pows-recall-escape-from-bataan-death-march/
http://www.jewishjournal.com/veterans_day/article/the_long_journey_from_pow_to_veterans_advocat
he's even got a file at the library of Congress :) http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/bib/60510
It's been quite some time since I poked around with article creation, so I'd appreciate any help!
Thank you! LegoTech·( t)·( c) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: Since its the start of the month, I thought I'd pen a few things here since the next 6-8 weeks will likely be a little busy on sight.
So we seem to be in agreement that the projects reduced workload should correspond to a reduced number of coordinators. Given that we currently have 15 and the above discussion suggests a number between about 8-12 would more accurately reflect the estimated coordinator to workload ratio at the moment. I've suggest twelve, but I am not against going lower if that is what we think is best for the group, so what number should we officially aim for? TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Where do you guys stand on these matters, and have a missed anything else that we should take up in discussion as long as we are here? TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
If it doesn't annoy anyone too much, I'm going to start expanding the Checklist. I haven't expanded it before now because I didn't want to burden anyone with a long list of to-dos, but machines are getting better at copyediting (as you'll see if you try the speech-to-text app on your smartphone), and I'm going to try to expand it in a way that machines will be able to help, at some point in the future. If anyone wants to help out, great. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, List of World War II puppet states has been ACR nom'd, but is far below ACR standard. See Talk:List of World War II puppet states for a quick assessment of just a few of the (Yugoslav) issues. I've suggested it be withdrawn, not sure if the nominator will want to do that or not, just giving everyone the heads up. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 08:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Could one of you with great social skills have a look at the brewing edit war over the Archie McKellar article please? This runs the risk of getting out of control. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've set up our election page, its at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2014. If I've missed or overlooked anything please feel free to fix it. We are settled on 12 for this election, so that should probably be noted somewhere in the election page. I've also set up the tally page, but I couldn't figure out the status page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Gday. Anyone know why WP 1.0 bot hasn't updated User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history since 12 June 2014? This page is transcluded here Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality statistics and is quite out of date. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You will have noted my frustrated plea for support regarding this and other articles a little while back. I am now in the final stages of preparing an RfC-U draft, with the aim of banning Middayexpress from all Somali pol/econ articles for a long enough period that the user might be able to appreciate, from watching others, what unbiased editing and colloboration really mean, though to be honest I am not hopeful. Would like comments on the draft RfC-U; please ask and I'll forward it.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm following up here with a couple of questions following this post (now archived):
One of the reasons I'm posting here is because I'm not going to have time over the next few weeks to follow up properly. Would be really great if anyone here can help out. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, at present, we score assessments/reassessments through WP:MHAR for the drive, but I'm wondering if we should include assessment of articles listed at Category:Unassessed military history articles? There are over 500 currently, and it could really do with a kick. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I thought it would be courteous to let everybody know in advance that I will not be standing for re-election this year. I am about to enter a new phase in my life sometime in September when my wife is due to give birth to our first child (a boy, according to the doc). I have been mulling it over and have decided that the responsible thing for me to do regarding coordinatorship of the project is to stand aside for a year or two. I wish next year's team the very best of luck and am sorry not to have done more as a coordinator over the past year. I have enjoyed the experience and will always be available to help out, find a source or provide a point of view if need be. Cheers, all the very best, and a great weekend to everyone. — Cliftonian (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Huge congratulations! Let us know how it all goes - personally I found editing the wiki quite a good way to pass the hours when I was looking after a half-asleep baby...! :) Hchc2009 ( talk) 15:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the election page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2014), nomination open on September 4th, so we are officially underway with the elections. A proper notification to all project members should be made, and an announcement on our talk page should also be posted, both on the page itself and the news box up at the top. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, per this conversation with GermanJoe, I plan to add something about licensing/copyright to the A-Class criteria, to be crystal clear, unless anyone can point out something I've missed. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, today will be my final day as a Milhist coordinator. My time constraints (which essentially limited me to the Signpost anyway) have only grown now that grad school has started, and with 12 candidates running, I'm not going to take a spot away from someone else just so I can be a deadbeat coordinator. The last six years have been both rewarding and a growing experience (as EyeSerene and anyone else who saw me in 2008 will attest), and I can only thank all of you for putting up with me. Best of luck with the new term! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat belatedly, I should note that I'm also not going to stand for election. My Wikipedia time this year has been greatly limited due to work commitments so I haven't really been pulling my weight. As the work commitments are likely to continue to some degree for the next couple of months (though hopefully to nowhere near the same extent!) and I'm hoping to travel for two months or so next year, it seems sensible for me to sit this election out, especially given the high standard of the candidates. That all said, I'm 100% committed to continuing my role with the Bugle and hope to ramp up my contributions to the review processes later this year. It's been a pleasure working with you all as a coordinator, and best wishes for the new team. Nick-D ( talk) 10:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Our election phase officially opened today, so we should notify the project members that now is the time to cast their votes for the next coordinator tranche. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
When I checked the tally this morning I noticed our coordinator pool was heavy by one, and a glance through the history of the election page shows that our +1 Is Auntieruth55, who added a nomination statement after the official nomination period was over ( [1]). Technically, this would make the nomination forfeit, however since we do assume good faith here, and getting our editors to run is a few steps short of the becoming one of the 12 trials of Hercules, I put to the group the question of how we want to proceed on this matter: should we forfeit the nom, or should we make an exception here and allow it stay? TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the relatively low turnout so far, would it be helpful to send out a mass notification to all of the project members inviting them to vote? Kirill [talk] 23:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
# {{#target:User talk:Username}}
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
15:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)I have sent out notifications to all of the active and inactive members using Kirill Lokshin's text from last year. I'm hopeful that the inactives will get an email notification and possibly return to editing. Never know what can happen... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This is going to sound odd coming from me, ye of the multi-year "let's lower the total number of coordinators" soapbox, but would there be any objections to accepting thirteen coordinators this term? I think Molestash deserves a spot. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So the final tally is as follows:
Officially, that Makes Ian Rose our new lead. Congrats to everyone elected! Lets have a good year. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I've handed out the stars to everyone but me, if someone could do the honours... I'd like to pay tribute to all the retiring coordinators, and especially Rupert, who I think was a model lead – thoughtful, dedicated and helpful. As I've said earlier, this new team is very strong. Last year I commented that one of my few regrets about the 2013 tranche was a lack of diversity – I think we've gone some way to overcoming that on two counts: the new coord team is: a) not an all-male bastion, and b) not fifty per cent Australian… ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, I don't actually need a position to do it, but I've basically been running the featured picture side of MILHIST for.. well. about two years for the showcase, about six months or so for announcements, and in the Bugle for the last three. I'm not convinced it'd do anyone any benefit if I shoved someone else out of having a coordinator slot; at the same time, it would be nice to try and work to improve images on MILHIST articles. For example, most of our articles on American Civil War generals that I've checked use Library of Congress images, but, as people don't know to convert a JPEG from the TIFF file, most of them are just small thumbnails, sometimes badly documented.
I'm trying to work my way through the ones I've noticed, but I think I may be a little too much of a perfectionist, as I do full restorations. What role, if any, would be best for teaching image "best practice", as it were? Because I want to help, but I have a few restorations, like USS Mahan, where I've put about thirty hours into an image, and am nowhere even close to finished, so I'm not sure I alone am enough. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 22:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: Here's the first task. Now, when we do the Bugle, that's going to include a secondary check for images from the last month as well, but this gives some idea: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Featured_picture_workflow - It should probably be noted that I don't generally use this workflow unless I've been away a bit - I instead keep Template:WPMILHIST Announcements rigidly up to date, and use that as a guide, but that's much, much harder. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Our sock made another attempt to move on the elections this morning. In view of Wiki Pro's sock attempts I've semi-protected the election and tally page for the next three days, which should cover the end of the election process, since any new account needs 4 days to get autoconfirm status. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:30, 27 September 2014 (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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Please remember to add an awarded ACM to the medals page - I went through and added a few missing ones just now, and Sturmvogel's most recent two are also missing, which leads me to believe there are probably others. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, At the risk of being too ambitious, our last discussion on this issue resulted in a consensus that the ACM w/Diamonds should top out at 15 groups of three. I'd like to proceed on that basis to decide on the name and number of A-Class articles/lists needed to gain the A-Class Cross. My feeling from the previous discussion was that the ACC should be more difficult per level than the ACM. Perhaps five A-class articles (after you top out with the ACM w/Diamonds) to qualify for each ACC, and making it five ACCs before you go to ACC w/Oak Leaves (which would be six groups of three)? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I took the original A-Class Medals and exchanged the blue crosses with red crosses for a start. Please let me know how to tweak them, what to change and also how you think a third class should of A-Class medals should look. cheers, noclador ( talk) 03:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I did some updates of the Cross series now:
best regards, noclador ( talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know if there are any changes desired for the new A-Class cross series and the Grand Cross. I have time this weekend and could create new versions for review. best, noclador ( talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A pleasure. I'm going to take it we have sufficient consensus, with TomStar81, Harry, Rupert, Ian, Kirill, Ac and I all expressing support for the ACC series designs, and Hawkeye and Ed supportive of the project generally prior to completion of the design. I'll put some words together for the Awards page so we can agree on how we express this next tier. Thanks everyone for expressing views and supporting, and especial thanks to @ Noclador: for his excellent and timely design work. He has been a great supporter of MILHIST over the years, especially with graphics. I think we can put the Grand Cross to one side for a bit, in case some great new design idea pops up. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 02:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably need to update the awards page to clarify when the ACC is awarded vice the ACM w/Diamonds as I'm not sure that I understand it myself. Not really relevant for quite a while yet, but best to deal with it now, I'd think.
Hey all, any thoughts on a leaflet for this year's Wikimania? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Guys, I've been fairly useless over the past six months. I'm sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused, but my professional life is a little busier than I expected it would be, and I'm finding that I am hardly on here at all anymore. For that reason, I will be offering my retirement. Thank you so much for your interactions with me - I have cherished and valued my time with Milhist, and Wikipedia, although I have been neglectful of late. Take care, and best of luck in the future! Cdtew ( talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Check out WT:MILHIST#Milhist is like the bar car on Connecticut trains (minus the part where they just got rid of them). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh baby, what an ordeal that was. They have finally certified the elimination of the mold in the half of the house that housed my computer, so I've Jerry-rigged my computer back together and am now back online again. The tower should be back up and running for the time being, so hopefully I'll be in a position to remain active here (insofar as I do remain active anymore). TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
When I originally saw the checklist for promoting an article to A class I found the number of steps daunting, and wrote a Bot to assist. Over time I have refined, tested and improved the Bot. Now I am proposing that it be made more widely available. My proposal is that the coordinator change the entry on the talk page to say "A-Class=pass" or "A-Class=fail" and the Bot will take it from there. Any thoughts? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I put the bot on trial. Let's see. Sorry it took so long. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Bot completed day 1 of trial. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am considering to approve the bot tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, so if there are spotted problems and/or concerns please report them asap. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Bot approved. The bot still needs a user page. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There's been a long, steady decline in the quality of my copyediting at A-class ... and that's not so much a bad thing as the inevitable result of working on copyediting software. When I'm reading quickly (and I don't usually have time to read slowly), I'm seeing things that interest me and missing some other things. So starting today, at A-class and FAC, I'm only claiming that I've copyedited articles, not that I'm supporting them ... unless an article is showing up that I've already supported before at either A-class or FAC, in which case I'll make an effort to support again, as long as the diff between the old and new versions isn't too obnoxious. Hopefully I can start sharing the software soon ... it's taking a while, but I hope it will be worth it. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've been out of action for a while due to some rather unpleasant health issues. Normally, I manage to check in here at least every few days, but I ended up back in hospital at very sort notice. Anyway, I'm scheduled for an operation on 3 June, so the good news is that once I'm recovered (which should take a couple of weeks), there shouldn't be any more abrupt disappearances. Sorry if anyone felt left in the lurch. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I personally really don't have much to do with this project, but I would like to ask for some input from the coordinators of maybe the best organized WikiProject out there, this one. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Might wikipedia WikiProjects expand a little into other WF entities? I've started a possible discussion about maybe getting some editors who work with WikiProjects here maybe spending a little time with some of the material relevant to their topics in the other WF entities. So, for instance, editors dealing with Military history might (but also might not, and I hope no one thinks I'm trying to boss anyone here) be among the better people to proofread texts related to military history at Wikisource, assemble books related to military history at Wikibooks and Wikiversity, get together news stories about current military issues at Wikinews, develop pieces about historical battle sites at Wikivoyage, etc. I figure any past or present coordinators here would know better than me how to arrange this if they think it is a good idea, although I guess one starter idea might be to have maybe a "MILHIST wiki(x) collaboration of the month" for some entities, like maybe choosing one page from one (or more) WF entities as a monthly point of collaboration. Maybe. Like I said, you all know this better than me, and I would very much welcome any input at the above about any particular specific ideas which might be thought by you all to be good ways to at least start. John Carter ( talk) 18:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If I remember right, this category used to include templates which lacked a checklist entirely. Is there any way of having these article included in this category again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.124.31 ( talk • contribs)
G'day all, as I was the inaugural recipient, I am naturally reluctant to blow smoke up my own proverbial, but for the longer-term, perhaps we should place the record of Newcomer of the Year awards under the MH of the Year awards on the Awards page? Feel free to shoot me down here. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The three definitions of militarism in the article are all poor.
The first: " ... belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests" does not allow differentiation between the use of military means for political ends, and the use of the military instrument as an end in itself.
The second: "It may also imply the glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" leaves completely undefined what the ideals of a professional military class are. For example, the ideals of the current professional military class in Britain are to do a professional job as dictated by Whitehall, which, as often as not in living memory, is peacekeeping. Amos Perlmutter in his The Military and Politics in Modern Times: On Professionals, Praetorians, and Revolutionary Soldiers (1977) shows how it is more likely that Praetorians will use the military instrument as a first resort, and that revolutionary soldiers are the most likely to, but that even they, when sober, subordinate military means to political ends.
The third: "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state". This completely confuses militarism with aspects of civilian-military relations in which the military are just another power elite just as are the bureaucracy, business owners, trades union leaders, the medical lobby, political parties, or any other group exerting pressure of political decision-making. There is now a huge body of work on civil-military relations, most of which stands a long way from the idea of violence as an end in itself.
Indeed, Volker Berghahn identifies these and other confusions surrounding this essentially-contested concept in his Militarism: The History of an International Debate 1861-1979 (1981).
G'day all, I've just initialised the table using the usual suspects from a previous quarter, haven't done any tallying yet, so names will need to be added and subtracted, no doubt. If someone can point me to the easiest way of tallying ACR reviews, I'd appreciate it. Unless we just do it manually... Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dan. I think I'm right to go ahead with the awards now. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 02:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it OK that I (A) lack a degree? (B) lack combat experience? (C) am not an expert? Erik L'Ensle :) ( talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, I don't know if any of you are planning to come to Wikimania this year, but I'd like to organise a meetup for MilHist folks while people are in London. If you're interested, please sign up at wm2014:MilHist meetup (or email me at harry@wikimanialondon.org if you don't want to sign up publicly) so I know whether there's interest! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
When someone who can spell and gramarize gets a moment can they have another pass through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2014/Op-ed to make sure that all the sp&g issues have been covered? I'd appreciate it.
I'm currently revising, updating and expanding Military production during World War II. There were a lot of "issues" with the data, imagery, written content and analysis. There was a very heavy spin to the US experience and data. To rectify the page and make something interesting of it I would like to ask for some advice and help. Am I at the right place? In short, I need help beating off random bot attacks on file uploads, protecting the editorial integrity and balance, and accessing source data in German and Cyrillic languages. I'm sure there is more. Anyone?
-- Brukner ( talk) 02:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There has been a recent spreading of national-specific "Campaign boxes" which aren't. Examples are Template:Campaignbox Free French and Template:Campaignbox Vichy France Military in World War II. My thought is that 1. They don't cover real campaigns, 2. If you have one of these in an article, then logically you should have one for every single national grouping involved in that subject (Syria Lebanon campaign you should also have one for Britain. Australia, India, Transjordan whatever...causing a huge impenetrable block of such boxes). 3. They are unnecessary in that by following the link to, say the Free French article, the info will be there (and indeed an infobox for navigation might be appropriate on the the Free French article).
So I thought I would remove them but decided to check with the project to see if there was a policy. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I've been contacted by Dominic, who wants to run an informal contest. Basically, he'll list articles on User:Dominic/Challenge, and those who can write a C-class article or above will receive a poster. How can we get this out to the membership? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been working to substantially update and improve Military production during World War II since June. Today Bender235 deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work and that of others, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this "editor". Can you please help me reverse all the deletions and keep this guy off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this -or point me in the right direction. -- Brukner ( talk) 19:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. As co-ordinators we are all fairly involved in the detail of this project and hence (hopefully) have a fairly good idea of some of the issues we face or the areas that need attention (not that many of us often have the time to actually do anything about it). In the past we have attempted to co-ordinate the efforts of our membership towards these areas via discussion on our central talk page or through drives, contests, awards etc. In recent times though my impression is that we have been fairly unsuccessful in obtaining the involvement of any more than the usual handful of helpful editors in many tasks (i.e. backlog drives, tag and assessment, reviews etc). The Bugle is sent out monthly direct to our members, but is possibly underutilised as a tool of mass communication (no criticism at all towards the various editors of the Bugle who do a fantastic job that I have never once ever helped with). What about including a regular section highlighting an area where we are trying to get more / new editors involved (e.g. GA and A class reviewing, b class checklists [boring I know], vital topics, etc)? In my mind I would see it being a small section, perhaps suitably illustrated in some way to capture attention (e.g. propaganda poster / interesting image), probably on the Project News page. For instance this month's segment on the NARA Challenge. Thoughts? Anotherclown ( talk) 06:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok so I guess its time to discuss the focus of this section for the next edition of the Bugle. My proposal would be on attempting to get more people involved in reviewing at GA and A class, as I think this is key to the success or otherwise of the project. Anyone with any counter suggestions? Anotherclown ( talk) 06:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts for this month's "help needed" section of the bugle is to highlight our Open Tasks list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks in particular the "Articles to be created" component as there are surprisingly quite a few redlinks. The draft wording for this month is located here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2014/Project news. Are there any cmts / objections. I will amend if req'd. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I recall we agreed on a September/October drive, September to mid-October. We were going to have a general drive, given we had a WWI-focussed one earlier in the year. Any repechages? Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This keeps coming up every year because we forget about it until election time. Currently, the lead coordinator is the one who receives the most votes, but often that person is reluctant to accept the role. I propose changing the rules so that the lead coordinator can be selected from the coordinators amongst themselves. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: Anybody else like to weigh in here? TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! There's a gentleman at the West Los Angeles VA, in the patient advocate office who is a survivor of the Bataan Death March, he escaped and then was later captured again at a different point. Do you think he's worthy of an article? http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/11/former-west-la-pows-recall-escape-from-bataan-death-march/
http://www.jewishjournal.com/veterans_day/article/the_long_journey_from_pow_to_veterans_advocat
he's even got a file at the library of Congress :) http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/bib/60510
It's been quite some time since I poked around with article creation, so I'd appreciate any help!
Thank you! LegoTech·( t)·( c) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: Since its the start of the month, I thought I'd pen a few things here since the next 6-8 weeks will likely be a little busy on sight.
So we seem to be in agreement that the projects reduced workload should correspond to a reduced number of coordinators. Given that we currently have 15 and the above discussion suggests a number between about 8-12 would more accurately reflect the estimated coordinator to workload ratio at the moment. I've suggest twelve, but I am not against going lower if that is what we think is best for the group, so what number should we officially aim for? TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Where do you guys stand on these matters, and have a missed anything else that we should take up in discussion as long as we are here? TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
If it doesn't annoy anyone too much, I'm going to start expanding the Checklist. I haven't expanded it before now because I didn't want to burden anyone with a long list of to-dos, but machines are getting better at copyediting (as you'll see if you try the speech-to-text app on your smartphone), and I'm going to try to expand it in a way that machines will be able to help, at some point in the future. If anyone wants to help out, great. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, List of World War II puppet states has been ACR nom'd, but is far below ACR standard. See Talk:List of World War II puppet states for a quick assessment of just a few of the (Yugoslav) issues. I've suggested it be withdrawn, not sure if the nominator will want to do that or not, just giving everyone the heads up. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 08:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Could one of you with great social skills have a look at the brewing edit war over the Archie McKellar article please? This runs the risk of getting out of control. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've set up our election page, its at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2014. If I've missed or overlooked anything please feel free to fix it. We are settled on 12 for this election, so that should probably be noted somewhere in the election page. I've also set up the tally page, but I couldn't figure out the status page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Gday. Anyone know why WP 1.0 bot hasn't updated User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history since 12 June 2014? This page is transcluded here Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality statistics and is quite out of date. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You will have noted my frustrated plea for support regarding this and other articles a little while back. I am now in the final stages of preparing an RfC-U draft, with the aim of banning Middayexpress from all Somali pol/econ articles for a long enough period that the user might be able to appreciate, from watching others, what unbiased editing and colloboration really mean, though to be honest I am not hopeful. Would like comments on the draft RfC-U; please ask and I'll forward it.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm following up here with a couple of questions following this post (now archived):
One of the reasons I'm posting here is because I'm not going to have time over the next few weeks to follow up properly. Would be really great if anyone here can help out. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, at present, we score assessments/reassessments through WP:MHAR for the drive, but I'm wondering if we should include assessment of articles listed at Category:Unassessed military history articles? There are over 500 currently, and it could really do with a kick. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I thought it would be courteous to let everybody know in advance that I will not be standing for re-election this year. I am about to enter a new phase in my life sometime in September when my wife is due to give birth to our first child (a boy, according to the doc). I have been mulling it over and have decided that the responsible thing for me to do regarding coordinatorship of the project is to stand aside for a year or two. I wish next year's team the very best of luck and am sorry not to have done more as a coordinator over the past year. I have enjoyed the experience and will always be available to help out, find a source or provide a point of view if need be. Cheers, all the very best, and a great weekend to everyone. — Cliftonian (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Huge congratulations! Let us know how it all goes - personally I found editing the wiki quite a good way to pass the hours when I was looking after a half-asleep baby...! :) Hchc2009 ( talk) 15:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the election page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2014), nomination open on September 4th, so we are officially underway with the elections. A proper notification to all project members should be made, and an announcement on our talk page should also be posted, both on the page itself and the news box up at the top. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, per this conversation with GermanJoe, I plan to add something about licensing/copyright to the A-Class criteria, to be crystal clear, unless anyone can point out something I've missed. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, today will be my final day as a Milhist coordinator. My time constraints (which essentially limited me to the Signpost anyway) have only grown now that grad school has started, and with 12 candidates running, I'm not going to take a spot away from someone else just so I can be a deadbeat coordinator. The last six years have been both rewarding and a growing experience (as EyeSerene and anyone else who saw me in 2008 will attest), and I can only thank all of you for putting up with me. Best of luck with the new term! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat belatedly, I should note that I'm also not going to stand for election. My Wikipedia time this year has been greatly limited due to work commitments so I haven't really been pulling my weight. As the work commitments are likely to continue to some degree for the next couple of months (though hopefully to nowhere near the same extent!) and I'm hoping to travel for two months or so next year, it seems sensible for me to sit this election out, especially given the high standard of the candidates. That all said, I'm 100% committed to continuing my role with the Bugle and hope to ramp up my contributions to the review processes later this year. It's been a pleasure working with you all as a coordinator, and best wishes for the new team. Nick-D ( talk) 10:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Our election phase officially opened today, so we should notify the project members that now is the time to cast their votes for the next coordinator tranche. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
When I checked the tally this morning I noticed our coordinator pool was heavy by one, and a glance through the history of the election page shows that our +1 Is Auntieruth55, who added a nomination statement after the official nomination period was over ( [1]). Technically, this would make the nomination forfeit, however since we do assume good faith here, and getting our editors to run is a few steps short of the becoming one of the 12 trials of Hercules, I put to the group the question of how we want to proceed on this matter: should we forfeit the nom, or should we make an exception here and allow it stay? TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the relatively low turnout so far, would it be helpful to send out a mass notification to all of the project members inviting them to vote? Kirill [talk] 23:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
# {{#target:User talk:Username}}
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
15:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)I have sent out notifications to all of the active and inactive members using Kirill Lokshin's text from last year. I'm hopeful that the inactives will get an email notification and possibly return to editing. Never know what can happen... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This is going to sound odd coming from me, ye of the multi-year "let's lower the total number of coordinators" soapbox, but would there be any objections to accepting thirteen coordinators this term? I think Molestash deserves a spot. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So the final tally is as follows:
Officially, that Makes Ian Rose our new lead. Congrats to everyone elected! Lets have a good year. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I've handed out the stars to everyone but me, if someone could do the honours... I'd like to pay tribute to all the retiring coordinators, and especially Rupert, who I think was a model lead – thoughtful, dedicated and helpful. As I've said earlier, this new team is very strong. Last year I commented that one of my few regrets about the 2013 tranche was a lack of diversity – I think we've gone some way to overcoming that on two counts: the new coord team is: a) not an all-male bastion, and b) not fifty per cent Australian… ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, I don't actually need a position to do it, but I've basically been running the featured picture side of MILHIST for.. well. about two years for the showcase, about six months or so for announcements, and in the Bugle for the last three. I'm not convinced it'd do anyone any benefit if I shoved someone else out of having a coordinator slot; at the same time, it would be nice to try and work to improve images on MILHIST articles. For example, most of our articles on American Civil War generals that I've checked use Library of Congress images, but, as people don't know to convert a JPEG from the TIFF file, most of them are just small thumbnails, sometimes badly documented.
I'm trying to work my way through the ones I've noticed, but I think I may be a little too much of a perfectionist, as I do full restorations. What role, if any, would be best for teaching image "best practice", as it were? Because I want to help, but I have a few restorations, like USS Mahan, where I've put about thirty hours into an image, and am nowhere even close to finished, so I'm not sure I alone am enough. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 22:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: Here's the first task. Now, when we do the Bugle, that's going to include a secondary check for images from the last month as well, but this gives some idea: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Featured_picture_workflow - It should probably be noted that I don't generally use this workflow unless I've been away a bit - I instead keep Template:WPMILHIST Announcements rigidly up to date, and use that as a guide, but that's much, much harder. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Our sock made another attempt to move on the elections this morning. In view of Wiki Pro's sock attempts I've semi-protected the election and tally page for the next three days, which should cover the end of the election process, since any new account needs 4 days to get autoconfirm status. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)