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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
In light of my imminent retirement, I'd like to take this opportunity to set down a few matters that I've been keeping in the back of my mind, but which are properly something the new coordinators should deal with as they see fit. In no particular order:
Comments are, as always, extremely welcome. Kirill 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We need to schedule this in now. We have a number of logistical issues to resolve, such as who will write and run the scripts to generate the worklists. Maralia has offered input on this as part of the large number of excellent improvement suggestions that came out of the workshop. Let's start by firming up a date. Anyone object to April 1? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've spoken To Kirill (who'll generate the lists) and he'd prefer a bit more time. I've tentatively suggested pushing T&A08 back to 15 April start date. Any objections? This also means we have time to sneak in the B-class assessment drive first :) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Our B class assessment could profit from a drive. This should perhaps be done on a task force basis. Wandalstouring ( talk) 12:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Frankly, it would be good to get this out of the way. It's not a particularly big job and useful to get on top of. I've asked Kirill about generating worksheets/worklists for this. He reckons he can do it by 10/11 March. This means we can run this drive as a curtain-raiser to T&A08 as if we get behind it, it should only take a couple of weeks tops to complete. If so, 3-stripes for 500 assessed, chevrons for per 1000 assessed and a gold wiki for the top scorer. It would be good to announce this in the February newsletter which is due to go out real soon now. So comments? Any objections? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen: this is now ready to go live. I've arbitrarily picked 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 as the launch time, which will be done by posting the worklist table (currently in a sandbox) to the drive page. (If it's not done by 18:15, it will mean I've been knocked over by a bus, kicked by a donkey or hit by lightning, and someone will have to do the honours.) Overnight, I'll send out announcements to the Top Twenty participants in the last Tag & Assess drive, inviting them to join in and mention it in Announcements. If that doesn't attract enough attention, we can mail the other 80-odd T&A participants. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. We now have more participants signed up than we've got worklists. The obvious route is to add a second worklist containing 2000 or 3000 articles from Category:Start-Class military history articles or Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists? Anyone object? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea to make B class assessments for stubs is directing our precious manpower on a senseless task. The stubs do fail most criteria and we can not be sure that they will be improved in a manner that still reflects their assessment. Starts by contrast have already quite some substance and if changes occur these would usually not be that earthshaking. For them the B class assessment does make sense because one can see what needs to be improved in this article for reaching B class. So I strongly urge that the stubs get only part of the B class assessment drive when all starts have been finished and get eliminated a.s.a.p. from the current lists that have not yet been assigned. Wandalstouring ( talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We have 29,000 stubs. It is going to take huge amounts of manpower to organise these meaningfully. My feeling is that we should run a stub improvement drive, and use the task forces to work them up. I'm still mulling this over so I'd like to return to it later, but as a first step, we need larger, better organised task forces. I'll return to this below ( #Task forces). -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that only
need updating. Is this accurate? If so, presumably this could be handled by a wiki-gnome or two fairly swiftly? Comments, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
How is this going, by the way? Close to completion? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The following featured article have citation problems. I suggest we list them in talk and invite editors to either get them back to up to strength (say, WikiChevrons per article improved) or refer to FAR. The articles are:
Thoughts? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
We could start a drive for the older FA articles. I agree that awarding the chevrons for articles improved may be a good idea, but I am not sure how much pahzaz we'd get from our task forces on this point (although I have been suprised by our task forces before). TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some articles have content problems aside from the general no refs problems from the stone ages. I would be surprised if only 10% of the featured articles are from the old old days though... Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that the key to increasing the number of involved editors is through the task forces. These may well provide a greater interest-focus and thus more motivation than the slightly more abstract concept of a Milhist wikiproject. I suggest we focus on reforming/regenerating task forces. Here are some related ideas for discussion:
Kirill mentions that there are a few interesting ideas bounced around for potential task forces; the most immediately feasible ones are military vehicles, Central Asian military history, and Mongol military history. These, I suggest, we could ahead with, subject to the comments above.-- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) Is it worth pursuing the idea of galvinising the TF and boosting membership at the moment? Or should this be re-tabled in a month or so? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Point of clarification my main reservation with this is that I see it as a kind of "president/cabinet" thing where people are assigned tasks here. My other reservation about this stems from the topic: what happens if I have no idea at all what the problem is and someone comes crawling to me for help. What am I supposed to do? Thats where much of my concern is. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
First, the key thing that came out of the referendum was the members' desire for a mid-course between strong leadership and no leadership at all. To reflect this, I propose that we scrap the term "assistant coordinator" and have "coordinators" and a "lead coordinator". I'd feel more comfortable with this too :) Thoughts, preferably preceded by "support", "oppose" or "comment" would be helpful. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Second, as you may have noticed, in my private citizen capacity, I've given every coordinator who has served in the past two completed terms a Wikiproject barnstar for each term served. I would like to see this become an informal tradition. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Bouncing off an idea from MBK004 over at WP:SHIPS, would there be any interest here in creating a list of admins who are active within the project? It may be useful for the contributers to know who they can turn to if they need admin related help. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) How were you thinking of implementing it? A separate section at the top of the members list, or an asterisk after an admin's name in the list itself? Or somewhere else? I'm against the idea if it's merely a trophy cabinet but would support it wholeheartedly providing it's a resource of admins to whom one can turn for help with non-contentious matters (or even for neutral advice on contentious matters). Restricting this to just the coordinators who happen to be admins goes against my personal philosophy of de-centralising wherever possible, though I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that :) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I raised this here and the response has been underwhelming :) What do we do next? Decide how to implement it and then do so? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just mulling things over for input, at the moment, but the main thought is focusing on ways in which coordinators can play a stable ongoing role in the project's development.
Comments? Suggestions? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody, a request on my talkpage means I think we need a bit of clarification. The Contest department has always been tallied up at the end of the month by Kirill, this month I did it. Dreamafter has asked me today whether he can tally it up at the end of the month given that I already have some articles in the contest and presumably he is thinking about a COI. What do the coordinators think. Should this be another one of the coordinators official duties or can anyone do it? Woody ( talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Does anyone know a way of counting the number of articles in a large category, to arrive at a total? Is there a tool, for instance? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Does anyone know if the articles in a category can be transcluded? The specific thought is ways of getting the contents of Category:Unassessed military history articles listed in WP:MHA#REQ. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well my manual way is to just cut and paste from the list into text editor, then use the replace all to replace "*" with "}} <linebreak> {{" and it should be good to go. Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WT:MILHIST gets a pretty decent amount of traffic now, so someone should probably keep an eye on the need for archiving; it's at about 200K at the moment. (I'd be happy to continue doing the archiving myself, if nobody else wants to do it; but I don't want to step on the toes of any coordinators that would prefer to handle it themselves.) Kirill 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
They've got one running for three months. They are happy to tag for Milhist (keep it simple: article classes and main TFs only, I thought) if we return the compliment during next tagging drive. Anyone object? And does anyone object if they give out our one- two- and three-stripes to top taggers? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Adam Bishop has apparently set up a Crusades task force under WP:MA. I'm not sure if it's intended to be a joint task force with us—there's a matching category on the page, but that could have just been left over from copying the page structure—but I see no real reason that it shouldn't be one. If that's something of interest, it would be nice if someone could contact Adam and work out the details; if the group is going to be one of our task forces as well, it's missing quite a bit of the necessary logistical infrastructure. Kirill 12:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Might coordinators who are also admins consider closing this particular discussion, or informing whoever that closing it might be an option for consideration? I think a decision either way needs to be made, as the participants, including myself, now seems to be going round in circles without many new arguments or thoughts being added. My 2 cents. Buckshot06 ( talk) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo Forces fatalities cites the website [www.freerepublic.com/home.htm freerepublic.com] as a source for the information presented, but the site seems iffy to me. Could someone else take a look and tell me what you think? I want a second opinion on this before doing anything with it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This was raised (passingly) prior to Kirill's retirement but I think it deserves revisiting. The proposal is that Kirill becomes coordinator emeritus. I suggest initially on a session by session basis on the grounds that future coordinators ought not be bound by historic decisions in which they played no part. This formalises his contributions here (!?), acknowledges his past and on-going contributions, and makes me feeling less guilty about asking him to do us favours all the time :)
Thoughts, gentlemen? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I agree and I think that it is a good idea. Kyriakos ( talk) 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) After 48 hours, I think consensus is clear enough :) I'll make the appropriate announcement. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Gregory R. Ball is currently on the A-class candidacy. I think it should be removed because I don't see how it is really in the scope. The subject of the bio is a 30 year old politician who spent a few years in the USAF and reached the rank of captain. I don't see any notable military achievements there at all, except that there is one sentence telling us that he was the personal assistant of the Chief of Staff, which doesn't appear to be a high ranking strategic/policy role but just a backroom paper organiser. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just had a flip through the past three months worth of assorted reviews. The following editors have started contributing regularly (some more than others) and weren't recognised last December:
Any objections to content medals to the above? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
On the off-chance that no one noticed we have a rther large amount of bot-generate articles needing assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Help with the assment there would be appreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This seems stalled, with a growing backlog. Shall we encourage with the Copy-editor's barnstar for good work? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(OD) I've added appropriate BS ideas throughout the Logistics dept. I'll add a reference to the Chevrons in the header. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Since 24 January 2008 there hasn't been any edit to the members list. I compared this with last year's when we had plenty of new entries during the months February and March. What goes wrong? Is it Kirill who attracted these new people or does this have another reason? Wandalstouring ( talk) 09:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Two months ago when I made the announcement to project members regarding the coordinator election i've also checked users contributions and noticed that almost 50% of them did not contribute in the past 6 months. I don't know if this is important or not, but shouldn't we update the list? -- Eurocopter ( talk) 15:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As Kirill says, this has been discussed above: #Core article contest, #List of articles, #Contest setup and #Some thoughts. This does need work on the details, and we're waiting for data on which Milhist articles are the top 50 viewed. Meanwhile, what prominence should be given this? This need not necessarily draw resources from any new Tag & Assess initiatives, as quite different skills are called for. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that this should be placed as a second competition on the contest page. I also think that if they can be found the for each taskforce the most viewed page that has to do with that country, region, technology, etc. However, I think that the selected articles should be under B class that way we would be encouraging the building up of lower class articles. Kyriakos ( talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it needs doing but it will take up a huge amount of thinking/discussion time. I note that mrg3105 has participating recently in the restructuring workshop and that Carom did good work on categories last year. The way forward is probably to get more editors involved in a semi-moderated discussion but I'd like to defer planning of this for a couple or three weeks. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Closed: Implemented, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be worth rotating the articles on our assessment scale so that we keep our FA, A, GA, B, Start, and Stub examples more current? It may help improve moral among the contributers if they no artilces they work on end up used there as an example. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. All the examples given are over a year old so an update is much needed and as stated it would be good or moral. Kyriakos ( talk) 06:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, very good idea. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we could probably rotate the examples once a month, picking articles from the previous month to use as examples for the current month. How does that sound? TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to introduce a bonus for improving in the contest departement a top viewed article that isn't only in the list because of a sudden outburst of interest for 2-3 days. For more detailed info visit Some statistics. Wandalstouring ( talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, speaking of the core contest, Vietnam War is probably the worst imaginable "high profile article" that I can think of. The article is basically only being edited by Americans of various persuasions, using the article as a coatrack for their foreign policy soapboxing, rather than telling us the details of histroy. Unfortunately, RM Gillespie is pretty much inactive nowadays....Sounds like something for a large bounty. Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
In light of my imminent retirement, I'd like to take this opportunity to set down a few matters that I've been keeping in the back of my mind, but which are properly something the new coordinators should deal with as they see fit. In no particular order:
Comments are, as always, extremely welcome. Kirill 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We need to schedule this in now. We have a number of logistical issues to resolve, such as who will write and run the scripts to generate the worklists. Maralia has offered input on this as part of the large number of excellent improvement suggestions that came out of the workshop. Let's start by firming up a date. Anyone object to April 1? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've spoken To Kirill (who'll generate the lists) and he'd prefer a bit more time. I've tentatively suggested pushing T&A08 back to 15 April start date. Any objections? This also means we have time to sneak in the B-class assessment drive first :) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Our B class assessment could profit from a drive. This should perhaps be done on a task force basis. Wandalstouring ( talk) 12:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Frankly, it would be good to get this out of the way. It's not a particularly big job and useful to get on top of. I've asked Kirill about generating worksheets/worklists for this. He reckons he can do it by 10/11 March. This means we can run this drive as a curtain-raiser to T&A08 as if we get behind it, it should only take a couple of weeks tops to complete. If so, 3-stripes for 500 assessed, chevrons for per 1000 assessed and a gold wiki for the top scorer. It would be good to announce this in the February newsletter which is due to go out real soon now. So comments? Any objections? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen: this is now ready to go live. I've arbitrarily picked 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 as the launch time, which will be done by posting the worklist table (currently in a sandbox) to the drive page. (If it's not done by 18:15, it will mean I've been knocked over by a bus, kicked by a donkey or hit by lightning, and someone will have to do the honours.) Overnight, I'll send out announcements to the Top Twenty participants in the last Tag & Assess drive, inviting them to join in and mention it in Announcements. If that doesn't attract enough attention, we can mail the other 80-odd T&A participants. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. We now have more participants signed up than we've got worklists. The obvious route is to add a second worklist containing 2000 or 3000 articles from Category:Start-Class military history articles or Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists? Anyone object? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea to make B class assessments for stubs is directing our precious manpower on a senseless task. The stubs do fail most criteria and we can not be sure that they will be improved in a manner that still reflects their assessment. Starts by contrast have already quite some substance and if changes occur these would usually not be that earthshaking. For them the B class assessment does make sense because one can see what needs to be improved in this article for reaching B class. So I strongly urge that the stubs get only part of the B class assessment drive when all starts have been finished and get eliminated a.s.a.p. from the current lists that have not yet been assigned. Wandalstouring ( talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We have 29,000 stubs. It is going to take huge amounts of manpower to organise these meaningfully. My feeling is that we should run a stub improvement drive, and use the task forces to work them up. I'm still mulling this over so I'd like to return to it later, but as a first step, we need larger, better organised task forces. I'll return to this below ( #Task forces). -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that only
need updating. Is this accurate? If so, presumably this could be handled by a wiki-gnome or two fairly swiftly? Comments, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
How is this going, by the way? Close to completion? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The following featured article have citation problems. I suggest we list them in talk and invite editors to either get them back to up to strength (say, WikiChevrons per article improved) or refer to FAR. The articles are:
Thoughts? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
We could start a drive for the older FA articles. I agree that awarding the chevrons for articles improved may be a good idea, but I am not sure how much pahzaz we'd get from our task forces on this point (although I have been suprised by our task forces before). TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some articles have content problems aside from the general no refs problems from the stone ages. I would be surprised if only 10% of the featured articles are from the old old days though... Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that the key to increasing the number of involved editors is through the task forces. These may well provide a greater interest-focus and thus more motivation than the slightly more abstract concept of a Milhist wikiproject. I suggest we focus on reforming/regenerating task forces. Here are some related ideas for discussion:
Kirill mentions that there are a few interesting ideas bounced around for potential task forces; the most immediately feasible ones are military vehicles, Central Asian military history, and Mongol military history. These, I suggest, we could ahead with, subject to the comments above.-- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) Is it worth pursuing the idea of galvinising the TF and boosting membership at the moment? Or should this be re-tabled in a month or so? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Point of clarification my main reservation with this is that I see it as a kind of "president/cabinet" thing where people are assigned tasks here. My other reservation about this stems from the topic: what happens if I have no idea at all what the problem is and someone comes crawling to me for help. What am I supposed to do? Thats where much of my concern is. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
First, the key thing that came out of the referendum was the members' desire for a mid-course between strong leadership and no leadership at all. To reflect this, I propose that we scrap the term "assistant coordinator" and have "coordinators" and a "lead coordinator". I'd feel more comfortable with this too :) Thoughts, preferably preceded by "support", "oppose" or "comment" would be helpful. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Second, as you may have noticed, in my private citizen capacity, I've given every coordinator who has served in the past two completed terms a Wikiproject barnstar for each term served. I would like to see this become an informal tradition. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Bouncing off an idea from MBK004 over at WP:SHIPS, would there be any interest here in creating a list of admins who are active within the project? It may be useful for the contributers to know who they can turn to if they need admin related help. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) How were you thinking of implementing it? A separate section at the top of the members list, or an asterisk after an admin's name in the list itself? Or somewhere else? I'm against the idea if it's merely a trophy cabinet but would support it wholeheartedly providing it's a resource of admins to whom one can turn for help with non-contentious matters (or even for neutral advice on contentious matters). Restricting this to just the coordinators who happen to be admins goes against my personal philosophy of de-centralising wherever possible, though I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that :) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I raised this here and the response has been underwhelming :) What do we do next? Decide how to implement it and then do so? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just mulling things over for input, at the moment, but the main thought is focusing on ways in which coordinators can play a stable ongoing role in the project's development.
Comments? Suggestions? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody, a request on my talkpage means I think we need a bit of clarification. The Contest department has always been tallied up at the end of the month by Kirill, this month I did it. Dreamafter has asked me today whether he can tally it up at the end of the month given that I already have some articles in the contest and presumably he is thinking about a COI. What do the coordinators think. Should this be another one of the coordinators official duties or can anyone do it? Woody ( talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Does anyone know a way of counting the number of articles in a large category, to arrive at a total? Is there a tool, for instance? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Does anyone know if the articles in a category can be transcluded? The specific thought is ways of getting the contents of Category:Unassessed military history articles listed in WP:MHA#REQ. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well my manual way is to just cut and paste from the list into text editor, then use the replace all to replace "*" with "}} <linebreak> {{" and it should be good to go. Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WT:MILHIST gets a pretty decent amount of traffic now, so someone should probably keep an eye on the need for archiving; it's at about 200K at the moment. (I'd be happy to continue doing the archiving myself, if nobody else wants to do it; but I don't want to step on the toes of any coordinators that would prefer to handle it themselves.) Kirill 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
They've got one running for three months. They are happy to tag for Milhist (keep it simple: article classes and main TFs only, I thought) if we return the compliment during next tagging drive. Anyone object? And does anyone object if they give out our one- two- and three-stripes to top taggers? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Adam Bishop has apparently set up a Crusades task force under WP:MA. I'm not sure if it's intended to be a joint task force with us—there's a matching category on the page, but that could have just been left over from copying the page structure—but I see no real reason that it shouldn't be one. If that's something of interest, it would be nice if someone could contact Adam and work out the details; if the group is going to be one of our task forces as well, it's missing quite a bit of the necessary logistical infrastructure. Kirill 12:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Might coordinators who are also admins consider closing this particular discussion, or informing whoever that closing it might be an option for consideration? I think a decision either way needs to be made, as the participants, including myself, now seems to be going round in circles without many new arguments or thoughts being added. My 2 cents. Buckshot06 ( talk) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo Forces fatalities cites the website [www.freerepublic.com/home.htm freerepublic.com] as a source for the information presented, but the site seems iffy to me. Could someone else take a look and tell me what you think? I want a second opinion on this before doing anything with it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This was raised (passingly) prior to Kirill's retirement but I think it deserves revisiting. The proposal is that Kirill becomes coordinator emeritus. I suggest initially on a session by session basis on the grounds that future coordinators ought not be bound by historic decisions in which they played no part. This formalises his contributions here (!?), acknowledges his past and on-going contributions, and makes me feeling less guilty about asking him to do us favours all the time :)
Thoughts, gentlemen? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I agree and I think that it is a good idea. Kyriakos ( talk) 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) After 48 hours, I think consensus is clear enough :) I'll make the appropriate announcement. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Gregory R. Ball is currently on the A-class candidacy. I think it should be removed because I don't see how it is really in the scope. The subject of the bio is a 30 year old politician who spent a few years in the USAF and reached the rank of captain. I don't see any notable military achievements there at all, except that there is one sentence telling us that he was the personal assistant of the Chief of Staff, which doesn't appear to be a high ranking strategic/policy role but just a backroom paper organiser. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just had a flip through the past three months worth of assorted reviews. The following editors have started contributing regularly (some more than others) and weren't recognised last December:
Any objections to content medals to the above? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
On the off-chance that no one noticed we have a rther large amount of bot-generate articles needing assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Help with the assment there would be appreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This seems stalled, with a growing backlog. Shall we encourage with the Copy-editor's barnstar for good work? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(OD) I've added appropriate BS ideas throughout the Logistics dept. I'll add a reference to the Chevrons in the header. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Since 24 January 2008 there hasn't been any edit to the members list. I compared this with last year's when we had plenty of new entries during the months February and March. What goes wrong? Is it Kirill who attracted these new people or does this have another reason? Wandalstouring ( talk) 09:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Two months ago when I made the announcement to project members regarding the coordinator election i've also checked users contributions and noticed that almost 50% of them did not contribute in the past 6 months. I don't know if this is important or not, but shouldn't we update the list? -- Eurocopter ( talk) 15:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As Kirill says, this has been discussed above: #Core article contest, #List of articles, #Contest setup and #Some thoughts. This does need work on the details, and we're waiting for data on which Milhist articles are the top 50 viewed. Meanwhile, what prominence should be given this? This need not necessarily draw resources from any new Tag & Assess initiatives, as quite different skills are called for. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that this should be placed as a second competition on the contest page. I also think that if they can be found the for each taskforce the most viewed page that has to do with that country, region, technology, etc. However, I think that the selected articles should be under B class that way we would be encouraging the building up of lower class articles. Kyriakos ( talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it needs doing but it will take up a huge amount of thinking/discussion time. I note that mrg3105 has participating recently in the restructuring workshop and that Carom did good work on categories last year. The way forward is probably to get more editors involved in a semi-moderated discussion but I'd like to defer planning of this for a couple or three weeks. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Closed: Implemented, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be worth rotating the articles on our assessment scale so that we keep our FA, A, GA, B, Start, and Stub examples more current? It may help improve moral among the contributers if they no artilces they work on end up used there as an example. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. All the examples given are over a year old so an update is much needed and as stated it would be good or moral. Kyriakos ( talk) 06:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, very good idea. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we could probably rotate the examples once a month, picking articles from the previous month to use as examples for the current month. How does that sound? TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to introduce a bonus for improving in the contest departement a top viewed article that isn't only in the list because of a sudden outburst of interest for 2-3 days. For more detailed info visit Some statistics. Wandalstouring ( talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, speaking of the core contest, Vietnam War is probably the worst imaginable "high profile article" that I can think of. The article is basically only being edited by Americans of various persuasions, using the article as a coatrack for their foreign policy soapboxing, rather than telling us the details of histroy. Unfortunately, RM Gillespie is pretty much inactive nowadays....Sounds like something for a large bounty. Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)