This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page 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. |
Redirected here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2010#General comments, questions, etc.. To establish context, a selected portion of the discussion is duplicated below. EyeSerene talk 09:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- The election process has reliably produced an excellent group of coordinators; there is a certain 'old boys club' feel to it, but good new candidates do come through. Regarding reviewing, the main disadvantage it has over article creation is that reviewers are required to cover all of the FA criteria in a tightly constrained timeframe. On the other hand, reviewers could explicitly address specific criteria to reduce the burden and this could be facilitated by splitting the review into (transcluded?) sections by criterion. This would make the criteria clearer for new reviewers and they could focus on areas of interest to them or where they have particular skills. Realistically, reviewers on 1a, 1d and 4 may have no clue about 1c, but we are supposed to be experts in all areas to deliver a valid vote. On another topic, recognition of contributions in reviewing are appreciated. Doug ( talk) 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- What Doug said, on all counts. Of course, the main thing we do right is to have a rocking A-class review process, which effectively gives us more time than most other projects to work on FAC issues. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary Doug, at FAC SandyGeorgia has encouraged editors to review in whatever capacity they can. If that is just one criterion, it's a small matter to say "criterion 1a looks good" or "oppose on criterion 3". Some people do just image reviews, and others focus on sourcing; some examine an article to see if it complies with MOS. You don't have to measure an article against every criteria as long as you state which ones you have. It's a good route for inexperienced reviewers, or for people who specialise in a particular area. It would be a good approach to adopt in the "rocking" A-class reviews. Nev1 ( talk) 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. Nev, out of curiosity, why did you not consider running? You are a very dedicated worker here and I'm sure that you would do a good job at such a task.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did consider it, but have some reservations about the position that are explained on my talk page. Nev1 ( talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Nev, I was reading that quickly as "reviewers" (plural), but I see he talks about individual reviewers later. No, individual reviewers can do anything they want. I give a standard disclaimer when I support at FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Nev. On the other hand, quoting 1a at review is a perfect method to introduce jargon, steepen the learning curve and ensure the need for a mentoring process. Perhaps that is desirable, but it should be an explicit choice of the project. I don't see downsides of sectioning reviews with the criteria for that section made explicit. A 'General' section would permit experienced reviewers to continue with their preferred style. Doug ( talk) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't see how encouraging people to do something they're comfortable with rather than dive in at the deep end would intimidate people. It doesn't need to be bureaucratic, you don't need to create sections in reviews for people to compartmentalise their opinions, or anything else that's been over thought. All that a reviewer would have to do is state which criterion they checked the article against. Nev1 ( talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the main issue with reviewing only against selected criteria is that it complicates the promotion process. I don't see a problem with this when opposing, because a single unaddressed criteria-based oppose is enough to prevent promotion under the current system anyway, but when adjudicating supports the closing coord will need to distinguish support votes for the article as a whole from supports based on one criterion and weight them accordingly. EyeSerene talk 08:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- If the choice is between a more approachable review system for the new and inexperienced and co-ordinators spending a little more time thinking about their decisions that's really no choice at all. Nev1 ( talk) 14:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I take your point, but I don't think we can dismiss this issue quite that easily. Currently promotion requires three supports and no unaddressed criteria-based opposes; under the system you suggest, it's possible an article could have its three supports but all could could be based on a single (perhaps even the same) criterion. Can we then legitimately promote the article? It's calling on the coords to make a subjective judgement call rather than - as now - a largely objective one. For me that's a big change in the coord role and I'm not sure we have the mandate or desire to do that. It would only take a few controversial decisions to call our entire A-Class review process into question. I think your suggestion is a good one, but to be fully integrated into the process it will require some hard thinking about the way we manage reviews. Perhaps the STT would be a good venue to explore this further? EyeSerene talk 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You still don't understand. This is aimed at inexperienced editors; the old hands who are currently involved wouldn't change their habits while newer edits might feel more comfortable commenting on only one aspect of the article. The purpose it to generate more interest in reviews rather than compartmentalise them, making life difficult for reviewers and co-ordinators. Obviously if there are only supports on certain criteria rather than the article as a whole, you wait for more reviewers. It's not rocket science. Nev1 ( talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- (od) I can't help but feel we ought to be having this discussion somewhere more central, but why not :-)
- Speaking as someone pretty uninvolved with the A-class system at the moment (shame, shame, I know) - it seems "compartmentalising" works well for the B or GA reviews, with an easy breakdown of what is and isn't good to go, and it might well be worth trialling the model. I'd go for something like Doug suggests above - criteria headers, and encourage notes underneath each on the basis of "support / object / comment / query" - passing would then still require three approvals for each point, either explicit or inferred from general comments, but people would be able to clearly express "I am happy with the structure of this article and the text and the pictures, I definitely think the citations are screwy, but I don't have the slightest idea if it's actually correct, so please don't hold me to that bit" without having to leave unduly complicated remarks. In many ways this would be similar to what we have now, but it'd - hopefully - be a little bit clearer, a good bit easier to check off and close, and I can certainly see how being able to say "well, I only need comment on this little bit" would help draw people into reviewing. Perhaps we could run a review or two this way as a trial, and see if it's unwieldy or not? Shimgray | talk | 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Overall, I like the new setup; it definitely looks more inviting for a first-time visitor. A few general thoughts on the layout:
Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about it, the main benefit of the images is that at a quick eyeball you can in theory see what still needs done, and easily spot lacunae, but as "two pluses" is still needing work, it's visually a bit counterintuitive. I wonder if hovering a five-point summary box at the side would work... hrm. I'll mock something up. For the time being, though, would it be worth my putting an article up for review using the new model, and we can try it out? Shimgray | talk | 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Shim. Nick, not sure how to address your preference for keeping all your comments together. That's a go/no-go for this style, but I hope you wouldn't feel alienated by a test of a different style. I find it hard to picture this in the abstract but personally I'd drop the {{GAList/check|y}} - I've seen them used effectively at WikiMedia for short vote lists, but in general I find them a bit gimmicky. Also, I'd suggest taking out the pixel eating TOC, then that frees up the layout to put the headings inside the about box along the lines of:
The best part is:
I'd strongly support keeping that, regardless of the consensus decision with respect to review by criterion. Doug ( talk) 22:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
To make things simple, how about we go with a FAC-style model: an article is promoted if:
with "overall" reviews being considered as having examined all five criteria. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
So, are we in a position to test an entirely new format yet? Or should we table the idea for the time being and simply integrate some of the useful material from the current draft into the existing format?
Given the work that's being done with ACR from other angles—in particular, the new Academy course(s) being written—I would actually tend to lean towards the latter approach at this point. It may be best to develop our instruction/advice base further before proceeding; in the best scenario, it will make a new format unnecessary, and at worst, the new material can be used as background and FAQs for a new criterion-based format.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought I would take a shot in the dark here make a proposal that we hold a 'March Madness' drive with the aim of reducing the number of articles listed in the various categories covered by the umbrella category Military History articles needing attention. In the long term I am hopeful that this may become a yearly thing, but for now I would like to see if there is any interest in this idea. In simple terms, we would start the drive officially at 00:00 UTC March 1 and let it run through 23:59 UTC March 31, with the bronze, silver, and gold wiki awards to be handed out to the top three contestants participating in the drive. This would be beneficial to our project for a number of reasons, not the least of which is helping to address the outstanding issues in the articles listed there. While it would be unrealistic to expect that the entire backlog would disappear some categories are small enough that in a 31 day period they could be brought down to zero. On top of that its been neatly three years since we last held a drive, and a little community hoorah spirit in helping us get project affairs in order would help both project moral and our administrative/assessment processes at the same time. What do you guys think about this idea? Is it worth pursuing, or should we forgo a project wide drive in favor of something else to help reduce the backlog? TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Dana boomer, IMO there is no reason they can not be cumulative. Since there does seem to be a consensus that this would be a good idea, should we develop it further (ie, suggest an awards layout, set up independent pages, etc), and if so should we start advertising for it in The Bugle? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, we're looking to get feedback on several different points related to this drive idea:
Any other comments not related to the above points are, of course, also welcome. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Since it is now past the middle of February, should we start creating the infrastructure for this and advertising it? Dana boomer ( talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Once the drive opens, we'll want to add it to {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} and put up an appropriate banner at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Banner. We might also consider adding notices on the Community Portal and/or the Village Pump, as well as asking the Signpost to run a brief notice. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've forgotten the layout of WP:MILHIST during my brunout, so I'll post this right here. There have been many discussions, threads, etc. about how MilHist A and Peer Review are overflowing. Why not implement the same style that DYK uses, make it mandantory for a nominator for A class or peer review to review one (or two, the number is arbitrary based upon the amount of requests) requests. This should help lower the backlog, freeing time up for more in-depth reviews. Any thoughts? Buggie111 ( talk) 04:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a line (at Step 6 of Requesting a review) to the peer and A class review instructions. I suggest something along the following lines: "Once you have nominated an article for review, please peruse the list of articles that are also currently undergoing peer or A-class reviews and consider taking part. Although your involvement is not mandatory, it is encouraged." Are there any thoughts on this – does anyone agree or disagree with adding something like this? Should the wording be changed? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This looks good to me so far. I assume we're eventually going to turn this into an Academy course? If so, it may be worthwhile to merge in the other ACR-related ones ( How to prepare an A-Class Review, Using the A-class review toolbox, and Performing an A-Class review) to create a single ACR course that's structured into beginner/intermediate/advanced sections. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Since it appears that no other page transcludes your reviews, would it be alright to wrap your PRs in <onlyinclude> tags to make it easier for WP:VG/P to include your reviews? Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
IIRC we left C class at some sort of piloting stage, with a technical fix needed to create an automated assessment. Did this progress and, if so, what was the result? Monstrelet ( talk) 09:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that the next step would probably be to contact the bot operators and see who might be interested in helping us with this. The template and category changes are relatively minor, but we need to get a bot lined up before they'll be useful for anything. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Following on from what Kirill noted above, I think it is time that we adopted the use of {{ FL-Class}} as a class of assessment within the project. Our FLs are currently classified in Category:FA-Class military history articles as opposed to a separate FL one. We currently have 89 featured lists and growing. It would help with tracking purposes if we could split it out and I don't see a reason not to. To implement it we would need to add the assessment to {{ MILHIST}} and then go through and amend the category on the 89 talkpages involved. What do people think? Woody ( talk) 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've put the C-Class and FL-Class proposals up at WT:MILHIST#Proposals to introduce C-Class and FL-Class assessment; let's see what the rest of the project thinks. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl recently posted this at the Village pump. Probably it's not something that should cause us huge concern, but it may be worth keeping half an eye out for unusual/promotional edits to US Army-related articles. EyeSerene talk 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This is probably bad rather than good news. If the US Army wants to take a WP:GLAM-type approach in which it helps Wikipedia editors to use the material it holds that would be great (though this isn't such a big deal given that the US Army is fairly open as far as armies go and everything it produces is automatically PD under US copyright laws). Calling for the use of Wikipedia to 'shape' a message alongside other social media reflects a total misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. The same kind of mindset from companies causes never-ending problems and I don't see why the US Army should be treated any differently. As some cases in point, I've seen a few AfDs in which people claiming to be soldiers have tried to delete articles on what they claim is their unit (in one case someone claimed they'd been ordered to successfully complete the AfD by an officer! - I hope that the poor guy was OK given that the discussion ended with a clear vote of keep) and some awful articles created by people claiming to be in the unit and editing to expand the unit's internet presence. To cut a long story short: if this is taken seriously it's going to generate POV editing and spammy articles. Nick-D ( talk) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need to generate a false sense of panic here. This was just one more instance of an officer viewing Wikipedia as a tool, the way that some companies try to use Wikipedia as a means to make thier corporation look good. It's not the first time that a commander or public affairs section has tried to do this, and our current methods of monitoring NPOV, advertising, and referencing have been sufficient. This doesn't signify a new organized attempt to game the encyclopedia, it's just that this is the most senior officer to admit it.
I've seen this happen several times over my career as an editor, and generally, these folks tend to be poor editors. They usually don't understand referencing, they don't recognize NPOV, and they don't understand the collaborative process. I'd say that the vast majority of edits that are likely command-driven have been reverted; most of them end there, as the anon never checks back, while the continuous editors tend to get discouraged when they realize they can't just say anything they want.
So, in short, this isn't some kind of systematic POV-pushing, and there isn't really much to worry about.
bahamut0013
words
deeds 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think setting up a military counterpart to Wikipedia:Ambassadors would be a great idea, assuming we can get the logistics figured out. A couple things come to mind:
Thoughts? Is this something worth pursuing? If so, how do we go about it? Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how the Marines do it, but it probably would go better for the Air Force if a Wikimedia spokesperson contacted SAF/PA. I think history offices and public affairs offices might jump at the idea. There is also the air force historical research agency that might like the idea. Air Force Services and Air Force Entertainment might also be interested. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will listen to a E-5, so it'd have to come from the foundation.--v/r - T P 16:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This seems to me like a wonderful idea. I'd love to see the ambassador program branch out in new directions like this. The best way forward I see is, first WP:MILHIST should figure out what it wants to do, and then put forward a proposal to the ambassador program. The best way in my opinion would be to have you folks who want to do in-person outreach participate as full, regular Campus Ambassadors (or whatever the relevant equivalent of "Campus" is for the institutions you want to work with), do the ambassador training, and help us improve how we do in-person outreach in general. But if you want to do something on your own, sort of parallel to the ambassador program or linked with it but independently managed, that could work too. But I think we'll all end up with a stronger program if we work more closely... especially since WP:MILHIST is a potential model for a lot of other WikiProjects, but most of the others won't have the resources and momentum to go it alone like you folks probably could.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 14:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not start by doing something with the regular Ambassador's program? Meaning at a university, not with active duty military. Most of the military is a lot more involved in day to day operarations and not into history except tangentially in a class or two of officer training and maybe a little in boot camp. Military history courses exist at schools all over the place: ROTC classes, academies and just regular schools. I would make the outreach to regular history departments. See if you can get some professors who want to try a different sort of term paper or the like. It would allow you to use all the infrastructure of the Ambassadors program and kinda learn what you want to do, before going after active duty (and again, not sure that is really such a target rich environment...I think armchair generals of the videogame playing mode are more into the minutia of T-72 battles than your average nowadays tanker). TCO ( talk) 12:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, I was directed to this conversation by TParis, and would like to make some comments based on my experience as being a paid intern editing Wikipedia for the Army Center of Military History:
Hope the thoughts help, Sadads ( talk) 23:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that the essay Bahamut wrote is a good step in the right direction but expanding on some of the comments above there is one big thing that we need to consider here. College students edit for a variety of reasons but in the end they are volunteers and can stop whenever they want. The people in the military (voluntary contributars being the exception) can be ordered to make a change and in the military if someone is ordered to do something its a little different than a University encouraging participation. Of course they shouldn't and most will follow the rules but there is always going to be those few that want to try and "clean-up" negative information like removing wikileaks info for example which I have already seen being done.
With that said there are several military directives in place that explain to Government people and military members about what and what not to edit Wikipedia, twitter facebook, etc. so the interest is definately there.
An organized collaboration with the military will be very helpful and beneficial for both for many reasons and I think it will work but we need to get buy in at a fairly high level, not the local commander or PFC. In order for this to really work it needs to be at a Department or Cabinet level IMO. There is a huge push right now for the military to go to the cloud and as Sadads put it many of the historical agencies are simply not ready. That IMO is our ticket in. One example:
So eventhough there will no doubt be some troubles and fallout I think that this is a very good idea. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's be individually encouraging but officially neutral on all FAC questions. What that might mean is negotiable. Some possibilities:
As far as your specific suggestions are concerned:
I just added some strikeouts, let me start over. Our participation at and focus on FAC has been dropping, probably because our A-class review process is so good. Clearly, FAC is sometimes a lot of work for not a lot of gain, and there's an argument that FAC as a whole pushes in different directions than Milhist pushes, and we want what we want. But it's not necessary to jump through every hoop at FAC, you only have to get a "yes" from SandyGeorgia or Karanacs, and they have always been open to reasonable arguments from people who, in their view, know what they're talking about. See User:Dank/RecentFACs; there are many competent reviewers from outside our project helping us out at FAC. They will help us even more if we are a little more careful on a few points when polishing articles at A-class, and if we encourage nominators who are interested in FAC to go there quickly after A-class, so that reviewers can get a "two-fer", that is, they can review more or less the same article in two different places. Reviewers like getting more recognition and more discussion out of the same amount of work.
I know some think that FAC soaks up a lot of time and is best avoided by writers who have better alternatives, such as our A-class process. And I think if you're trying to impress a professor of military history, it would probably make more sense to point them to A-class as a whole than to FAC as a whole; many of the requirements at FAC won't sync up with what they're expecting. But looking at User:Dank/RecentFACs, it's really hard to make the case, certainly to WPians as a whole, that FAC is a net negative for Milhist articles. First off, apart from SHIPS people (including me), we're doing a tiny fraction of the reviewing work, so it's hard to claim that we're best positioned to make a call on how the process is or isn't working. (Our apparent absence is a little deceptive, since we do so much at A-class, and we link the A-class reviews at FAC. Still, that's not the same thing as interacting with the other FAC reviewers and learning the FAC process.) Second, around half the articles never went through our A-class process ... a lot of writers who don't have much interaction with Milhist write articles of relevance to military history and take them to FAC. There's nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by treating these articles and these writers as if they're not our problem. Third, a large majority of the reviewers give good advice by anyone's standard, and they do us a big favor by dealing with a variety of issues that we either can't or don't like to deal with. ( Frank Buckles comes to mind ... the writers did about the best they could with the sources they had so we passed it at A-class, but the FAC reviewers pointed out that when all the sources are recent and laudatory, you're stuck with an article that just doesn't feel right to a lot of Wikipedians ... I think both points of view are right, and one of the nominators agreed with me.)
Bottom line: If we had 5 editors who spent a lot of time at both FAC and A-class reviews, I think FAC people would understand Milhist better and vice versa. FAC isn't everything we want it to be, and no one should ever feel pressured to go to FAC. But FAC has always been molded by whoever shows up, and it wouldn't be that much extra work for A-class reviewers to at least show up and say something relevant ... it's always been okay at FAC to offer an opinion, as long as it's clear what your opinion does and doesn't cover. Yes, a few people who show up at FAC are mean and most don't know as much as we do about military history ... but most people who show up at FAC more than occasionally learn how to enjoy the process and make it work. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading the GLAM mailing list archives and Milhist archives, I've come to the conclusion (warning: SYNTH and OR!) that we're missing out on some opportunities to help Milhisters get jobs and internships at military GLAMs and GLAMs with military exhibits. If you're interested, or if you're willing to help other Milhisters get these jobs by writing recommendations or offering advice in your areas of expertise, email me so I can add you to the discussion. (I can't post info from the GLAM archives on-wiki, and generally, I don't like talking about anything that involves money on-wiki.) - Dank ( push to talk) 15:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the Task Force WP:MHA#Statistics tables, I notice that only the "Military biography task force" and "Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force" both have List-class detailed. I also noticed that only those two task forces give details regarding article Importance - any reason why no other task force, or WP:MILHIST in general, does not rate articles by the same importance scale? Perhaps another option that should be made accessible, along with List-class, to facilitate in giving members a sense of "priority" in terms of reviewing, developing and assessing articles. I think if people have a keener understanding of what makes an article more or less important, it might help in the creation of more notable articles, and lead to less heading for AfD. Although I would be interested in seeing the criteria by which Importance is rated, as it sounds very subjective. Rating something B or A seems straight forward because of the criteria guidelines, but saying one article only carries so much importance must surely be harder to assess? If it does not involve consensus, I imagine it can lead to disputes, also.. Anyone familiar with this who can comment further? Ma®©usBritish talk 22:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
When looking for collaborations with professors and students, I'd suggest we aim for schools with solid credentials in military history, including two schools not far from me, Duke and UNC. I think it's important to start at the top (for wikiprojects that can make a good impression at that level, and we can). A few Milhist editors are headed to history grad school, but even folks who want to get paid or unpaid writing jobs for GLAMs or for the armed services could benefit from co-authorship credit on journal articles in military history.
A request recently showed up above my watchlist (probably broadcast to North Carolina Wikipedians) for someone to be a campus ambassador for a psych course at Davidson College, just over an hour away from me. Maybe some of you are seeing similar broadcasts for your area. Sage says he'll support my application for this position. I don't mind making some kind of effort to show the WMF that I'm a team player. (That is, at a minimum, I don't want professors to get the impression that someone else is an approved Wikipedian ambassador and I'm not.) Thoughts? If I were calling the shots, I'd limit my role to giving two talks at Davidson and answering questions for that psych professor during the fall, not for the students ... I'd rather spend time where it's more likely to do Milhist and Wikipedia some good. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I've launched Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Self-assessment. I greatly appreciate your willingness to be my first project to interview. The questions are generally designed, as I think must be clear, around helping the Wikimedia Foundation to understand the dynamics of WikiProjects (where they work, where they struggle, what they need, what they don't) as well as helping to generate ideas for addressing one of our shared crisis points: nurturing our editor pool. The results will be shared with WMF and compiled for availability to other Foundation projects (such as Wikipedias in other languages). I plan to take part in the conversation largely by asking questions where it seems I need to, and I'm going to be learning from you guys how better to conduct these kinds of assessments. :) Thanks! --19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdennis (WMF) ( talk • contribs)
I had proposed that Mexico needed to be included in a region task force on the project's talkpage. There was a little discusson on the subject and then it was moved to an archive page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_102#Regions_Task_force I was wondering if I missed the resolution to this issue? Thought i just ping the strategy department. Oldwildbill ( talk) 17:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
So basically we'd have the "Latin American military history task force", but the scope would explain that it also includes the countries that aren't technically part of "Latin America"? That works for me. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page 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. |
Redirected here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2010#General comments, questions, etc.. To establish context, a selected portion of the discussion is duplicated below. EyeSerene talk 09:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- The election process has reliably produced an excellent group of coordinators; there is a certain 'old boys club' feel to it, but good new candidates do come through. Regarding reviewing, the main disadvantage it has over article creation is that reviewers are required to cover all of the FA criteria in a tightly constrained timeframe. On the other hand, reviewers could explicitly address specific criteria to reduce the burden and this could be facilitated by splitting the review into (transcluded?) sections by criterion. This would make the criteria clearer for new reviewers and they could focus on areas of interest to them or where they have particular skills. Realistically, reviewers on 1a, 1d and 4 may have no clue about 1c, but we are supposed to be experts in all areas to deliver a valid vote. On another topic, recognition of contributions in reviewing are appreciated. Doug ( talk) 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- What Doug said, on all counts. Of course, the main thing we do right is to have a rocking A-class review process, which effectively gives us more time than most other projects to work on FAC issues. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary Doug, at FAC SandyGeorgia has encouraged editors to review in whatever capacity they can. If that is just one criterion, it's a small matter to say "criterion 1a looks good" or "oppose on criterion 3". Some people do just image reviews, and others focus on sourcing; some examine an article to see if it complies with MOS. You don't have to measure an article against every criteria as long as you state which ones you have. It's a good route for inexperienced reviewers, or for people who specialise in a particular area. It would be a good approach to adopt in the "rocking" A-class reviews. Nev1 ( talk) 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. Nev, out of curiosity, why did you not consider running? You are a very dedicated worker here and I'm sure that you would do a good job at such a task.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did consider it, but have some reservations about the position that are explained on my talk page. Nev1 ( talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Nev, I was reading that quickly as "reviewers" (plural), but I see he talks about individual reviewers later. No, individual reviewers can do anything they want. I give a standard disclaimer when I support at FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Nev. On the other hand, quoting 1a at review is a perfect method to introduce jargon, steepen the learning curve and ensure the need for a mentoring process. Perhaps that is desirable, but it should be an explicit choice of the project. I don't see downsides of sectioning reviews with the criteria for that section made explicit. A 'General' section would permit experienced reviewers to continue with their preferred style. Doug ( talk) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't see how encouraging people to do something they're comfortable with rather than dive in at the deep end would intimidate people. It doesn't need to be bureaucratic, you don't need to create sections in reviews for people to compartmentalise their opinions, or anything else that's been over thought. All that a reviewer would have to do is state which criterion they checked the article against. Nev1 ( talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the main issue with reviewing only against selected criteria is that it complicates the promotion process. I don't see a problem with this when opposing, because a single unaddressed criteria-based oppose is enough to prevent promotion under the current system anyway, but when adjudicating supports the closing coord will need to distinguish support votes for the article as a whole from supports based on one criterion and weight them accordingly. EyeSerene talk 08:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- If the choice is between a more approachable review system for the new and inexperienced and co-ordinators spending a little more time thinking about their decisions that's really no choice at all. Nev1 ( talk) 14:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I take your point, but I don't think we can dismiss this issue quite that easily. Currently promotion requires three supports and no unaddressed criteria-based opposes; under the system you suggest, it's possible an article could have its three supports but all could could be based on a single (perhaps even the same) criterion. Can we then legitimately promote the article? It's calling on the coords to make a subjective judgement call rather than - as now - a largely objective one. For me that's a big change in the coord role and I'm not sure we have the mandate or desire to do that. It would only take a few controversial decisions to call our entire A-Class review process into question. I think your suggestion is a good one, but to be fully integrated into the process it will require some hard thinking about the way we manage reviews. Perhaps the STT would be a good venue to explore this further? EyeSerene talk 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You still don't understand. This is aimed at inexperienced editors; the old hands who are currently involved wouldn't change their habits while newer edits might feel more comfortable commenting on only one aspect of the article. The purpose it to generate more interest in reviews rather than compartmentalise them, making life difficult for reviewers and co-ordinators. Obviously if there are only supports on certain criteria rather than the article as a whole, you wait for more reviewers. It's not rocket science. Nev1 ( talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- (od) I can't help but feel we ought to be having this discussion somewhere more central, but why not :-)
- Speaking as someone pretty uninvolved with the A-class system at the moment (shame, shame, I know) - it seems "compartmentalising" works well for the B or GA reviews, with an easy breakdown of what is and isn't good to go, and it might well be worth trialling the model. I'd go for something like Doug suggests above - criteria headers, and encourage notes underneath each on the basis of "support / object / comment / query" - passing would then still require three approvals for each point, either explicit or inferred from general comments, but people would be able to clearly express "I am happy with the structure of this article and the text and the pictures, I definitely think the citations are screwy, but I don't have the slightest idea if it's actually correct, so please don't hold me to that bit" without having to leave unduly complicated remarks. In many ways this would be similar to what we have now, but it'd - hopefully - be a little bit clearer, a good bit easier to check off and close, and I can certainly see how being able to say "well, I only need comment on this little bit" would help draw people into reviewing. Perhaps we could run a review or two this way as a trial, and see if it's unwieldy or not? Shimgray | talk | 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Overall, I like the new setup; it definitely looks more inviting for a first-time visitor. A few general thoughts on the layout:
Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about it, the main benefit of the images is that at a quick eyeball you can in theory see what still needs done, and easily spot lacunae, but as "two pluses" is still needing work, it's visually a bit counterintuitive. I wonder if hovering a five-point summary box at the side would work... hrm. I'll mock something up. For the time being, though, would it be worth my putting an article up for review using the new model, and we can try it out? Shimgray | talk | 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Shim. Nick, not sure how to address your preference for keeping all your comments together. That's a go/no-go for this style, but I hope you wouldn't feel alienated by a test of a different style. I find it hard to picture this in the abstract but personally I'd drop the {{GAList/check|y}} - I've seen them used effectively at WikiMedia for short vote lists, but in general I find them a bit gimmicky. Also, I'd suggest taking out the pixel eating TOC, then that frees up the layout to put the headings inside the about box along the lines of:
The best part is:
I'd strongly support keeping that, regardless of the consensus decision with respect to review by criterion. Doug ( talk) 22:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
To make things simple, how about we go with a FAC-style model: an article is promoted if:
with "overall" reviews being considered as having examined all five criteria. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
So, are we in a position to test an entirely new format yet? Or should we table the idea for the time being and simply integrate some of the useful material from the current draft into the existing format?
Given the work that's being done with ACR from other angles—in particular, the new Academy course(s) being written—I would actually tend to lean towards the latter approach at this point. It may be best to develop our instruction/advice base further before proceeding; in the best scenario, it will make a new format unnecessary, and at worst, the new material can be used as background and FAQs for a new criterion-based format.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought I would take a shot in the dark here make a proposal that we hold a 'March Madness' drive with the aim of reducing the number of articles listed in the various categories covered by the umbrella category Military History articles needing attention. In the long term I am hopeful that this may become a yearly thing, but for now I would like to see if there is any interest in this idea. In simple terms, we would start the drive officially at 00:00 UTC March 1 and let it run through 23:59 UTC March 31, with the bronze, silver, and gold wiki awards to be handed out to the top three contestants participating in the drive. This would be beneficial to our project for a number of reasons, not the least of which is helping to address the outstanding issues in the articles listed there. While it would be unrealistic to expect that the entire backlog would disappear some categories are small enough that in a 31 day period they could be brought down to zero. On top of that its been neatly three years since we last held a drive, and a little community hoorah spirit in helping us get project affairs in order would help both project moral and our administrative/assessment processes at the same time. What do you guys think about this idea? Is it worth pursuing, or should we forgo a project wide drive in favor of something else to help reduce the backlog? TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Dana boomer, IMO there is no reason they can not be cumulative. Since there does seem to be a consensus that this would be a good idea, should we develop it further (ie, suggest an awards layout, set up independent pages, etc), and if so should we start advertising for it in The Bugle? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, we're looking to get feedback on several different points related to this drive idea:
Any other comments not related to the above points are, of course, also welcome. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Since it is now past the middle of February, should we start creating the infrastructure for this and advertising it? Dana boomer ( talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Once the drive opens, we'll want to add it to {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} and put up an appropriate banner at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Banner. We might also consider adding notices on the Community Portal and/or the Village Pump, as well as asking the Signpost to run a brief notice. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've forgotten the layout of WP:MILHIST during my brunout, so I'll post this right here. There have been many discussions, threads, etc. about how MilHist A and Peer Review are overflowing. Why not implement the same style that DYK uses, make it mandantory for a nominator for A class or peer review to review one (or two, the number is arbitrary based upon the amount of requests) requests. This should help lower the backlog, freeing time up for more in-depth reviews. Any thoughts? Buggie111 ( talk) 04:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a line (at Step 6 of Requesting a review) to the peer and A class review instructions. I suggest something along the following lines: "Once you have nominated an article for review, please peruse the list of articles that are also currently undergoing peer or A-class reviews and consider taking part. Although your involvement is not mandatory, it is encouraged." Are there any thoughts on this – does anyone agree or disagree with adding something like this? Should the wording be changed? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This looks good to me so far. I assume we're eventually going to turn this into an Academy course? If so, it may be worthwhile to merge in the other ACR-related ones ( How to prepare an A-Class Review, Using the A-class review toolbox, and Performing an A-Class review) to create a single ACR course that's structured into beginner/intermediate/advanced sections. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Since it appears that no other page transcludes your reviews, would it be alright to wrap your PRs in <onlyinclude> tags to make it easier for WP:VG/P to include your reviews? Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
IIRC we left C class at some sort of piloting stage, with a technical fix needed to create an automated assessment. Did this progress and, if so, what was the result? Monstrelet ( talk) 09:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that the next step would probably be to contact the bot operators and see who might be interested in helping us with this. The template and category changes are relatively minor, but we need to get a bot lined up before they'll be useful for anything. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Following on from what Kirill noted above, I think it is time that we adopted the use of {{ FL-Class}} as a class of assessment within the project. Our FLs are currently classified in Category:FA-Class military history articles as opposed to a separate FL one. We currently have 89 featured lists and growing. It would help with tracking purposes if we could split it out and I don't see a reason not to. To implement it we would need to add the assessment to {{ MILHIST}} and then go through and amend the category on the 89 talkpages involved. What do people think? Woody ( talk) 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've put the C-Class and FL-Class proposals up at WT:MILHIST#Proposals to introduce C-Class and FL-Class assessment; let's see what the rest of the project thinks. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl recently posted this at the Village pump. Probably it's not something that should cause us huge concern, but it may be worth keeping half an eye out for unusual/promotional edits to US Army-related articles. EyeSerene talk 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This is probably bad rather than good news. If the US Army wants to take a WP:GLAM-type approach in which it helps Wikipedia editors to use the material it holds that would be great (though this isn't such a big deal given that the US Army is fairly open as far as armies go and everything it produces is automatically PD under US copyright laws). Calling for the use of Wikipedia to 'shape' a message alongside other social media reflects a total misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. The same kind of mindset from companies causes never-ending problems and I don't see why the US Army should be treated any differently. As some cases in point, I've seen a few AfDs in which people claiming to be soldiers have tried to delete articles on what they claim is their unit (in one case someone claimed they'd been ordered to successfully complete the AfD by an officer! - I hope that the poor guy was OK given that the discussion ended with a clear vote of keep) and some awful articles created by people claiming to be in the unit and editing to expand the unit's internet presence. To cut a long story short: if this is taken seriously it's going to generate POV editing and spammy articles. Nick-D ( talk) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need to generate a false sense of panic here. This was just one more instance of an officer viewing Wikipedia as a tool, the way that some companies try to use Wikipedia as a means to make thier corporation look good. It's not the first time that a commander or public affairs section has tried to do this, and our current methods of monitoring NPOV, advertising, and referencing have been sufficient. This doesn't signify a new organized attempt to game the encyclopedia, it's just that this is the most senior officer to admit it.
I've seen this happen several times over my career as an editor, and generally, these folks tend to be poor editors. They usually don't understand referencing, they don't recognize NPOV, and they don't understand the collaborative process. I'd say that the vast majority of edits that are likely command-driven have been reverted; most of them end there, as the anon never checks back, while the continuous editors tend to get discouraged when they realize they can't just say anything they want.
So, in short, this isn't some kind of systematic POV-pushing, and there isn't really much to worry about.
bahamut0013
words
deeds 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think setting up a military counterpart to Wikipedia:Ambassadors would be a great idea, assuming we can get the logistics figured out. A couple things come to mind:
Thoughts? Is this something worth pursuing? If so, how do we go about it? Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how the Marines do it, but it probably would go better for the Air Force if a Wikimedia spokesperson contacted SAF/PA. I think history offices and public affairs offices might jump at the idea. There is also the air force historical research agency that might like the idea. Air Force Services and Air Force Entertainment might also be interested. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will listen to a E-5, so it'd have to come from the foundation.--v/r - T P 16:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This seems to me like a wonderful idea. I'd love to see the ambassador program branch out in new directions like this. The best way forward I see is, first WP:MILHIST should figure out what it wants to do, and then put forward a proposal to the ambassador program. The best way in my opinion would be to have you folks who want to do in-person outreach participate as full, regular Campus Ambassadors (or whatever the relevant equivalent of "Campus" is for the institutions you want to work with), do the ambassador training, and help us improve how we do in-person outreach in general. But if you want to do something on your own, sort of parallel to the ambassador program or linked with it but independently managed, that could work too. But I think we'll all end up with a stronger program if we work more closely... especially since WP:MILHIST is a potential model for a lot of other WikiProjects, but most of the others won't have the resources and momentum to go it alone like you folks probably could.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 14:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not start by doing something with the regular Ambassador's program? Meaning at a university, not with active duty military. Most of the military is a lot more involved in day to day operarations and not into history except tangentially in a class or two of officer training and maybe a little in boot camp. Military history courses exist at schools all over the place: ROTC classes, academies and just regular schools. I would make the outreach to regular history departments. See if you can get some professors who want to try a different sort of term paper or the like. It would allow you to use all the infrastructure of the Ambassadors program and kinda learn what you want to do, before going after active duty (and again, not sure that is really such a target rich environment...I think armchair generals of the videogame playing mode are more into the minutia of T-72 battles than your average nowadays tanker). TCO ( talk) 12:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, I was directed to this conversation by TParis, and would like to make some comments based on my experience as being a paid intern editing Wikipedia for the Army Center of Military History:
Hope the thoughts help, Sadads ( talk) 23:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that the essay Bahamut wrote is a good step in the right direction but expanding on some of the comments above there is one big thing that we need to consider here. College students edit for a variety of reasons but in the end they are volunteers and can stop whenever they want. The people in the military (voluntary contributars being the exception) can be ordered to make a change and in the military if someone is ordered to do something its a little different than a University encouraging participation. Of course they shouldn't and most will follow the rules but there is always going to be those few that want to try and "clean-up" negative information like removing wikileaks info for example which I have already seen being done.
With that said there are several military directives in place that explain to Government people and military members about what and what not to edit Wikipedia, twitter facebook, etc. so the interest is definately there.
An organized collaboration with the military will be very helpful and beneficial for both for many reasons and I think it will work but we need to get buy in at a fairly high level, not the local commander or PFC. In order for this to really work it needs to be at a Department or Cabinet level IMO. There is a huge push right now for the military to go to the cloud and as Sadads put it many of the historical agencies are simply not ready. That IMO is our ticket in. One example:
So eventhough there will no doubt be some troubles and fallout I think that this is a very good idea. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's be individually encouraging but officially neutral on all FAC questions. What that might mean is negotiable. Some possibilities:
As far as your specific suggestions are concerned:
I just added some strikeouts, let me start over. Our participation at and focus on FAC has been dropping, probably because our A-class review process is so good. Clearly, FAC is sometimes a lot of work for not a lot of gain, and there's an argument that FAC as a whole pushes in different directions than Milhist pushes, and we want what we want. But it's not necessary to jump through every hoop at FAC, you only have to get a "yes" from SandyGeorgia or Karanacs, and they have always been open to reasonable arguments from people who, in their view, know what they're talking about. See User:Dank/RecentFACs; there are many competent reviewers from outside our project helping us out at FAC. They will help us even more if we are a little more careful on a few points when polishing articles at A-class, and if we encourage nominators who are interested in FAC to go there quickly after A-class, so that reviewers can get a "two-fer", that is, they can review more or less the same article in two different places. Reviewers like getting more recognition and more discussion out of the same amount of work.
I know some think that FAC soaks up a lot of time and is best avoided by writers who have better alternatives, such as our A-class process. And I think if you're trying to impress a professor of military history, it would probably make more sense to point them to A-class as a whole than to FAC as a whole; many of the requirements at FAC won't sync up with what they're expecting. But looking at User:Dank/RecentFACs, it's really hard to make the case, certainly to WPians as a whole, that FAC is a net negative for Milhist articles. First off, apart from SHIPS people (including me), we're doing a tiny fraction of the reviewing work, so it's hard to claim that we're best positioned to make a call on how the process is or isn't working. (Our apparent absence is a little deceptive, since we do so much at A-class, and we link the A-class reviews at FAC. Still, that's not the same thing as interacting with the other FAC reviewers and learning the FAC process.) Second, around half the articles never went through our A-class process ... a lot of writers who don't have much interaction with Milhist write articles of relevance to military history and take them to FAC. There's nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by treating these articles and these writers as if they're not our problem. Third, a large majority of the reviewers give good advice by anyone's standard, and they do us a big favor by dealing with a variety of issues that we either can't or don't like to deal with. ( Frank Buckles comes to mind ... the writers did about the best they could with the sources they had so we passed it at A-class, but the FAC reviewers pointed out that when all the sources are recent and laudatory, you're stuck with an article that just doesn't feel right to a lot of Wikipedians ... I think both points of view are right, and one of the nominators agreed with me.)
Bottom line: If we had 5 editors who spent a lot of time at both FAC and A-class reviews, I think FAC people would understand Milhist better and vice versa. FAC isn't everything we want it to be, and no one should ever feel pressured to go to FAC. But FAC has always been molded by whoever shows up, and it wouldn't be that much extra work for A-class reviewers to at least show up and say something relevant ... it's always been okay at FAC to offer an opinion, as long as it's clear what your opinion does and doesn't cover. Yes, a few people who show up at FAC are mean and most don't know as much as we do about military history ... but most people who show up at FAC more than occasionally learn how to enjoy the process and make it work. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading the GLAM mailing list archives and Milhist archives, I've come to the conclusion (warning: SYNTH and OR!) that we're missing out on some opportunities to help Milhisters get jobs and internships at military GLAMs and GLAMs with military exhibits. If you're interested, or if you're willing to help other Milhisters get these jobs by writing recommendations or offering advice in your areas of expertise, email me so I can add you to the discussion. (I can't post info from the GLAM archives on-wiki, and generally, I don't like talking about anything that involves money on-wiki.) - Dank ( push to talk) 15:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the Task Force WP:MHA#Statistics tables, I notice that only the "Military biography task force" and "Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force" both have List-class detailed. I also noticed that only those two task forces give details regarding article Importance - any reason why no other task force, or WP:MILHIST in general, does not rate articles by the same importance scale? Perhaps another option that should be made accessible, along with List-class, to facilitate in giving members a sense of "priority" in terms of reviewing, developing and assessing articles. I think if people have a keener understanding of what makes an article more or less important, it might help in the creation of more notable articles, and lead to less heading for AfD. Although I would be interested in seeing the criteria by which Importance is rated, as it sounds very subjective. Rating something B or A seems straight forward because of the criteria guidelines, but saying one article only carries so much importance must surely be harder to assess? If it does not involve consensus, I imagine it can lead to disputes, also.. Anyone familiar with this who can comment further? Ma®©usBritish talk 22:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
When looking for collaborations with professors and students, I'd suggest we aim for schools with solid credentials in military history, including two schools not far from me, Duke and UNC. I think it's important to start at the top (for wikiprojects that can make a good impression at that level, and we can). A few Milhist editors are headed to history grad school, but even folks who want to get paid or unpaid writing jobs for GLAMs or for the armed services could benefit from co-authorship credit on journal articles in military history.
A request recently showed up above my watchlist (probably broadcast to North Carolina Wikipedians) for someone to be a campus ambassador for a psych course at Davidson College, just over an hour away from me. Maybe some of you are seeing similar broadcasts for your area. Sage says he'll support my application for this position. I don't mind making some kind of effort to show the WMF that I'm a team player. (That is, at a minimum, I don't want professors to get the impression that someone else is an approved Wikipedian ambassador and I'm not.) Thoughts? If I were calling the shots, I'd limit my role to giving two talks at Davidson and answering questions for that psych professor during the fall, not for the students ... I'd rather spend time where it's more likely to do Milhist and Wikipedia some good. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I've launched Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Self-assessment. I greatly appreciate your willingness to be my first project to interview. The questions are generally designed, as I think must be clear, around helping the Wikimedia Foundation to understand the dynamics of WikiProjects (where they work, where they struggle, what they need, what they don't) as well as helping to generate ideas for addressing one of our shared crisis points: nurturing our editor pool. The results will be shared with WMF and compiled for availability to other Foundation projects (such as Wikipedias in other languages). I plan to take part in the conversation largely by asking questions where it seems I need to, and I'm going to be learning from you guys how better to conduct these kinds of assessments. :) Thanks! --19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdennis (WMF) ( talk • contribs)
I had proposed that Mexico needed to be included in a region task force on the project's talkpage. There was a little discusson on the subject and then it was moved to an archive page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_102#Regions_Task_force I was wondering if I missed the resolution to this issue? Thought i just ping the strategy department. Oldwildbill ( talk) 17:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
So basically we'd have the "Latin American military history task force", but the scope would explain that it also includes the countries that aren't technically part of "Latin America"? That works for me. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)