Open main menu

Nuvola apps edu languages.png
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
Padlock-silver.svg
This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way markEdit

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!Edit

  The Coordinator stars
On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best luck in the coming year! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome Back! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)::
Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks like we're now teammates. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Military History Writers' ContestEdit

  The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the September 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest with 108 points from 10 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

GAN disputeEdit

Hey mate, I'm in a dispute right now with one of my GAN reviews. They (neutral gender) claims that some of my comments are not related to the GA criteria. Like ISBN, translation of a title, adding the |language= template, using red links, using repeat links in the body, Removing Google Books's URL and the page ranges which all of them are in MOS. They claims that all of them are guidelines and aren't necessary for GAN because the GA criteria don't mention them. They also claims that GA criteria should follow instead of MOS because the criteria is a major rule instead of guidelines. The nominator says about the ISBN all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines to respect the scientific citation guidelines. However in the guidelines they state that It is important to provide linkage data such as the ISBN for books, and relevant database identifiers that link to papers or their bibliographic records. Such linkages facilitate the verification of sourced statements. Examples include the DOI for articles in many areas of science. Or about MOS look at this sentence it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation which says that we should respect MOS in the guidelines right? They says How many GA reviews have you done? Unless something has drastically changed, your interpretation of GA guidelines leaves me little choice but to request a second opinion review I thought "wow that's a little bit offended but okay". But I want to be sure whether I am wrong or not I've always reviewed ARCs and FACs so I have experience with those reviews but I am not experienced in GAN, so I could be wrong but I'm sure I'm not because Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says that guidelines should be respected and be like a de facto rule in Wikipedia. You have a lot of experience (at least 10 years) could you tell me whether I'm wrong or not? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing by now you know about the thread here that the nominator opened - I commented there since I figure it makes more sense to do it there, now that there are other editors who've gotten involved.
Personally, I tend not to pay much attention to the GA criteria when I review something at GAN - if I see a problem, I'll point it out, regardless of whether it's covered by the criteria. If the nominator wants to argue with me, fine, I may pass the article with those issues left unaddressed (though I can't remember the last time I've had that happen - most people just fix them). But my thought is, we should be fixing problems as they're identified, not passing things just because they meet the bare minimum standard. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Nate for your help hopefully it would be solved as fast as possible. But I won't continue in the near future and maybe I might drop it because I'm not really in the mood to continue it. Again thank you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem at all - I can't certainly understand wanting to disengage from the review - I've had a few issues in the past as well. Sometimes these things can be resolved and sometimes they can't. Let's hope for the former, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

H-41 infoboxEdit

In your opinion, should the H-41 infobox be kept separate, or appended to the main H-class infobox? Steve7c8 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably keep it separate, so it's next to the text that discusses the H-41 design. That's how I've done boxes for museum ships. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 14 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

German aircraft carrier IIEdit

Hello

I made translation of German aircraft carrier II to pl.wiki. After article went to GA discussion on pl.wiki we found two things:

  • another source that change some data (for example laid down in 1939, we started using German name Hilfsflugzeugträger II, that ship was hit by two bombs etc.) I don't feel good with my English to add this to GA on en.wiki but if you don't have this position, I can roughly translate it from pl to en.
  • we have question: do you have source for such sentences The final proposal was completed by August 1942, but work on the conversion did not last long. By February 1943, the project had been abandoned, for several reasons. The shipyard suffered from a shortage of labor and materials, and the design staff had significant concerns over the arrangement of the engine system. The Allies also posed a serious threat, as Lorient was well within the range of Allied bombers? We are not sure if this is from Gröner or Gardiner & Chesneau or some other source, can you help us? PMG (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Good catch on finding Jordan & Moulin's book - it was published (2013) after I wrote the article (2012) - I'll update the page.
    • It's from Gröner. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Graphics Lab/Illustration workshopEdit

Hello, Parsecboy. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made. You may view your reply here.


- Begoon 09:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.
Return to the user page of "Parsecboy".