Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Add topic
Active discussions

HandbookEdit

Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.

Coordinator tasksEdit

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
Assessment
  • Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
    • Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
    • Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
  • Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
A-Class review
  • For each ongoing A-Class review:
    1. Determine whether the review needs to be closed and archived, per the criteria here.
    2. If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~
  • If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, move the existing A-Class review page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Article title/archive1 (increasing the number if there has been more than one review) without leaving a redirect. You will also need to adjust the article assessment history to reflect the new target page for the old review. This will make way for the normal A-Class review initiation process, so advise the nominator to initiate per the instructions.
Quarterly Reviewing Awards
Quarterly Reviewing Awards - manual process
  • At the end of each quarter, all editors that complete at least one A-Class review receive a Milhist reviewing award. Create a new thread on the Coordinators' talk page and paste the following boilerplate into the body, leaving the subject line empty:{{subst:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing Table}}. Save the thread, reopen it and change the months and year in the subject line and table, add a comment under the table, sign and save the thread again. Then tally the qualifying reviews:
    1. Tally A-Class Reviews. As only those editors who complete at least one Milhist A-Class review receive an award, start by tallying them. Go to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/201X]] (inserting the correct year) and click on the links to check all the A-Class articles that were promoted, failed, kept or demoted in the relevant quarter. Tally the number of articles reviewed by each editor. One suggested method is to use a simple pen-and-paper tally of usernames as you scroll through the relevant archive; another is to save the relevant reviews into a word processor and delete all content except the usernames of the reviewers, then tally from there. Regardless of which method is chosen, it can be time consuming so you may need to do it over several sessions. Once done, add each editor who completed an A-Class review to the User column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table, and add one point to the ACR column for each article that editor reviewed.
    2. Tally Good Article Reviews. Methods are to go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare revision history for the quarter and tally the articles added by each editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table or to use the Pages Created tool to isolate GA nomination pages created by a specific user. Add one point to the GA column for each MilHist article that those editors reviewed. Note that the accuracy of this method relies upon reviewers listing GAs per instructions.
    3. Tally Peer Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive and click on the links to open the archive pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the PR column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
    4. Tally Featured Article Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations, and click on the links to open the archive of review pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the FAC column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
  • Tally the total number of points for each editor and add them to the Total column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table.
  • Award all reviewers in accordance with the following schedule (the award templates are all available under "Military history awards" below):
    1. 15+ points – the WikiChevrons
    2. 8–14 points – the Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
    3. 4–7 points – the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes)
    4. 1-3 points – the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe)
  • Sign the Awarded column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table for each editor to signify that the award has been presented.

Quarterly reviewing awards are posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards page by the MilHistBot. As with other awards, change the status from "nominated" to "approved" to approve the award.

Member affairs
Miscellaneous

How to...Edit

Boilerplate and templatesEdit

Open tasksEdit

Topics for future discussionEdit

  • Collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, universities, and various other institutions (e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM)
  • Article improvement drives
  • Notability guideline for battles
  • Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks
  • Using the "Results" field in infoboxes
  • How far milhist's scope should include 'military fiction' (possible solution, see scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force)
  • Encouraging member participation in the various review processes (peer, GAN, ACR etc)
  • Recruiting new members (see User:The ed17/MILHIST, etc.)
  • Improving/maintaining popular pages
  • Motivating improvement from Stub to B-Class
  • Enabling editors to improve articles beyond B-Class (possibly utilising logistics dept, also see WP:FAT for related ideas)
  • Helping new members (possibly involving improving/deprecating welcome template; writing Academy course)
  • Recruiting copy-editors to help during ACR
  • Recruiting editors from external forums/groups/etc.
  • Simplifying ACR instructions (old discussion)

Missing academy articlesEdit

Open award nominationsEdit

Nominations for awards are made and voted on by coordinators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. An A-Class Medal nomination needs at least two coordinators' votes to succeed, and the Chevrons with Oak Leaves a majority of coordinators' votes. All coordinators are requested to review the following:

ACRs for closureEdit

All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either promotion or non-promotion, by any uninvolved coordinator. The closing coordinator should check the review page carefully to ensure that there are three general supports and supports (or passes) for both the image and the source reviews, and that there are no outstanding points to be addressed. A guide to manually closing A-Class reviews is available, but normally the closing coordinator just needs to change A-Class=current in the {{WPMILHIST}} banner to A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail.

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

MILHIST CCI casesEdit

The following open CCI cases contain MILHIST articles (some usernames are omitted from the case titles because they are real names):

  1. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dawkeye
  2. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819
  3. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Degen Earthfast
  4. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789
  5. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004
  6. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D
  7. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kprtqrf06
  8. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mztourist
  9. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125
  10. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210418
  11. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013
  12. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hary1mo
  13. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833

Assistance with these cases is requested, but the work is tedious. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on #9 above, and it is a very messy ACW one. Hog Farm Talk 20:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

UpdatesEdit

An eleventh case has opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

And another one: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hary1mo. Involves a bunch of commons images, so any help from those who speak licensing or Commons would be appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 60 as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 59 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

ACR to do list for JulyEdit

  • Now only needs source and image reviews. Kges1901 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

And that is our lot for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for JuneEdit

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Revista de Historia Militar (ISSN 0482-5748) published by the Ejército de Tierra de EspañaEdit

Hello,

So, this magazine/academic journal by the Ministerio de Defensa of the Kingdom of Spain has been published twice a year since 1957. I created its article (duly referenced to CSIC = the Spanish National Research Council), to Dialnet (an academic research network) of University of La Rioja, to the Real Colegio de Artillería, to the Ministry itself (ejercito.defensa.gob.es), and to a book, namely ISBN 978-84-617-2104-7, citing page 59.

Well, the English Wikipedia entry about Revista de Historia Militar has just now been draftified, four months later, and after others have contributed to it. I would appreciate it if you could have a gander at it, and, if you think it fair, push the big blue button "submit the draft for review!" if you deem it appropriate.

Note: a version of this article (in Spanish) exists at wikipedia in Spanish (I know we consider other wikipedias irrelevant, but it probably does not hurt to mention it).

Else, we can always delete it. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming Coordinator ElectionEdit

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Our current coordinator tranche is set to expire in 8 weeks, give or take. Given this, I feel its time we start discussing the upcoming coordinator elections, to determine how many we want, whether that number should include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, when the election should start, how long it should run, and what format we want to use. Thoughts, anyone? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the format we've used the last couple years has worked fine and would support keeping it generally the same as last year. Hog Farm Talk 16:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thirded. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps hastily, I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2022, as well as the two subpages that get transcluded onto there (the tally and the status clock). Someone should probably check Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2022/Status to make sure I didn't screw anything up, although it is currently working properly. I did boldly make one formatting change to the status clock, as IMO linking 2022 and the current date is not helpful. It's time to start considering re-running, as well as approaching any promising new potential candidates about running, since if we keep the timing the same nominations will begin in about a month. Hog Farm Talk 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - courtesy ping since we're down to about two months out. Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@CPA-5, Hawkeye7, Indy beetle, Parsecboy, and Zawed: - Sorry to nag, but we're down to only a bit over a week. If there are going to be a large number of vacancies, then we'll need to reach out to more candidates. Hog Farm Talk 14:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder - I won't be standing again, as I've been busier in real life lately and I anticipate a new job within the next few weeks that will unfortunately cut further into my editing time. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

With a couple coords not returning for the new year, I've been reaching out to some potential candidates, and I don't think it would hurt for others to do the same. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - any objections to me sending the mass message about the nomination period opening out late on the 31st? Hog Farm Talk 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
No objection. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Without objection. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
No objection. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and sent it out now (which should [hopefully] become obvious in a few minutes). I resisted the urge to begin the message with "Hey y'all", which is probably something my employer wants me to start leaving out of work emails as well. Hog Farm Talk 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the running on this, HF! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for JulyEdit

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Two milestones achievedEdit

Howdy everyone, we are currently at 100.4% of our 250 featured content goal and 102.8% of our 5,000 good article goal per main page; propose bumping milestone to 300 and 5,500/6,000? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: for good measure. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason why we shouldn't bask in the sense of a mission completed for a while. I see no rush to set new targets - although obviously we will need to at some stage. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for AugustEdit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for AugustEdit

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for SeptemberEdit

  • And done. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

While the total review list is not overly long, I get the impression nominators are being deterred by the lack of reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  • FYI: The author of Operation Bajrang has been indef blocked.--Catlemur (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)