Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 16

• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• Archive 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60

Milhist Contacts

Per Nick Dowling's suggestion above, the time has probably come to end the role of "Contacts". The last discussion on this was inconclusive. Unless anyone objects by, say, 6 November, I'll mothball the role. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. With the advent of TF coordinators, the role becomes somewhat meaningless. Cam ^(Chat) 05:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree. Contacts are a thing of the past.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 09:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing against it. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mothball it. Woody (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note at the top and archive tags, which should do the trick. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81's retirement

Tom has announced that he's taking a long wikibreak and serving notice that we may re-assign his spot to someone else. Given the pressure that Tom is clearly under this is obviously the best course and I have not tried to persuade him to change his mind. When he does feel up to returning to editing, we can always consider coopting him. In the meantime, I have nominated Tom for the Chevrons with Oak Leaves as he is now both eligible and highly deserving of them. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have held up the October newsletter pending Tom's Oakleaves, which i imagine will be a formality. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for passing that on Roger. Tom; thanks so much for your huge contributions and I hope that we see you back soon. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I don't think that it's an immediate urgency to have only eight of us functioning. This wouldn't be the first time that a coordinator has taken an extended wikibreak (LordAmeth's break encompassed almost the entirety of the last tranche of coordinators, and from the perspective of a non-coordinator at the time, I really didn't notice a drop in production). Cam ^(Chat) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure but that was entirely down to Kirill and Woody who both handled prodigious amounts of project admin. Neither are as available this tranche as they were then. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cam ^(Chat) 16:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad for Tom; I understand his disgust with Wikipedia, and the personal non-WP problems as well. I hope this does not sound ghoulish, but should we redistribute the task forces Tom was overseeing?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in shock over all of this, especially since he retired less than a hour after I went offline. I certainly understand his reasons and wish him the best. I'll step up for some of his TFs, especially Maritime, but he has already said that he want's us to co-opt someone to take-over his spot. I'd imagine that the ed17 (talk · contribs) would be a logical choice. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Cam ^(Chat) 18:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Coordinator? It's an honor to even be considered for it—but it's also just a small leap in responsibilities...:) Let me think about it for a little bit...just what would it entail? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note about what it entails below :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I go away to Snowdonia for the weekend and this happens. Can I just say a sincere thanks to Tom for all the effort he has put into this project and all of the time that has been spent developing truly high quality articles. I have now watchlisted all of the ship articles I now you have edited, as I hope, will others. I think finding a replacement is neccessary and worthwhile, especially given the time pressures that some are under at the moment. Thankyou again Tom. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Tom for all your efforts and devotion for the project in the past years, we will certainly feel your absence. However, hope to see you back around as soon as possible. In case we have to name a coordinator for replacement, I would propose Buckshot06, a really experienced member of our project. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I am needed, I guess that I could...as long as it doesn't take up 99% of my precious article-building time. :) However, if you guys choose to co-opt Buckshot instead, I also understand, because I'm willing to bet that he has a lot more experience with MILHIST than I do. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New coordinators

Picking up on points in the discussion above, I suggest we co-opt two coordinators; one for Tom's place and another to help cover various gaps. Perhaps it would be helpful to outline what the coordinators' role means in practice, for the benefit of potential co-optees. A couple of names have already been mentioned; to those, I'd like to add another three, based largely on their commitment to Milhist so far and very obvious clue.

1. the_ed17
2. Buckshot06 - declined
3. Joe (BorgSphere) - declined
4. Abraham, B.S. declined
5. Skinny87 - declined
6. Maralia
7. EyeSerene declined in the short term

In the interests of transparency, I will also leave a brief message about this on the main talk page. Thoughts --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maralia would also make a good coordinator. She's got broad WP experience and is good at nitty-gritties. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to propose EyeSerene, an active member with great experience within the project and very familiar with guidelines. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that both would make excellent coordinators, and I have had pleasant interaction with EyeSerene in the past. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm massively honoured that I'd be considered for this role, but regretfully I don't believe I can find the time required to make a decent job of it. Between promised copyedits, FA article prep, GA, and the WP:FAT's current major project, I've got too many prior commitments at the moment, and I can't drop anything without letting other editors down. If you find yourself needing more hands in the future though, I'd be happy to help out once things have quietened down. Best regards (and apologies), EyeSerene^talk 12:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What does being a Milhist coordinator involve?

Traditionally, Milhist coordinators:

1. Look after the routine admin jobs, listed in the open tasks section of the handbook preferably on a daily basis.
2. Contribute promptly to Milhist discussions:
   • on the coordinators' talk page, so consensus can be quickly reached
   • on the main talk page
   • and on the coordinator's adopted task force talk pages.
3. Help administer, and provide back-up support, for any Milhist special projects (drives etc).
4. Try informally to resolve conflicts (especially long-running ones or disputes affecting many articles).

   It should be noted that this is a highly-stressful aspect of being a coordinator. Cam ^(Chat) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Although some Milhist coordinators are also administrators, coordinators

1. do not become involved in article protection and the like
2. do not require sysop tools for any of their responsibilities.

These tasks can be time-consuming, especially when others are busy in real-life, and coordinators should be prepared to prioritize coordination over other Wiki-activities. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for considering me as a potential coordinator. However I'm actually grappling with starting a PhD, and haven't really utilised my newly-gained admin tools as much as I would have liked to. Could I be reconsidered if necessary at another time? Thanks and regards to all. Buckshot06(prof) 09:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply and good luck weith your doctorate! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Same from me! Cam ^(Chat) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good summary Roger. It may also be helpful to point out what coordinators are not as well. In short, coordinators are not administrators, and don't play a formal role in conflict resolution (though we often do try to mediate any long-running disputes), article protection and the like and don't require the admin tools. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. Incorporated, I think. Do tweak if you're unhappy with it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an honour even to be mentioned as a possible Coordinator, and I thank you all very much. Like Buckshot, I'm in the middle of an MA, which restricts my time, and I don't feel that I've been on wiki long enough to have quite enough experience at this time. However, If there were the possibility of helping out a new Coordinator and getting to know the ropes -how to do all those open tasks and things like that - I'd be more than willing to help out. Skinny87 (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow ... I feel so very humbled and honoured to be even considered for such a position! If it is deemed acceptable by our fellow Wikipedians that I should suit such a position, I would gratefully accept and try to my greatest capabilities possible to justify my appointment if it be made. Considering the highly capable and experienced editors who have also been considered to become new Coordinators (albeit under such unfortunate circumstances), then I do naturally understand if I am not chosen, but I am willing to gratefully assume the position if my fellow Wikipedians wish it so. Once again, I humbly thank you for even considering me. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Following some serious thought, I have decided to decline the gracious offer of considering me as a potential co-opted Coordinator. I have decided to do so as I believe I am lacking in experience for such a position, particularly when placed in comparison to the other three exceptional and experienced candidates. Nether the less, I would once again like to that you all for even considering me for such a role, and that I am available to assist in any possible way in regards to the project that I can. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What "various gaps" would actually need coverage by an aditional coordinator? I would support the naming of a replacement coordinator, but oppose an additional one, as those "gaps" were not outlined on the talk page before this situation. For the replacement coordinator, I'd suggest holding an election in which each of us (the coordinators) would support one candidate, and the candidate receiving the most votes will be named coordinator. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• They were raised here. There have been several examples over the last month were important stuff simply didn't happen. For a variety of reasons, we currently have the capacity to tick over but not to take on major new projects. However, a decision was more or less reached to increase to twelve coordinators at the next election but Tom's departure has given us an opportunity to review the situation and perhaps up the numbers earlier. It's better to have too many coordinators than too few.
• On the voting issue, I'd rather see whether we can reach consensus by discussion first and eight votes (Kirill probably won't vote) split three ways is unlikely to produce a decisive candidate. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Roger, if the elected experienced coordinators are currently able just to tick over, do you think the newly co-opted ones would take on major new projects? I mean, you have to be quite familiar with the project to initiate an assessement drive, for example, or any other such large-scale projects. I think that before we co-opt additional coordinators, we have to establish responsibilities/duties for each one (as we co-opt new coords to fill in the gaps), and see if they would be capable to fulfill their tasks. So I propose asking each possible new coordinator what tasks would accept and in which areas they would be active until the next elections (in this way, if one doesn't take care properly of his duties, he would face the consequences at the elections). So i'm willing to accept several additional coordinators, as long as they have previously designated responsabilities within the project. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Let's not forget that only half the current coordinators have any previous experience in the role and the three nominees have all been very active within the project. The tick-over issue is not to do with experience but the amount of time individuals are able/willing to commit to coordination. The appointment for specific tasks may not be practical as we can't really tell which way the project will go. It also strikes me as unfair to hold the newcomers to task over their performance when incumbents do not face a similar hurdle. Or are you proposing that each coordinator's specific record should be scrutinised in detail at the next election?

I think Kirill's suggest of appointing coopted people as Assistant Coordinators is a good one. Can you live with that? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I proposed those above just to be sure that if we co-opt new coordinators, will be useful for the project, not indifferently. We can adopt 100 new coordinators, but they would be useless, unless they know what's their role here. When we ask them if they want to join us it should sound something like - look, considering that you are an experienced member of our project, we would need you in the coordinator position due to.........(Tom's retirement, inactivity, etc), in order to fill in the following gaps ......(examples).....do you accept this proposal? --Eurocopter (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We probably have precisely the same aim, we're just approaching it from slightly different angles. How about an explicit undertaking from each new coordinator to fulfil the responsibilities I listed at the top of this section? That's pretty much tells it like it is and spells out what we expect. Such an undertaking would do all and more than you ask. (And, incidentally, I'm not very keen on "assistant coordinator" though I'm prepared to compromise if it's a dealbreaker. I'd much rather just have coordinators.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that should do. I still think that new co-opted coords should be designated as "assistant coordinators", considering that coordinators are usually elected, not named by other coordinators (when you are elected by 50 members or proposed by one coordinator - it's quite a difference). --Eurocopter (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps we could simply add "(coopted)" in brackets after the new coordinators' names on the main /Coord page: mentioning it there would be more than enough for me. Also, introducing a new tier would create an anomaly: strictly speaking, Bedford was coopted and I'm utterly against doing anything that appears to downgrade him to "assistant". Does this work for you? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that should do. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it is not a substantive post, it is a maintenance position. I would strongly prefer it if any new co-ords were called co-ords. The current co-ords have no exact personally assigned positions i.e reviewing, watching FC pages etc, so whay single out any new one. It is placing undue pressure on them in my opinion. In essence, I agree with Roger here. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tigre has a point. Sounds like a reasonable way to attain new coordinators.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 14:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a vote is a good idea. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the most pressing need here is the immediate replacement of the massive gap left by Tom's departure. What we could also do is co-opt one coordinator, with an immediate one designated as a "reserve". After say a month or so, we can assess whether that's covered our bases. If it hasn't, we co-opt the reserve. We can't be so rigid as to stick solely to a single new coordinator. Por Exemplar, if Roger, Woody and Eurocopter (our three most senior coordinators) suddenly wikiretired today, it would require at least four or five new coordinators to replace the sheer volume of work that would suddenly be undone. The number of "nine" was always there simply because we felt that it was the right amount to get the job done. That may change in the future, we don't know. Cam ^(Chat) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the dynamics have changed sufficiently since the last tranche to make more coordinators an immediate priority. With more coordinator boots on the ground, perhaps we can move forward on the TF issue (for example, beef up the small ones, or merge them, but both routes will take much work ). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed; there's nothing particularly special about having nine. (If anything, the fact that that number has been relatively stable must be contrasted with the regular increases in the number that took place in the first several terms.) Given that (a) we seem to be experiencing a slightly higher rate of coordinator inactivity than before (note that Tom is actually the second coordinator to withdraw this term) and (b) there appears to be no shortage of ideas that need implementing, I would suggest that co-opting two or three coordinators at once may be a better approach. Certainly, a single larger co-option would probably be easier logistically than single co-options every month or two.

(I'll also note that we could bring back an "Assistant Coordinator" position, if necessary, to allow for more substantial recruitment.) Kirill ^(prof) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, this kind of puts me in a tough spot. I would really love to help out and am very honored to be considered, but I'm not sure if I would have the time to help out as much as I would need to. Since it appears that two people above have expressed their interest in the position, I am willing to allow them to have it, but, if you guys need me, I will gladly try as hard as I can to help out. If, for some reason, you cannot fill the positions or have another opening in the future, please let me know and I'll be glad to step up and help. Joe (Talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm this thought just crossed my mind: in all likelihood I will be extremely inactive (maybe 15-30 min. a day) during the last 3/4 of December and the beginning of January because of college finals and then going home for Christmas etc....and my mom simply hates me being on her internet...however, I guess that they are installing free wireless internet at some building up the street, so I may be lying, too (it might reach my house)... =/

If this affects your support for me, then so be it—I refuse to knowingly hide that and then spring it on everyone later! :)I was honored to even be considered by all of you for coordinator, so thanks for that once more. If you guys still want me, I'd recommend co-opting Abraham with me, just in case finals hit MBK hard and the worst-case scenario of zero internet access slaps me (oh boy, would THAT suck...) But I digress. Thank you all and cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern ed, but I don't think they will hit me hard this semester. At the most I'll be off for about 5 days in mid-December. Regardless, your situation is very much like what Tom has to deal with (he lives in a place where wind storms can knock out the internet) and what the project has been presented with before during finals. You've still got my support. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks! :) Still though, do wind storms knock out the internet for a little less than a month...? Yes, that would be and is the worst-case scenario, but just asking... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind being an assistant Coordinator if that would help the project - do some of the more minor work and so forth? Skinny87 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to be considered, thank you. I understand the concern about elected versus appointed coordinators, as well as the extra work and delay another election would require. I haven't seen a good explanation of what's meant by "Assistant Coordinator" here, but unless the requirements or the expectations are different from those of a Coordinator, it seems an unnecessary distinction. Personally, I would prefer to serve as the result of an election, and in a similar capacity as the other coordinators. Maralia (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Maralia would be an excellent pick, I was shadowing them today: checking the showcase lists vs. categories to check for anomalies. I don't think we should use assistant coordinator unless they explicitly want it, we are all the same here really. I am not convinced of the need for another election, perhaps do it in the same way that FLC did recently when they needed to replace The Rambling Man. We discuss and try and narrow it down to 2 or 3 and we ask the members whether they have any disagreement with it. I don't think anybody can really be fussed with another full-blown election at this moment in time. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break

(od) I agree with Roger's views about giving co-opted coordinators a different title - if they agree to do this volunteer administrative job they're a coordinator, so playing around with titles seems a bit silly. As we have several very well qualified editors interested in the position I suggest that we either co-opt them all or hold a quick election. I prefer a quick election - how about giving people 48 or 72 hours to post a one paragraph self nomination and then a short (72 hour?) voting period - it seems the fairest, and possibly the quickest, way of settling this and would have the benefit of giving us some runners up to fill any additional vacancies. If there's a tie I'd be more than happy to see the number of coordinators increased. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That might work; but, given the apparently small number of candidates, I'm not sure that a formal election would really be particularly useful, and trying to muster the entire membership for the second time in as many months seems a bit excessive. We don't want to become unduly focused on elections, after all; that's one of the factors that led to Esperanza's decline.

It may be simpler to go with Woody's idea above: ask the project if there are any objections to a proposed co-option slate (and/or run the co-option candidates through an approval vote on the project talk page, if something more formal is desired). Kirill ^(prof) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Kirill. My preference is to just ask for objections to the proposed cooptions. The less fuss and process the better. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: The announcement should probably stress that coordinators are merely editors who have committed to go the extra mile for the project and that there are very few processes that require coordinator input. It should also probably remind the membership that not only are editors able to become involved in the nitty-gritty of the project, they are positively encouraged to do so. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For the coordination staff

For all the coordinators

for Bedford

Given a little bet/deal I had with Bedford, and in light of the results of the 2008 presidential elections, I've bought everyone a pint 'o Guinness (except Bedford, who has requested mountain-dew). Cam ^(Chat) 06:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to buy that exact pub glass, but instead I bought three Sapporo and six Sam Adams pub glasses. JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dangit Cam, I can't drink that for six months, I thought I asked for a Dr Pepper? -MBK₀₀₄ 06:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that wouldn't stop an individual like you now would it? Cam ^(Chat)

Actually, it would. Being an Eagle Scout, I obey the law (except for speeding occasionally). -MBK₀₀₄ 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I made Life Scout, and I saw a lot worse behavior from Eagle Scouts than that.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine idea, Cam. Very generous of you :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! This Australian will be raising a beer tonight in celebration of someone from his favorite side of politics winning! Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Although i'm not sure if its legal to contribute under the influence of alcohol :) - maybe we could establish a limit within Milhist :). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: three new coordinators

We have discussed this at some length above, seem to have reached consensus on most points, and are probably about ready to make a decision. According, I propose we coopt three new coordinators:

• the_ed17
• EyeSerene
• Maralia

I suggest the appointments, if adopted, are with immediate effect, though EyeSerene will ease himself into the role as he completes/relinquishes other commitments (by the New Year). The purpose of the appointments is partly to fill the place left by Tom and partly to provide increased/improved coordinator capacity to cover existing coordinator absences and to help with upcoming major projects. The new coordinators will be identified as "coopted", in the coordinator list. Could you please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal below, giving very brief reasons. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Support/oppose section

• Support. Cam ^(Chat) 06:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support thanks a lot for putting your hand up guys. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support All three of them are very good choices. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm confident that they will do their job properly! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support I have seen all three users around and they have been active in our review processes. Good luck to them. Woody (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support No problems here.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've notified all three of their appointments. Thanks to everyone who participated for a very fruitful discussion :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you all! :) It is an honor. I'll start working as soon as I can, which will probably be tomorrow or Sunday. (I have a stupid research paper, and then I am going home for the weekend.)

Second, who said I put my hand up? I blame Roger or MBK for this.:P —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 21:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not running away when your name was mentioned then ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

=) Alright, then, um no problem...? :D —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 06:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! My son is very impressed with the Coordinator stars, and wants to 'make them out of shiny wood'. Given that he is four, I am thinking we will forgo the jigsaw, and opt for something more in the 'cardboard and tin foil' family instead—but still, it may be the first WP:MilHist handicraft ever :) Maralia (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

:D Aww! Take a picture and maybe we'll make a new award! "The Real Coordinator stars are given to..."—Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 06:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What a good idea! I might get myself another tinfoil hat. The old one is in tatters. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my thanks too for the vote of confidence! As Roger mentioned, of necessity I'll be starting slowly, but I'll try to contribute where I can. Congratulations to ed17 and Maralia too - looking forward to seeing those stars ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reservations about ACR closure

I have large reservations with regards to the closure of the "confirmation review" of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group. This looks worryingly like judge, jury and executioner to me. How long should an ACR be open, and how many people should comment before it should be closed? I for one think that there should be at least three separate editors who are in agreement before we can think about closing it. Woody (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this could probably have been better dealt with. We shouldn't have coordinators unilaterally demoting articles any more than we should have them promoting their own. Kirill ^(prof) 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The review was open for more than a week and nobody mind to input. If the new A-class criteria are clearly not met, is it really necessary to put the article through this bureaucracy (another example: Tupolev TB-3)? Also, it was not an unilateral decision, it was in accordance with our current A-class criteria (or should I remind you that we do not have any official policy/guideline regarding the demotion of A-class articles - so such articles could easily be demoted without consulting anyone, but I think its constructive to see other opinions, that's why I opened that confirmation review). Considering that there were no inputs in the confirmation review, I propose that any coordinator should be able to automatically demote articles which do not meet criteria. This would by no way mean unilateral decisions, as we do not consider, for example, B-class assessment unilateral just because the process is undergone by a single person. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It has always been my impression, based on previous discussions here, that there was no dissent from the idea that A-Class articles could only be demoted through a formal review. Is this not in line with your understanding of the matter? We should probably clarify that point before debating the specifics of the particular situation. Kirill ^(prof) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that we do not have offical policies regarding demotion of A-class articles, my impression was that in order to avoid any controversy it would be nice to put the respective article through a confirmation review. Since nobody is interested in such reviews and the article clearly doesn't meet the criteria, I think it's useless to put the article through a such bureaucratic process. We have difficulties in dealing with ordinary bureaucracy, such as regular ACRs, so what's the point in conducting useless bureaucracy? --Eurocopter (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 11#Reevaluating our peer review and A-class review system for the last discussion around this issue and specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tent pegging for the last "demotion" ACR. What gives you the right to be judge, jury and executioner in these cases. We are coordinators, not unilateral decision makers and for the most part we run on precedent, that is the tent pegging ACR. It is not needless bureaucracy, it is an assessment of the article judged against the criteria; without it, you could simply go through the list and demote articles that you don't like, which is unacceptable. I understand your concerns about bureaucracy but these articles need to go through "due process" which is distinct from mindless bureacracy. Concentrate on the other ACRs that are waiting for specific comments. Woody (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I find quite sad that you make such remarks after we worked together in the benefit of the project for such a long time. You are talking like my aim would be demoting A-class articles "which I don't like", not improving and cleaning-up our A-class system. If the fact that I demoted an article according to our A-class criteria, in contradiction with none of our policies/guidelines, means that I judged, juried and executed, by abusing of the coordinator position, I would respectfully present my resignation in the next second. I consider your tone (especially from the last sentence) rude and commanding, innapropiate for someone equal in position, with no executive powers. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intention, and I apologise if you read it that way. I was stating my opinion that we need due process and that we follow the precedent of Tent pegging, it was not my intention to make any personal comment. You commented on the tent pegging ACR and you saw how that one worked, why not follow that again? I thought that it was accepted practice to do the review as normal, I obviously misjudged that. I really did not mean to offend. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually the initiator of the Tent pegging precedent, a reasonable way to demote an A-class article. However, this time that demotion process didn't work, that's why I considered not being such a big deal to automatically demote such an article. Considering that you were so offended by my "unilateral executioner" actions, would you mind proposing a proper demotion process, which if adopted, will be a guideline respected from now on (such as the promotion guidelines). Until then, I refuse to deal with any further A articles which do not meet the A-criteria (I just had a look through the showcase today, and there are quite many of them). --Eurocopter (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be offended by the executioner saying, I apologise if that saying has offended you, it was only meant to highlight the unilateral nature of your actions. Not receiving comments for a few days is not a breakdown in our procedures, it just means that we are overstretched which has been obvious for a while now. There is no need for any more rules, they are already covered: initiate a review, wait for comments, when three people have commented, close it and list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008/Demoted. This could be explicitly codified if you like. Woody (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In a regular A-class review (or FAC/GAN), if the concerns are not adressed and the process is not active for a period of time, it is closed and failed due to inactivity. In this case, what should I have done, leave the article unfairly assessed as A-class? I've established Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008/Demoted for demotion processes, unfairly classified as failed - I mention this to underline an example of irregularity within our A-class system, caused by the inexistence of a precise guideline. Also, all this unconstructive discussions could have been avoided if a demotion guideline existed. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

When we last discussed this, there was no consensus for a demotion process, the argument being that it happened so infrequently that one wasn't necessary. Perhaps the time has come to revisit that decision (or lack of one). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that ACRs can be left for several weeks (the seven day rule no longer applies), so perhaps the article should have been left up. Before demoting it, perhaps you should have left a message on this talk page and asked for reviews. The main issue that I can gather from the comments made insofar is the lack of a second or third opinion. What's done is done, so I don't think there is any use arguing over the current example, but perhaps the review should be left up for longer and there should be an effort to gather comments before closing the review. That said, it should be noted that FAs are not demoted if nobody comments during a FAR; I've seen FARs open for several weeks (same as FACs). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps we have include a note in the Review dept, along the following lines:

"A-Class demotion reviews

"Any editor may initiate a review of any A-Class article, six months or more after it was promoted, on the ground that it no longer meets the criteria. Reviewers are invited to indicate Keep for re-confirmation at A-Class or Demote for demotion to Start-Class. In the absence of consensus, the status quo prevails."

Thoughts? Is this necessary? Is this the right approach? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps a time limit for these? Not for any real reason, but IMHO we should focus on the nominees more than 'demotees'...and setting a time limit would get these out faster. Otherwise, it looks ok to me! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that as well. What do the others think? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'm not totally comfortable with is the 'no consensus = keep' idea. I know it's in line with other processes (eg XfD), but if there are criteria-based objections to an article's status, then retaining that status solely because of process seems to me to be harmful to our overall article quality. Perhaps this could be avoided by having a neutral person close the review and adjudicate the result? EyeSerene^talk 19:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By consensus, ACRs are closed by an uninvolved coordinator anyway. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It was the 'adjudication' bit I meant to emphasise :P EyeSerene^talk 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We'd have to phrase any ACAR protocol similarly. On another point, I'm finding that the "no timeframe for demotion/promotion" has allowed some ACRs to linger at the one-or-two editor comments for quite some time, and then be demoted for no other reason than not enough people have commented on it. We can't just allow all the pressure to be removed. We should have some form of reasonable timeframe during which an acr or acar has to be finished (ie a month). It allows for gradual consensus, but it also alleviates the problem we're having now, where articles are closed because the drive to comment on them is lessened. Cam ^(Chat) 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Inject a sense of not-too-urgent urgency, you mean? :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda. If we intend to model our ACR procedure off of that of FAC (which it seems as though we are), then we need to keep in mind that even FAC has deadlines and time-limits for article candidates. We're further hampered by the fact that we don't have nearly the number of diehard reviewers at the ACR level as FAC has. If we can instill that semi-urgency, it allows for consensus to still be reached, but might motivate editors to actually keep the process moving. Cam ^(Chat) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sort of like the FAR director? (if we pretend for a moment that FAR has little or no participation...) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so, yes. The current criteria for MilHist A-Class review states that "Reviews remain open until such time as a project coordinator determines that either (a) clear consensus to promote or to fail exists or (b) no consensus will be reached." The promoter is also expected to take criteria-based objections into account, so the same could apply to demoting A-Class articles - even where there haven't been the requisite number of reviewers. I understand the objections to unilateral demotion made above, but as long as an article isn't demoted by the same person that nominated it for re-review, I don't see that arising. EyeSerene^talk 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's compare demotion to the promotion process. There, one unrectified criterion-based oppose is sufficient to prevent promotion. It seems to me, on reflection, that the demotion process should be no more complicated than the promotion one. Therefore, perhaps the route should be that the article is subject to a fresh promotion review and if no "uninvolved" opposes are made it retains its status. (By "uninvolved", I mean "oppose by an editor other than the nominator".) The downside is I suppose that this process is theoretically open to abuse by a tag team of nominator and opposer, working in cahoots.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) How about two noninvolved (e.g. not the nominator) coordinators have to agree in situations where there is little or no comment after the set period of time (whatever that is)? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally not keen on increasing the executive powers of coordinators though the mileage of others here may vary :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I wouldn't see it as increasing the power of the coordinators - rather, maybe they should just be re-listed if there is any doubt with the two coordinators. Plus, if there are enough comments, then it would be the same as a normal A-class review, right? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

True. I appreciate Roger's objection though - and I'm wary of any changes that require an increased level of manpower, given that part of the problem seems to be a lack of respondents. I think article reassessment isn't something that any of Wikipedia's review processes have really nailed yet - it's a difficult balance between transparency, speed, fairness and lack of bureaucracy. A re-nomination for promotion could be the way to go, although I think that whatever the mechanism, at some point we need the closer - as with AfD - to be free to apply their own judgement in line with the assessment criteria where necessary. EyeSerene^talk 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting observation though I suppose the point is that coordinators don't have the executive mandate that admins do. Perhaps we could try a simple process first and if that fails re-look at the problem? How does this seem:

"A-Class demotion reviews

"Any editor may initiate a review of any A-Class article, six months or more after it was promoted, on the ground that it no longer meets the criteria. The review operates on the same basis as a fresh application for A-class status but with a time limit of 14 days. In the event that no supports or opposes are made by uninvolved editors, the status quo prevails and the article retains its A-Class status. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What are we supporting, its demotion or it retaining its state? Given that we don't have a separate heading for ACRs, do we not want to use demote/keep for clarity? Woody (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. Perhaps the answer is to use an actual template for demotion reviews which explains the process. I'll sandbox one for consideration. In this context, a "demoted" switch in the {{ArticleHistory}} might be handy. I'll make enquiries. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All done. Thanks to Gimmetrow, the WAR switch at {{ArticleHistory}} now supports "promoted", "failed", "demoted" and "kept". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think demote/keep is clearer. On Roger's suggestion, that sounds like an uncomplicated process that would undoubtedly work. However, my misgivings remain about automatically retaining an article at A-Class that doesn't meet the criteria, simply because no-one (or no-one uninvolved) responds to its reassessment. Should that happen, I believe it will lower the quality bar across the project, and set a precedent for other editors to argue "If X is A-Class, why not Y?" Maybe I'm being too cynical though - I'm happy to go with whatever everyone decides (and I'm not really here anyway :P) EyeSerene^talk 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[Chuckle] I suppose the thing is that an article remains A-class until consensus decides otherwise. And, given the potential for mischief, I'd be reluctant to support a process that demoted an article just because it's been nominated for demotion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put together a page template here. It's deliberately very neutral. As with ACR, one criterion-based demote/oppose would be enough to scupper keep/promotion. Is this acceptable to everyone? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks decent...and you know, if the two week limit approaches and no one has commented, why doesn't someone just leave a message here and ask for comment on it? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks good Roger. Just to clarify per your above comment re supporting a process that demotes an article just because it's been nominated for demotion, I believe the presumption going into a reassessment should always be to keep. Where we differ, I think, is that I'm suggesting that the closing coordinator should be free to apply their own judgement where an article with clear issues but no consensus to demote (for whatever reason) would, under the 'no consensus = status quo' rule, unfairly retain its A-Class status. That would of course apply in reverse too, to retain articles where a consensus to demote would produce an unfair result. I hope I haven't given the wrong impression :P EyeSerene^talk 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

notification of absence.

Hey guys, this is just to let everyone know that I'm going to be gone for approximately a week at the end of November, on account of being out of town for the 2008 North American Debating Championships. Just thought I'd let y'all know well in advance. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible navboxes

This page is incredibly cluttered. Is there a simple way of collapsing and nesting the navboxes, preferably with the archive box as well? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean our project navbox and the bio one? ({{WPMILHIST Navigation}} and {{WPBiography Sidebar}}. The Australia taskforce has the same issue I think. It shouldn't be hard to code a show/hide function I wouldn't think. Is that the issue here? Regards. Woody (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeedthe issue. (Sorry about slow response: I missed the replies.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

{{WPBiography Sidebar}} could be easily changed to have the lower sections default to a collapsed state (as in {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}); but that would only fix the vertical spacing, not the horizontal one—we'd still have two bars side-by-side. I'm not sure if there's any neat way of aligning the bars on top of each other at the present size; we'd need somewhat smaller ones for that to work on normal resolutions.

On our side, perhaps we should move the departments into a collapsing section? Kirill ^(prof) 14:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was thinking of something about user box size, that unfolded downwards when clicked on.

Yes, collapsed depts is a good idea. What do others think? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried my hand at moving the departments to a collapsed section; comments? Is the size reduction a net improvement, or would people prefer to have the departments visible?

(On a related note, does anyone actually use the "New articles" page at this point, or can we mothball it?) Kirill ^(prof) 14:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the collapsed version very much but it probably isn't suitable everywhere. The collapsing puts more emphasis on the de-collapsed section, which I suppose we could use for news and updates (ie things that lead you into the collapsed bits).

I don't think anyone uses "new articles". Brad101 had an excellent idea to tag articles as they were created but the new articles page is too long and cluttered to fit neatly into WP:MHA#REQ where most of these things reside. The idea was basically to transclude the last 48 hours-worth. I left a note a couple of months asking whether the format could be changed and apparently it's now on a "To Do" list. I'll chase it up. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we have a mothballed pages section in Project Organization? It's difficult keeping track of some of this stuff otherwise and we may want to de-naphthalize them at some stage.

As ever, many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the project archive category. Unfortunately, that's pretty cluttered by all the old drive subpages; I'll try and figure out if there's an easy way to pull those into a sub-category. Perhaps the discussion archive link should be pulled down into that section as well.

As far as emphasis goes, I think we're (appropriately) putting the emphasis on what a random editor passing by would be interested in (main page, open tasks, guidelines); anyone interested in something more complex will almost certainly know where to find it, so I don't think we should worry too much about having the other portions collapsed by default. Kirill ^(prof) 20:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added some logic to {{WPMILHIST Archive}} to do more fine-grained sorting of the archive pages; once the category caches update, we'll be in a better position to determine what we actually have in the archive bin. Kirill ^(prof) 01:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Demotion of A-Class articles

I'd like to know if any of the fellow coordinators would have anything against if I would automatically demote A-class articles which clearly do not meet A-class criteria (without going through the ACR process). --Eurocopter (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, yes; see the section above. Kirill ^(prof) 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And the demotion review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group should be revisited. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A time limit seems fine. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and spruce this up. I started on some of RM Gillespie's older A-classes a while ago. I can think of much worse A-class articles actually and some FAs too, although those take longer to get rid of. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are actually a large number of FAs that need to be put through FARs. I have held back, but I think I might nominate more next month. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Work begun. Ah... too bad I don't have any flunkeys at WP:VIET who do the work while I brag about and play the statesman...I wasn't referring to any coords here as everyone regularly works on helping to polish of FA/A instead of promoting themselves to the media as the head of some WIkiproject. Although I am rather surprised by Eurocopter's opinion of this article given that he vehemently said that Russian Ground Forces should have been retained as a FA, which I think was and is even worse. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, although I am now out of the job, I don't think articles can be demoted pending a reapproval, that doesn't sound right because FA/A/GA aren't subject to fixed terms unlike politicians or whatever. And consensus to change should still be the bar. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The (slight) problem is that that is how the template currently works. An A-class review automatically resets the class to Start. The question is whether it's worth fiddling with the template for what is currently a relatively rare occurence. However, if we're going to get a spate of these, the landscape changes somewhat. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to change it, or better still, pre-emptively clean up articles before waiting to be indicted at A/FAR. Having said that, recalling what Catalan said about human nature, another FA-writer jokingly told me perhaps he should FAR other people's messy articles, and then clean them back up for FA, because by nominating an article for FA, you get a star, but not if you fix a bad olden-day FA, pre-emptively or at FAR. It'd be amusing if people kept on cyclically demoting and promoting A-class articles to get contest marks, that would be funny. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 06:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I put Battle of the Bulge through FAR to get it back to FA, so that I could get the star (assuming I actually did it). Like I mentioned before, humans (especially I) are built to compete and to get credit for what they do. JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So is MACVSOG going to revert to the status quo pending more definitive judgment? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That is probably the right thing to do. Does anyone object to this? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Poke? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just set up a new review and restored the article to A-Class. Sorry about the delay but this couldn't be implemented until the {{ArticleHistory}} and {{MILHIST}} template changes were in place.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Time limit for A-class reviews

Picking up on Cam's suggestion above, shall we cap the period an A-class review remains open at one calendar month? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Given that editors use them to help develop articles, we should err on the side of long review times. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was always supporting this. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good (I'd be worried about my mental health if an idea I had didn't sound good to me all of a sudden;) Cam ^(Chat) 00:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK EyeSerene^talk 18:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Instructions now updated accordingly. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly related, but can an uninvolved editor please close this ACR? Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Incidentally, I've removed the formatting one editor added as it disturbs the formatting of the archive page. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter despatch problem

This has not gone out yet as CBrown1023 is busy fundraising. I've left a message asking whether it will go soon or whether we need to make other arrangements. Do we know any other bot owners that might be able to handle it urgently if BrownBot can't do it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

TinucherianBot delivered the last WP:NOVELS newsletter... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ShepBot takes newsletter delivery requests. Maralia (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your very prompt responses. Happily, BrownBot has now done the business but I will check with them whether they'll be able to handle December okay. if not, I'll approach TinucherianBot and User:ShepBot. Thanks again for the info. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Cbrown1023 reckons normal service will be resumed for the next newsletter. So, no problem! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Task force adoption

Now that we have a few more coordinators it might be good to spread around the task force load a bit. Obviously, the gaps left by Tom's departure need filling first and then perhaps re-allocation so that everyone has about ten each? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Task force adoption

Task force adopted	Current TFC (1)	Current TFC (2)	Interested
Fortifications	the_ed17	Maralia
Intelligence	Nick Dowling	Catalan
Maritime warfare	Woody	Maralia	MBK004 • the_ed17
Military aviation	Eurocopter	Cam	Bedford
Military biography	Woody	Maralia
Military historiography	Nick Dowling	Woody	Maralia
Military land vehicles	Jon Catalán	the_ed17
Military memorials and cemeteries	Woody	Bedford	Maralia
Military science	Nick Dowling	MBK004
Military technology and engineering	JonCatalán	Cam
National militaries	Nick Dowling	Woody
War films	Woody	Bedford
Weaponry	Woody	EyeSerene
African military history	Woody	Cam
Australian military history	Nick Dowling	EyeSerene
Balkan military history	Kirill	MBK004
Baltic states military history	MBK004	Cam
British military history	Eurocopter	Maralia
Canadian military history	Cam	the_ed17
Chinese military history	Roger Davies	Bedford
Dutch military history	Woody	MBK004
French military history	Eurocopter	MBK004
German military history	Cam	Catalan
Indian military history	Roger Davies	MBK004
Italian military history	Kirill	Eurocopter
Japanese military history	Nick Dowling	Catalan
Korean military history	MBK004	Catalan
Middle Eastern military history	Roger Davies	Cam
New Zealand military history	Nick Dowling	EyeSerene
Nordic military history	Woody	MBK004
Ottoman military history	Roger Davies	Cam
Polish military history	Eurocopter	Bedford
Romanian military history	Eurocopter	Roger Davies
Russian and Soviet military history	Eurocopter	MBK004
South American military history	Jon Catalán	Bedford
Southeast Asian military history	Roger Davies	EyeSerene
Spanish military history	Kirill	Jon Catalán
Taiwanese military history	Bedford	the_ed17
United States military history	MBK004	Bedford	Maralia
Classical warfare	Roger Davies	JonCatalán
Medieval warfare	Woody	EyeSerene
Early Muslim military history	Roger Davies	Bedford
Crusades	Roger Davies	JonCatalán
Early Modern warfare	Kirill	Nick Dowling	EyeSerene
American Revolutionary War	Bedford	MBK004
Napoleonic era	Cam	EyeSerene
American Civil War	Roger Davies	Bedford
World War I	Woody	Eurocopter	Maralia
World War II	Nick Dowling	the_ed17	Maralia

I took another. I wouldn't mind doing an overhaul of war films, if one of those minds giving it up.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

All yours :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gracias.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

De nada, muchacho. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I realise I'm not due to pick things up properly until the new year, so I'll defer to my fellow coordinators on this. I suggested to Roger that I can either wait until January, when you could perhaps all give me a share of your workload, or I can sign up now, with the understanding that I might not be as useful as I'd like. The only caveat is that, for COI reasons, it might be best if I'm not given anything to do with the Balkans, as I've been involved as an admin in WP:ARBMAC enforcement. Your call though. EyeSerene^talk 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • My opinion is this: what do you want to do? What do you feel comfortable taking on? :) Ha, try to shove the decisions on us...see what happens. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, great, looks like I'd better make up my mind before that fence gets over-crowded. Guess who I'll be imposing on when I can't fit everything in... >D EyeSerene^talk 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This might have come up and been settled while I was away in October, but did anything come out of the suggestion that we reduce the number of task forces by rolling up the inactive ones? Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this was proposed, although the argument against it was that these task forces provided reasons for avoiding "wikiproject splits", while it was easier to keep one open and partially maintained (not much maintenance to do if it's inactive) than to close it and re-open it later. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is something I'd very much like to revisit. Probably as part of a larger "what do we do with the TFs" discussion. Could we hold fire on it for a week or so please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a good approach to me. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's been plenty of interest. I suggest that where there's only one person expressing interest in one empty slot they move straight in. How to fill oversubscribed slots? First come, first served? Or discussion between the interested parties? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the Task Force adoption table to move interested coords into vacant slots. Only four remain oversubscribed. I've made this temporarily an additional table. May I suggest discussion among the editors to decide who takes what of these? Thanks, we're almost there :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed fortifications from the second table as I have vacated it and moved Ed and maralia straight across. I only did it originally to fill in gaps. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good move. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see MBK already has 15 TFs and is interested in another five. Would he like to review this? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I just haven't got around to reassessing mine. I'm willing to give up some, as I have just done with regards to a few, but the ones I remain interested in are my areas of focus and I am willing to compromise with some that I am already signed up with. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool :) Would you be okay about vacating NZ for EyeSerene? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

 Done, I've also vacated one or two others to reduce my load some since we've gained a few newbies to spread it around to. Would EyeSerene be interested in Australia? Also, if anyone would like Baltic or Korean it is yours for the taking. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do Australia if you like. EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's yours for the taking. Also, Roger, I've vacated a few in the table and have also offered up a few that I haven't vacated. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) We now have four slots needing filling, two with no interest and two with too much interest. Could we make a concerted effort to complete this soon please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Can everyone live with the following solution to break the impasse:

1. Maralia to Maritime (she's got buckets of experience there and has far fewer TFs than MBK004)
2. the_ed17 to WW1 WWII.
3. EyeSerene to Southeast Asian (which is currently very quiet)

This is far from perfect but it does fix a short-term problem. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me. EyeSerene^talk 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I assume you mean Ed to WWII? Regards. Woody (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I do. Whoops! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I like some WWII aviation anyway, and you are very right - Maralia has a bit more exp than me in that department. :) Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me (and sorry you had to 'solve' it for us—other things on my mind this past week). I'll update things. Maralia (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the table above and the main table on the project page. Can someone else run through and adjust the task force pages accordingly? Maralia (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now updated the TF pages too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

{od} Just as an afterthought, is anyone interested in my Chinese and Romanian TFs? They're the two I know least about. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles

I just tagged Tom Crean (explorer) for the project, and added it to our featured articles (it was promoted today). It brought the number of MilHist featured articles to 300. I presume this is noteworthy enough for the next newsletter, but I couldn't find any previous mention of FA milestones. Perhaps it would be in poor taste, as they're not all 'our' articles? Maralia (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So long as we word it appropriately, I don't think it would be in poor taste. We just have to frame it as a statement on the quality of articles in the area, without necessarily taking credit for all of them. Kirill ^(prof) 22:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Did you know there are now 300+ articles related to Military History that are Featured articles on Wikipedia?"--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I went for po-faced and traditional. Tweak as necessary. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just tweaked a bit for clarification. Other than that, looks good. Cam ^(Chat) 06:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinating task forces

It seems to me that this consists of the following:

• Keep the task force coordinators lists up to date.
• Set up archive pages and regularly archive out-of-date talk page messages.
• Copy across appropriate review alert messages from WT:MILHIST.
• Copy across task force relevant messages from WT:MILHIST.
• Alert TF members to appropriate deletion discussions.
• Removing created articles from "Articles requested"
• Regularly review "To do lists" and consider task forces initiatives to complete them
• Develop article creation initiatives.
• Build membership by inviting potential new members to participate.

Agree? Disagree? Anything missing? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, how do we feel about welcoming new task force members and adding them to the main Milhist active members list if they're not already there? (If we do this, we should really add a note to the TF membership list header.)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the task force membership lists already have a note asking people to sign up for the main project-wide one; did you have something different from that in mind? Kirill ^(prof) 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do have something different in mind: a note saying that task force members will be added to the main list by the coordinators if they're not already on it. In a little study, about a quarter of our membership (230-ish) are in TFs but not on the main list. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

After months of tagging and tracking military AfDs, I don't think that there's much value in posting prominent notifications of most new AfDs - very few military-related deletion discussions are disputed, or deserve to be disputed. Task forces are a useful way of highlighting the disputed and wrongful nominations though. Should TF coordinators also seek to foster discussions and new articles in the Task Forces? Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Struck through and added respectively on list above. Added new members initiative. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am agreeable to these. I think the majority of this is codifying what we should already be doing. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Just checklists really .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Nevada (BB-36)

Hey guys, Can someone with time on their hands go through and give this a thorough prose review? I'm good at catching errors by others, but I'm notorious for not being able to see my own errors (like on research papers for English...I'm glad that I made my friend read through my last one). =/ Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin

There are various civility and pesonal attack issues with an American Civil War article, Great Train Raid of 1861. These have rumbled on for several weeks and appear to be coming to a head. It would be helpful if an uninvolved admin could monitor the article and talk page to help keep the peace. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, I do tend to be a relatively "front foot" type of an admin, although it must be inevitable that Kirill is going to ban me for my antics soon....YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 06:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A-class article reassessment

I've finished drafting the instructions for this and they are here. I'd appreciate eyes on them as they are a significant re-write on the ACR process.

These keep the reassessment open two weeks. Should this be a calendar month in symmetry with ACR?

They explicitly enable closing coordinators to disregard demotion comments if they consider them invalid. If there's consensus here, this could be added to the ordinary A-Class review instructions.

Perhaps the Milhist template should be tweaked to preserve the A-Class status during review? If so, do we need different code to trigger the review? Perhaps we should use "demote" or "keep" for the reassessment review close for symmetry with {{ArticleHistory}}? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On a technical level, the key code change would be to have a new parameter value to indicate that an A-Class article is undergoing a new review (e.g "|A-Class=review" or something of the sort); the new ending parameters would only be needed if we want to divorce this entirely from the existing ACR.

Actually, the new value wouldn't be necessary at all, if we assume that people are more-or-less consistent about updating the "|class=" parameter when promoting; we can just modify the behavior based on whether the listed class is already set to "A". Kirill ^(prof) 04:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Conceptually, I think it's less overhead if we present this as simply a different type of "A-Class review" rather than an entirely new process; that way, the pass/fail terminology still applies, and we remove the need to have a distinct review section, etc. (This would, admittedly, make the ACR instructions rather longer, since we'd have to cover both scenarios; but I think that could probably be accomplished by putting the two different sets of filing instructions in collapsible sections. Kirill ^(prof) 03:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Kirill. Having mulled, I agree (with your later post) that we don't actually need to make too many changes to the template. These would basically be:

1. if the class = A when the review is implemented, the class stays at A (perhaps the "A-Class=current" stuff should not change the class of any article);
2. modify the template to accept also "demote" for "fail" and "keep" for "pass" (I don't think anything else needs changing);

However, I do think it's important, as has been argued by others above, to use "keep" or "demote" in a reappraisal review, simply because it's unambiguous.

I have no problems with capping this off and making it a second part of ACR (perhaps called A-Class review reappraisal?). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The template changes look fairly simple; I'll try them out sometime this weekend. As for the rest of it, I think separating the ACR instructions into "New review" and "Reappraisal review" boxes (or something of the sort) will be the simplest way to get this in place without introducing more procedural complexity. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Kirill :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the instructions from my sandbox to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class reappraisal review instructions and simplified them. I've also changed the reappraisal period to one calendar month in line with the normal ACR, as no one objected to this above. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that we might add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class review instructions directly rather than creating a new subpage. If the instructions are split out, do we also need a new section on WP:MHR for reappraisal reviews, rather than having them inline with the regular ones? I'm not sure if there's going to be any good way of placing both full boxes at the top of a single section, otherwise. Kirill ^(prof) 16:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely open on this. A separate ACRR section provides symmetry (for what it's worth) with the way other review/re-reviews are set up. A combined review/re-review section means compactness and more traffic. If going for the combined section, it makes sense to have both sets of instructions in one file, perhaps with each hidden/capped. So, in brief, up to you entirely whether you merge the files or not!

On a related note, I'll probably try to simplify/clarify the main ACR instructions in the next day or two. People get very confused when creating the archives and it can be time-consuming sorting it out. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing that isn't exactly that clear within the reappraisal instructions: What happens if there isn't enough comments to determine consensus? Do we do as FAC does and close it without result because of lack of consensus, or do we keep it open longer? Cam ^(Chat) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've added a note that in the absence of consensus (ie insufficient or inconclusive comment) the status quo prevails, ie the article keeps its A-Class status. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) That looks pretty good, but I think that people who nominate an article for an A-Class reappraisal should have to explain which of the A-Class criteria they think that they article doesn't meet as is the case at FARs. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate section for this, it will be like the FLRC section (ie permanently hidden) as it is rarely used. A combined section is much easier to use and should provide more traffic. I agree that it should be keep/demote. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D, but otherwise it looks like Roger did a very good job! =) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Roger, I think you've done an excellent job. There is not anything I would add that hasn't been done already. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I've updated {{WPMILHIST}} such that (a) "keep" and "demote" are accepted as alternatives for "pass" and "fail", respectively, and (b) an article already marked as A-Class will retain that level if a new review is opened with "|A-Class=current". If anyone spots anything broken after the updates, please let me know.
2. I've tried putting together two samples of combined instructions; #1, with two complete blocks, and #2, with each sub-section split into blocks. Comment would be very appreciated. Kirill ^(prof) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm preferring #2. It organizes it slightly better (and being an anal-retentive IB-nerd, I like organized). Instructions look good, although you could add a note discouraging 1-line supports or opposes (as we were having some trouble with that before). Thanks for putting those together and updating the WPMILHIST Template. Cam ^(Chat) 01:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, having been an IB nerd myself... ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, so the rumors about the IBO controlling everything are true! ;) Cam ^(Chat) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm confronted with them, I'm afraid I don't really like either very much ... The first is too bleak and the second too bitty. Perhaps the best thing for me to do is (i) to update and try to simplify the ACR instructions and (ii) work the updated version up into a test version. This'll probably have full instructions for ACR and hidden instructions for ACRR ('cos it's likely to be used much less often).

On a trial run, with this, the template worked perfectly. Thanks very much for that :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: what's an IB-nerd? (Or am I vividly demonstrating an utterly-out-of-touch-with-reality-ness?)

IB Diploma Programme - we don't use them much in the UK ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly blame you, as we tend to be anal-retentive workaholics. Cam ^(Chat) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Grr the monkey did IB as well. Down with graphics calculators. I shouldn't have said that in my TOK essay though :( YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Close ACR?

The main contributor of Revolt of the Comuneros has basically asked for the A-class review to be closed so that he/she can take it to FAC before their library books expire. Is there any way to do this? To me it looks like an easy pass (at the least, it has 115 references!), but I'd rather leave this decision to people who are more experienced... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It can't pass without supports, I'm afraid. So closing it now would mean a fail. This would not help at FAC. Can your friend renew the library books? It looks as if it needs a fair amount of work before FAC. Mostly MOS-compliance (images, refs, sources) plus a copy-edit (not least of which being that imperial and royal are not always interchangeable). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea - I just saw the note he added when I was passing through the A-class reviews. :) I know that it needed work for FAC, but to me it looked ok for A-class.... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It already has one support, so if you add yours, it will only be one short of the magic three :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh...I thought that I had ready! =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Three supports now, I think it's closeable. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed, along with one of JonCatalan's. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

C-Class: testing the water

The C-class debate has been rolling along interminably and inconclusively on the main talk page for some months now. It might be helpful if we revisit this discussion here and see whether opinions among the coordinators have changed over time and with the new intake. My position is that I see C-Class as being potentially very useful if the criteria are strictly limited as a manageable reservoir of articles that can (relatively) easily be improved to B-class. I would envisage implementation as entirely template driven, along the WP:Ships model, and would not be comfortable with a specific C-Class drive. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think that introducing C-class would be a waste of time and effort. TomStar's proposal, or something like it, would probably the best way to implement C-class, but this highlights the extra work the new assessment would require (in the long run at least if bots can be used to automatically re-grade existing articles), and I don't see the difference between marking an article as a start class which is halfway to B class and calling this status C-class. In my view, it's better to call a start class article a start class and use the B-class rating to give editors guidance on areas of improvement than rating such unsatisfactory articles C class. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My main problem with Tom's proposal is its complexity: it will take time to explain and be difficult to understand, especially for newbies. I don't think we would need bots at all; Kirill tells me that the template would gradually update the classes itself once the changes have been put in.

It would be great to hear opinions from other coordinators on C-class, by the way. Any thoughts anyone? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still support it so long as people don't have to go through and reassess every one of the start-class articles. Also, see Talk:Bazooka... If what Kirill says is true, than I support it fully. Nick-D, what is the serious down-side to this? More requests for assessment (which wouldn't be that bad, right?) Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, just more complexity in the assessment system. It's a bit like in computer programming, you can only put so many "if-then" statements before the robotics overloads and you have to reboot the thing. I've always been of the mindset that C-Class is just a waste of time. If it's a B, it's a B. If it's not, it's a start. Just like in school how you have pass/fail, not kinda-pass-sorta-fail. Cam ^(Chat) 03:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick but my interpretation of Tom's proposal is that C-class be potentially made up of

1. sub-set1: articles that meet 1 and 2 but fail 3, 4, and 5
2. sub-set2: articles that fail 1 and 2, but meet 3, 4, and 5.

and that we selectively turn off the sub-set1 or sub-set2 criteria from time to time to filter/balance the C-Class content. I really do think this is horribly complicated.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, would 'D' count as a "sorta fail"? :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that we've got a permanent large backlog of articles needing assessment, introducing a whole extra class of assessments which need to be done while simultaneously complicating the B class assessments isn't a decision to be taken lightly. I think that its best to keep the assessment tasks to a minimum and direct the resources of editors who enjoy this kind of work to A-class assessments and peer reviews, which are the most productive forms of assessment and which generally don't get many comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say is absolutely correct about overload etc. The point about making C-Class entirely template driven though is that it wouldn't require any drives to set it up or maintain it. The fact that it is so low maintenance is what appeals to me about it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(←) In the original C-Class proposal debate I initially opposed its introduction, but later switched to neutral, and there I've remained since. I think if it can be introduced into MilHist without increasing the assessment workload it may be worth doing, for the reasons Roger has mentioned, but I still believe it's an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy and instruction creep. Personally I've never used it and haven't seen any article quality benefits since it was introduced, but of course I'll support whatever consensus emerges here. EyeSerene^talk 10:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that is almost exactly my position.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I opposed it initially and I still oppose it really. I still see no additional benefit from an added layer of bureaucracy. It is categorising articles which aren't up to standard which I don't see as being productive. If this were to be introduced, I would want it to be articles that meet 1 and 2, but do not meet 3,4,5: basically a category of articles that can be easily edited up to B Class. I just don't see any benefit from this. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth polling to see whether in principle people think it's a good idea? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That might be useful, yes. EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As Eyeserene and Roger say, it is a surplus of useless bureaucracy which we certainly do not need now, considering the low level of activity throughout the project (a C-class assessment drive would also be very difficult to conduct). --Eurocopter (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are only two important article classifications; start (lumping together stub, start and B-class) and featured article. Good Article and A-class are simply stepping stones to featured articles. Do most people who use Wikipedia even know about our classification system? Or, do they just see if the article has a star on it or not? Or if it's sourced or not (which all featured articles should be, invariably). I think creating another classification (C-class) is worthless, because it doesn't really provide anything of value (the article might be better than a Start, but it's still not good enough to be considered anything of quality). It's a waste of resources which would better be used bringing articles to featured article status. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the succinct counter-argument is (i) we can't bring all articles to FA all at once; (ii) C-Class would (arguably) provide another step in the direction of FA and (iii) a template-driven C-class would use no human resources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If there isn't any need to use human resources, then I don't see the problem (where would the waste of time be?). I'm not saying you can bring all articles to FA all at once, but my argument wasn't that all articles should be FA, it was that the difference between a C-class article and a B-class article is not noticeable to most Wikipedia readers (who can only see if there is a star on the page or if there isn't). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your point about C-Class being invisible to readers. A benefit for Milhist may be simply that it helps break down the huge mass of Start articles into a much more manageable, much smaller sub-set. This is of great potential benefit. For instance, working up a TFs C-Class articles to B-Class. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Like I said, if I was wrong about the use of manpower, then I have no problem with it. It's just the usage of human resources which I am opposed to. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like C-class. To me Start-class = meets minimum requirements for DYK, Anything that way meets exceeds that requirement, but is still not a B, deserves more than a Start rating. If we can automate it with our checklist, why not use it?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care for C-class. To me it does nothing more than Start does, especially since we do have the checklist. I am also of the mind that since the project decided to not adopt it, we should stand with our decision since not adopting C-class has not driven our assessment department into the ground. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So... have we settled anything here yet? Taking a rough poll based on the comments, I see Nick, Cam, Woody, Eurocopter and MBK opposing the use of C-Class; Bedford in favour; Roger, Jon, Ed and me sceptical but possibly willing to support depending on the circumstances; and Maralia (and of course Kirill) haven't commented yet. It looks at the moment as though even if all the neutrals changed to supports, the best we'd achieve would be a split decision. If people feel we should press on with this though, one suggestion might be to trial C-Class on a small area first and see how that works out? EyeSerene^talk 11:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We haven't settled anything yet but there's been a very significant shift in opinion since the last discussion here. Plus, Tomstar 81 and Wandalstouring, who were both previously against, have both made proposals for implementation. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If trial is what I do, I suggest using the ACW TF. Being the one most in favor, it would make sense for one of mine TFs to be the one that uses it, A bonus is that its a fairly active TF and has as the other coord of the TF being the lead coord of MilHist.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 12:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's possible (or worth the programming overhead). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

*Smacks head on desk*

Imagine this beastie in your deep fryer...

So I'll be away for all or most of today through Sunday for the annual Thanksgiving break from college... I might be able to get on if my mom lets me or if I actually find a, um, "non-security-fied" wireless internet connection, but if not I will be back on Sunday evening/Monday morning. Sorry for the late notice, but this crept up on me...

And like I said on my talk page, please don't kill the wiki while I am away....I happen to like this place. I hope that all of you have an excellent Thanksgiving (even if you don't celebrate it in November (i.e. the bloody Canadians (i.e. Cam :D))! Cheers everyone, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's better than having to work for Thanksgiving! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How do we handle this?

This new article Lebanese Army pages management guideline seems to be a sort-of appeal for a task force. It's certainly not a suitable thing to be in article-space. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest to the only contributor, User:Zaher1988, that he might like to join us and beef up the middle-east task force, moving the article to Milhist TF space? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That just occurred to me :o and I've posted on their talk page. The suggestions for new content look quite good. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! They do, don't they. The editor also seems to have some collaborators, which would do the ME TF no end of good. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The METF has a broad history, yet is (for some reason) not as heavily staffed as other TFs. This will definitely help, as the Lebanon region has a loooong history of conflict (i'm thinking crusades, Byzantine-Arab Wars, Parthian-Roman Wars, Alexander the Great). Cam ^(Chat) 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: We now have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Lebanese Armed Forces task force, created by Zaher1988 this morning (UTC). I've added it to the TF list and the navigation template, but we'll need a Lebanese=yes string added to the main template, I suppose. I have mixed feelings about this and have posted the following on Zaher's talk page:

Hi Zaher:

Congratulations on successfully setting up a Milhist task force: you did a fine job! I've added a few bits and pieces to integrate it further into the Milhist structure (like adding it to the TF list.

I have a few reservations though about the TFs longer term viability. We usually find that we need a core membership of about six editors to keep them going so we generally ask for six editors to support before we proceed. The solution here is for you to try to rercruit a few more editors :) Next, the scope – Lebanese Armed Forces – is a bit specialist and it might have been better as the "Lebanese military history task force". The explanatory scope text on the TF page will need expanding and clarifying at some stage. The next thing is you'll need to arrange tagging so that articles within the scope can be easily identified. We'll need to set up a tag string Lebanese=yes on the Milhist history template. What are your thoughts?

Comments? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How easy is it, at this early stage, to change the TF name to Lebanese Military History? I expect this is one for Kirill :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take on this task force; I have one of the lowest task force counts, and—happily—it happens to be a topic of great interest to me. Maralia (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing! I've already snaffled one of the slots. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It'd be pretty trivial to change the name at this point, since none of the infrastructure has actually been created yet. I'd recommend going with "Lebanese military history" for consistency with other task forces, and to allow this to cover pre-modern topics; but, in any case, we need to have a firm name before going through and creating all of the categories/templates/etc. that the task force needs. Kirill ^(prof) 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(The actual task force page needs to be updated with the standard content, incidentally; I've put some together at User:Kirill Lokshin/T1, on the assumption that we'll go with the "military history" option. The sooner we get this sorted out, the less time-consuming it'll be to put everything in its proper place.) Kirill ^(prof) 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Zaher1988 says he's happy so let's put it together along the "Lebanese military history TF" lines. Thanks for our help, Kirill. Much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and put in the rest of the infrastructure then. Kirill ^(prof) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

All done. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 18:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Kirill. I really do wish you'd have a sandwich or go for a walk between each edit when you do these things. The sheer speed you attack them at always leaves me feeling woefully inadequate :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 19:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)