Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 19

• 10
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• Archive 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60

A-class reviews getting a little backlogged again...

We've got 26 reviews on WP:MHR with some of them being noms that have been open for quite some time (a month+)...can some coords take a look and comment, support or oppose them? I'll try to close a few after work if this happens, as I've mainly just commented, not supported or opposed, on most of them. Thanks and cheers! —the_ed17 (Talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, only Battle of Marion seems closeable for now, but i'm involved... --Eurocopter (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Musashi now looks ready to be closed by an uninvolved coordinator Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Closed. EyeSerene^talk 12:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) has just received a third support vote and can also be closed. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Closed. EyeSerene^talk 14:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene. I went canvassing on IRC and User talk:La Pianista last night for a few more reviewers...hopefully that got a few additional editors to take a look at some of them. :) —the_ed17 (Talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hi co-ords! There appear to be a few others that have now garnered a consensus to either promote and/or demote. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. BTW, have you thought about running for coordinator? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll close some tomorrow afternoon after exams if there are any left ;) Thanks to everyone who helped reduce the backlog; as of my writing this, there are 19 left, and many more have had comments/supports added to them! —the_ed17 (Talk) 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I closed three (two pass and one demote). There are currently 16 open ACRs. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The SM UB-45 ACR has garnered three supports and needs to be closed. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Topics uncovered by Task forces

I have just remarked that quite important Milhist topics such as Pakistani and Bangladeshi military history, as well as most central-Asian military history are not covered by our nations and regions task forces. Should we do something or just leave the things as they are? --Eurocopter (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that task forces are demand driven, and most of the existing ones are pretty inactive, there's no need to create new ones for the sake of 'completeness' in my opinion. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I think it's better to keep things under the umbrella of the larger task-forces until there are enough editors that want to split off into their own task-force. Aside from avoiding a slew of moribud task-forces with little participation, I think keeping things under one roof where possible can help to avoid fragmentation (and Balkanisation, with all the associated connotations). EyeSerene^talk 12:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. This comes up regularly and although national task forces give people a nice glow of pride they don't accomplish much. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically all the Pakistani and Bangladeshi articles on Wikipedia of note have Indian hands in them, if not entirely done by Indians. If people are really desperate, they can make it a subcontinent. And yes, the taskforces don't do anything. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Should we have an "editorial" section in the newsletter that is written by one or two coords every month? In my mind, at least, it would take the form of a personal message to project members...it wouldn't go into details (that's what "project news" is for), but it would lay out one or two really important things that need to be done, and thank the project for their work (e.g. "we had _ articles promoted to FA this month. That's awesome; keep it up!") Just throwing thoughts out there... —the_ed17 (Talk) 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea - it would certainly help to personalise the newsletter.

I've also had the thought that we could produce a "guest" column for each issue. Within the project there's loads of expertise, and I'm sure if we invited a different editor each month to write, say, a guide to Non-free images, or tips for B-Class reviewing, or how to write engaging prose, or the available awards for members and how to award them, we'd get a good response. Even if it ended up as just us coords doing it, in rotation it wouldn't come round that often, and we're not short of subjects that would make a brief, interesting and useful article. EyeSerene^talk 12:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding idea, especially if it's rotated as ES suggests above. If I can get my act together in time (or if someone else would like to write it), perhaps do the first one on "How to Review", tied into the launch of The Academy? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good :D Perhaps we should limit it to one or two aspects of reviewing though, so as not to overwhelm with too much information at once? It could even become a series - one month, how to review for criterion A1; the next, A2 etc. That way, some of the Academy guides might even write themselves... EyeSerene^talk 17:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha. This snowballed in a good way. :)

But pushing a different thought quick: do we want to have a short blurb saying something like this? Just a personal message to make the letter seem 'homely'?

From the coordinators:

This month's issue features the launch of a new column, the "(name here)". This will be a feature that will be that we hope to continue in subsequent issues, with topics possibly ranging from a run through of the non-free image criteria to a 'how to write engaging prose' to tips on how to get an article through FAC. February also saw MILHIST's A-class and featured totals go up by 45 or more for the second straight month; great work and a thank you go out from all of us to all members!

—the_ed17 (Talk) 22:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "The observers" or something to that effect? For that matter, why not try and create an newsletter like the WP:POST, with different sections and such? Would be a lot of work, but might be worth it if people participate in it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well...out newsletter IS getting rather lengthy. But I also don't know if we have the scope necessary to imitate the Post. I guess that we could add some things...an "in the news" section, upcoming anniversaries section, and/or a "featured member" section? —the_ed17 (Talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) I boldlyadded a "From the Coordinators" section...please revert if too bold. —the_ed17 (Talk) 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, actually, with the (underused) "Proposals and discussions" section removed. The main sizing element is the list of articles, so we're not really increasing the size of the newsletter so long as the editorial remains reasonably brief. Kirill ^[pf] 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Its showtime!

In about 24 hours the page needed to the next election should make its appearance. I created a sample referendum sheet with my two suggestions on it, feedback for such a format would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:TomStar81/Sandbox

I was under the impression that we were only going to run a one-week sign-up period this time, so the election page wouldn't be set up until next week. Am I mistaken here?

As far as the referendum questions are concerned, the first one is fine (although it could use some copyediting), but the second one is far too long. Remember that we're looking for a stance on adopting C-Class in principle, not yet another extended debate on particular implementations of it. Really, the whole thing could just be worded as such:

In principle, do you support or oppose the introduction of C-Class into the project's assessment scale?

Then, depending on the outcome, we can deal with the actual details of what C-Class would mean and how the logistics would be handled. Kirill ^[pf] 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What I am refering to - broadly here - is the fact that we hold election in march, this not being a leap year, in under 24 hours we enter "election season" such as it were. I suppose I needed to clarify that above. As for the C-class part, I thought I would recap the major arguments for and against it. We have time to rebuild the suggestions and all, its not like anything major will happen between sign up and election dates (I hope so anyway :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs)

I meant that the sign-up wouldn't start for another week, actually; hopefully, someone will be able to determine which of us has the schedule right. ;-)

As far as the arguments are concerned, most of them are dependent on particular implementations of C-Class; I don't think it's useful to present people with issues that are likely to be completely irrelevant if we go (as we're trying to) with a fully automated C-Class level. I'm more interested in whether or not people want a level added; let's have the project tell us what they want, and let us worry about how to make it happen. Kirill ^[pf] 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks for questions is excessive, bearing in mind that, for instance, RfA/RfB is all done and dusted in a week. I suggest the following:

• Nomination period: 00:01 Sat 7 March - 23:59 Fri 13 March
• Voting period: 00:01 Sat 14 March - 23:59 Sat 29 March?

One of the things we need to do first is update the main membership list with task force members. There was talk of doing this with a script, but it may need doing manually.

We also talked about improving the pool of candidates, so perhaps we'd like to think about editors we might like to individually like to stand. (We don't need to post anything here: merely leave messages on talk pages of suitable potential candidates. I've already mentioned it to a few.)

Otherwise, I think the referenda need simple statements to vote on, with everything else being background. I note, incidentally, that no one has objected at all ever to cooptions and it has been mentioned as a possibility in the election pages for the last two elections. I'd reduce the coordinators' one to:

• "The coordinators may at their discretion coopt new coordinators or remove existing ones."

C-class adoption is more complicated and needs further discussion.

Finally, no one seems to object to using a flexible formula: a maximum of fifteen coordinators, with a minimum of twenty votes for appointment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the wording of the cooption question be "The coordinators may coopt new coordinators when required. All cooptions will be discussed on the Project's main talk page before they take place." to make it clear that this isn't a way to do an end-run around elections, but rather a way to keep the project ticking over when coordinators unexpectedly leave. I agree that the referendum should include a coordinator removal question, but this needs to be fleshed out to explain the proposed process and separated into its own question as its a quite different issue (eg, under what circumstances would coordinators be removed, and how would this work?). I agree with the rest of your post though. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As another point, I think that we should also specify a minimum number of coordinators in case the number of voters is low - the current nominal level of nine (eight coordinators and a lead coordinator) seems to be the obvious minimum. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. – Roger Davies ^talk 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(<=) I missed part of this, but is 15 necessary? It seems like an awful lot... :/ Wouldn't the current 12 do fine? —the_ed17 (Talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we may not get the full 15 in any case, given the minimum support requirement; but, since we had a few coordinators go inactive shortly after the election last time, I'd think we'd want a few more than we really need just in case. Kirill ^[pf] 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Membership list updates

Agree. Regarding updating membership list with task force members, I believe it should be done by each task force coordinators. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm finishing up a script to do it automatically, but if people would prefer to do everything by hand, please don't let me hold you up. ;-) Kirill ^[pf] 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually a script would be a good idea. Just done Romanian and Military Aviation TFs and it's more than a bit of work, considering that you also have to confront with the inactive members list. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished running the script, and have updated the active members list. I'd appreciate it if someone could double-check the results, since this is a new script; in particular, it would be good to verify that (a) the names added weren't already on the list, and (b) none of the existing names have been corrupted or lost.

I'll run the active/inactive update script in the next day or so. Kirill ^[pf] 18:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, at the same time, it is probably worth checking the inactive list for people who have restarted editing and moving them back to the active list. I was looking earlier and about one in seven or eight has re-activated, which is a substantial number of people. – Roger Davies ^talk 05:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the script updates both lists. :-) Kirill ^[pf] 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks, Kirill. – Roger Davies ^talk 05:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that, Kirill. I'll get the notices out to the list now via Cbrown1023. — Roger Davies ^talk 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Referenda text

We need to think about the text for the C-class motion. A bald "Should Milhist adopt C-class" will almost certainly fail. However, it may well pass if we (the coords) recommend its adoption, using the proposal text as a request for endorsement. My personal view is that we should adopt C-class but I won't lose any sleep if we don't :) What do we think about:

"The coordinators recommend the adoption of C-class to facilitate article organization".

as a proposal? – Roger Davies ^talk 06:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think that's fine....but I happen to be/have been one of the proponents of C-class. Should anything be in there about automation? I mean, we know that 'oh, it'll be too difficult to assess all of them' is going to come up, but they won't know about the automation thought (Do we have a plan for that? I forget.......I think that my thought was this...C-class if article fails two of these four: B1, B3, B4 or B5; Start if any more than that or fails B2...is that feasible?) —the_ed17 (Talk) 06:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also opposed c-class in the past, and remain ambivalent towards it (I now slightly lean in its favor, but wouldn't go as far as to recommend it). Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I remain mostly against it; I recognize its potential, but would rather stick with the current system. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the solution then? Do we need to have this referendum at all? The C-class discussion has gone quiet of late: does it really need resurrecting? – Roger Davies ^talk 08:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't raised in the recent workshop, which suggests that it isn't seen as a priority. If a question is included I think that it should be a straight "Do you think that the Military History wikiproject should add the C-class rating to its assessment scale" as the matter has already been extensively discussed. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We do need the referendum becuase we need the solid input of the community in the matter. I feel we need to hold the referendum because C-class has had a chance to establish itself in the nearly 9 monthes since its introduction, and in lew of its apparent success in other projects we ought to allow the project members to wiegh in on the matter and vioce an opinion one way or the other so we can tell what the our project thinks about following in the footsteps of the others. Regardless of whether it passes or fails this time around, we should leave the C-class issue alone. After this referndum it won't be worth revisiting the issue becuase we will have our answer, and the opinions of the project members aren't likely to change in the aftermath of the referndum, so there will be little need to revisit the issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Election pages set up

Just done them, so we're ready to rock 'n' roll. — Roger Davies ^talk 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Roger Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC alert boilerplate

Didn't we have one once? If not, shouldn't we have one? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we likely to get complaints about canvassing if we make FACs more prominent? Kirill ^[pf] 07:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps – though Bryce Abraham and JonCatalan regularly post their own alerts without, as far as I know, criticism - but there's such a chronic shortage of reviewers it's difficult to know what else to do. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Now created as: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~. Kirill ^[pf] 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for sorting that, Kirill. (And apologies for the belated thanks.) — Roger Davies ^talk 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

request for some help

Can someone add a section to the photos in the logisitics departement where you can list new images for MILHIST that have been uploaded or found by some user and may be put the use since they aren't already. Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

FA/FL/FP/ACA counts

I've set up some code on the showcase subpages so that the article counts can be individually transcluded elsewhere; the results can be seen in the top section on WP:MILHIST. Is this something worth having on the main page? Kirill ^[pf] 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it :) —the_ed17 (Talk) 02:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the number of our FA/A articles is one of the biggest prides of our project. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

February Contest

Hi everyone! I just thought that I would give a little nudge/reminder to note that the scoring for the February Contest still needs some attention. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bryce :) I've done through Ian Rose; can someone so the rest and update the table? Thanks, —the_ed17 (Talk) 05:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, guys? The contest awards to Bellhalla and Ian Rose still need to go out. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

UGH *facepalm* I need to get with the program. :/ Thanks Bryce. —the_ed17 (Talk) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Special projects department

Given that the special projects department doesn't seem to be the focus of any real activity, I'm wondering if a dedicated department page is necessary for it. Might it be neater to simply have a list of active special project subpages in the announcement template, without trying to transclude chunks of them into a single page? Or would that be too obscure? Kirill ^[pf] 05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really need a special page for it. It could probably be mothballed altogether.

A related thought is that the review, assessment and logistics depts rather drop off the radar as they're not in tabs. I've added a "logistics" tab but perhaps the solutions might be to double stack (within the same tab) some of the others. Showcase / news, for example. Thoughts? – Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Good idea, but it never really took off. :/

Maybe combine "Status" and "news", and add MHR and MHA for an even number of 10? Eleven, IMHO, is too many tabs. —the_ed17 (Talk) 07:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a fiddle with this but it really needs the attention of our resident guru. And I think toger is spelt with a d :))))) – Roger Davies ^talk 07:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we have Kirill...I hate trying to work out code (which might be why I almost never do it!). And yes, I'm pretty sure it is too - but it's a little hard to fix the edit summary after you've hit 'enter'. ;) —the_ed17 (Talk) 08:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we merge the actual status and news subpages, then a combined tab is trivial. If you want to have a single tab that points to two different subpages, that's a bit more work (and its use may not be obvious to viewers), but it's still quite doable.

Another alternative would be to move the history and article alerts to the news page (or open tasks page, for the latter?), move the assessment summary table back onto the main project page (e.g. beneath the scope section), and get rid of the status subpage entirely. Kirill ^[pf] 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, if we don't want to clutter up the main page further, we could probably dispense with the assessment summary table entirely, since it'll be just as accessible from the assessment tab as it is from the status tab. Kirill ^[pf] 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

May I come back on this in a day or two? – Roger Davies ^talk 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure! ;-) Kirill ^[pf] 12:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've split the SP department into Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Top Ten and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Centenary drive, and removed the department itself from the listing. The two subpages are linked from {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}, although I'm not sure if there's a better or more prominent position that might be used for them; suggestions would be very welcome!

The Status/News issue and the addition of other departments to the tabs remains open for the time being. Kirill ^[pf] 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

I see that (retired) has been removed from my name in the history tabs for the coordinators. I'm honored that I would be considered active after my return, but I was not co-opted after my return, nor was I voted emeritus, and as such I think it would be better to retain the retired after my name since we don't have any anything on the books concerning a coordinator who leaves and then returns. Its not that I object to being listed, it just feel that it somewhat circumvents the due process needed to be considered a coordinator here. Active users such as myself have and continue to make suggestions and participate in internal affairs without coordinator designation; by this definition then, one does not need to be recognized as a coordinator to due what the coordinators already do. MBK004 aptly demonstrated this last tranche, as I have done this tranche. For these reason I would respectfully ask that I be relisted as retired, or be officially co-opted and reinstated as a coordinator. Yours very sincerly and resepctfully, TomStar81 (Talk) 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that perhaps the editor that saw "retired" took that it mean "retired from Wikipedia" rather than "retired as coordinator", and made a good faith edit to reflect that you are again active on Wikipedia. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I doubt that there would be resistance to you being co-opted back, so how about we turn this around: would you like (resigned) to go there, or would you like to be a coord again. Pick one. :P —the_ed17 (Talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect a large part of the problem was that Tom was listed as "retired" in the active coordinator list in addition to the history, which is a bit confusing. In any case, it may be somewhat a moot point, since the election is coming up in a week; while I have no objections to co-opting Tom, I'm not sure there's much practical use to going through the motions at this point. Kirill ^[pf] 23:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(Resigned) will do nicely. I would accept co-option, but as Kirill noted above at this point it would be somewhat of a mute point. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was aware that you left Wikipedia few months ago, but didn't know that you completely resigned from the coordinator position, that's why I removed the "retired" notice few days ago. However, I think neither of our fellow coords would have something against if you perform coordinators duties for the next ten days (of course, if you want) without oficially coming back as a coord. Anyway, welcome back! --Eurocopter (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I echo Eurocopter. You were elected in good standing and I don't see how this could be different from how an admin can ask a 'crat for +sysop if they have come back in good standing. I consider you a full coordinator for these next few days at least. I hope you're running for re-election? -MBK₀₀₄ 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I resigned my position when I left. I did so for two reasons, I was unsure how long I would be gone, and I did not want to occupy a coordinator spot for one of the largest projects while on leave because the project needs its coordinators to function effectively. I therefore felt it best to resign and allow others to be coopted to fill the empty spots. As I noted on eds talk page last night, some good did come from my resignation; three new user were coopted and have done an outstanding job in my absence. As for running again, I am unsure about returning. School is getting harder, my time here is shortened during semesters. I haven't really contributed to anything major recently, and I have been low key active for the PR and ACR processes. I will weigh the pros and cons of running again, and if I think I can handle it (and if the community will have me back) then I may throw my hat into the ring again. 129.108.227.135 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're a great asset to the project in whatever role and with whatever level of contribution you see fit to offer. Please don't construe the affection and regard you're held in at Milhist as pressure to resume your former role against your better judgement - you need to make the best decision for yourself, and no-one will hold you in any less regard whatever you decide. You've got our backing either way ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

←Thanks, EyeSerene. Always nice to know that one has the support of the community. I'm still on the fence over whether or not I will run again, but at the moment I am leaning a little more toward returning because this particular tranche covers summer, which by its very nature encompasses the long summer vacation, which allows for more on wiki time than the October to March tranche. On the other hand, if enough new users come forth to try their hands I may refrain from running to allow for more new users in the coordinator lineup. In the event that more coordinators with experience are needed I can always be co-opted to assist. I'm taking a wait and see approach, and will official decide on another term during the sign-up period. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope: the Holocaust?

I always tag general articles about the holocaust for Milhist but usually don't for specific topics, like Kristallnacht. We should probably clarify this. What do we think? – Roger Davies ^talk 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I expressed that incredibly badly. I think general articles - such as Holocaust in Lithuania - dealing with it as a war aim or with a strong military component are within scope. By extension, this would include SS-run camps. The civilian stuff, like Krystallnacht, probably isn't. – Roger Davies ^talk 08:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that its out of scope as the German military wasn't (directly) involved. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the Holocaust doesn't automatically fall within scope. The factor is probably the extent of military involvement. – Roger Davies ^talk 08:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If WWII was a WP and not a TF, all Holocaust articles would fit, but not since it is only with MILHIST. Just like I see a lot of articles that would fit a ACW WP, but since it is only a TF, don't get tagged.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 09:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So is it or is it not? We have a (?) in the newsletter for Piotrus' points right now! :/ —the_ed17 (Talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the specific case, I'd say that Holocaust in Lithuania qualifies because of the military/paramilitary participation in the events. We've not drawn a significant distinction between traditional military branches (e.g. army, navy) and paramilitary or pseudo-military branches (e.g. SS, Republican Guard, etc.), and articles concerning the activities of the latter have generally been considered in-scope. Kirill ^[pf] 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Advice

Well, elections are approaching, and I've been considering standing for a coordinator position, but before I do so I would like to ask the advice and opinions of some of you guys. First of all, approximately how many hours per week do you guys spend on coordinator-related tasks? Secondly, if I ran and were elected, would there be any problems with me taking one two week and two one week breaks during the summer for summer vacations I've planned? Finally, would there be any problems with my election even though I am under 18? If you guys could give me any advice or knowledge of what to expect I would appreciate it, to help me decide whether or not I should run, because I don't want to run and then be too busy with school for half of the term to be able to adequately perform the duties. Thanks in advance for any responses. – Joe Nutter 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with taking an occasional break, some of us do so. Age is really irrelevant as long as you can communicate and fulfill the obligations that the position has. As for time spent, it really does depend on what area you decide to spend your time working in, i.e. reviewing articles like you have done, keeping track of the contest, keeping track of the awards department (what I've been doing) and the assessment/review with the notices, updating the newsletter, etc. You could spend anywhere from minutes a day to hours depending on what you want to do. Since there are so many of us, we can spread out the work as much or as little as we choose and because of the numbers there is a certain amount of excess available to cover in times of absence. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In response:

1. Varies from week to week, usually somewhere around 0.5–1 hours per day (usually on the lower end for me). Keep in mind that, if we have the full staff of 15 coordinators, the individual workload of each coord drops dramatically.
2. Certainly. The summer isn't particularly active anyways, so our workloads all go down. Roger, Woody and I have all taken long wikibreaks due to travelling (I already know, for example, that I'll be in Germany during the 2nd and 3rd weeks of July).
3. Nope. I'm 16, and I've now served one term. We offered co-opting Bryce in November when he was under 18. Age isn't an issue (the same goes for admins. It's wiki-maturity that makes a difference).

Hope that helps. Cam ^(Chat) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I spend a only a few hours these days assisting the coordinators, yet for my lack of hardcore input I have never once been censored. None of us have. Mainly, we operate on a "contribute what you can, when you can" basis. No one here thinks any more or any less of one coordinator based on his or her time devoted to coordinator-related tasks. On point two, there is no problem with regards to taking breaks. Breaks keep the coordinators sane, as we have all expereinced, if too much work is invested in coordinator work the end result is burnout, and thats bad for the user and the project. Its even part of the coordinator related advice essays, now located in the academy. As for school, that is not a big deal either. Me, MBK, Ed17, and others serve as coordinators yet are frequently absent from the wiki on account of school-related work. It goes back to doing what you can, when you can. On the whole coordinatorship and adminship share a simply but important commonality: both are No Big Deal. If you are elected and find time to chip in a little her and there you'll do a fine job. TomStar810 (Talk) 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts: a net positive = a good coordinator. If you turned out to be a negative, I'd fall over in shock. So, I'd say to go for it. :) —the_ed17 (Talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) Go for it (especially as you are on my list of people to ask to stand). The current tranche has probably been the best-ever, based on seamless teamwork and integrated cooperation, with everyone chipping in when they can. The amount I spend varies considerably: sometimes, it may be almost full time for a few days; other times, it may be as little as a few minutes a day as real life or other pressures kick in. The great thing is that although being a Milhist coord really is no big deal, it is certainly one of the most rewarding and enjoyable jobs on Wikipedia, simply because of the great team spirit and outstanding camaderie. I love it :) – Roger Davies ^talk 05:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold statement Roger, glad you think so ;) Cam ^(Chat) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true, every word. I've been proud to have you guys around :)) – Roger Davies ^talk 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, what everyone else has said ;) Should you sussessfully stand, even the smallest thing you do will free up someone else to spend their time how they want to, and the Milhist whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. You're not as much of a stranger to the labyrinthine mechanisms of maintaining Milhist as I was when I was coopted, but it may still take a while to find your way around anyway, so should you be elected my advice would be to start slowly with areas you know, watch how other coordinators handle things, ask when in doubt, and most importantly don't feel there's any obligation to take on more than you're comfortable with. Best, EyeSerene^talk 12:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, all of you. I guess I will stand, and since it looks like you'll be taking all who get over a certain amount of votes I won't have to feel bad about taking someone's place if I'm elected and can't do too much. – Joe Nutter 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle results in infoboxes guideline

Considering recent discussions and conflicts regarding battles/operations results in infoboxes, I would suggest defining/adopting wording formulations which should therefore become guidelines within our project. In my opinion this is important to be established in order to avoid potential interpretations of sources (which in most cases automatically involves interpreter's POV). Furthermore, the result in the infobox should simply include the conclusive result of a battle/operation (example: Allied victory), not consequent facts. As I just threw a quick look over few articles, I found some blatant and unfortunately even amusing battle results such as:

• Operation Market Garden - Allied operational failure ?? (seems like someone wanted to avoid stating that it was a German victory)
• Battle of Crete - Pyrrhic German victory  ?? (do the sources cited in this case mention exactly the "Pyrrhic" term, I sincerelly doubt)
• Belgrade Offensive - Victory of the Yugoslav Partisans and the Red Army. The liberation of Belgrade and surrounding areas of Yugoslavia. (effects)

I found all this cases at a glance through few WWII articles, but the issue is clearly existent and I propose adopting the following formulations to be exclusively used thoroughout the project (of course these are open to discussion).

• simply ****** victory
• ****** decisive victory (we usually designate decisive victories those who really influence the course of the war/history, ex:Battle of Berlin, and also consider that decisive victories are both tactical and strategic)
• ****** tactical/strategic victory
• ****** inconclusive

In my view this formulations can be easily attributed to the result in question, as it does not involve interpreting the source but simply read it and cite it accordingly. Moreover, the result of a certain battle in an infobox could be tagged more simply in an infobox if we create templates for adopted formulations. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting, at the very least, Operation Market Garden. After the flaming broo-ha-ha User:Wallie caused, we went over the sources (especially me, considering this is my speciality) and not one historian gives the result as 'German victory'. We can't just make up results, y'know. Oh, and the Battle of Crete article? Look at the sources I listed; they aren't even a fraction of the sources that can be used, and at least one calls it more damaging to the Germans the British.Skinny87 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, regarding Market Garden, if it was an Allied failure and in the same time it wasn't a German victory, what could it be? I just had a look through Andrew Williams in which he cites Eisenhower saying that if Antwerp was not open by the middle of November (and it wasn't) all operations will come to a standstill (in my opinion this means a tactical stalemate). And please be aware, Carlo D'Este calls Market Garden an exemple of that eccentric British practise of turning military disasters such as Dunkirk into glorious occasions (this makes the reliability of the sources used by you in both cases questionable). As for the Battle of Crete, do your sources really use the "pyrrhic" term? I'm pretty sure that Tactical German victory would do in this case, as you'd explain later in the article its strategic ineffectiveness.

What i'm training to do when proposing such guidelines is to stop editors wasting time and energy engaging in useless POV conflicts. For example, just imagine how many constructive edits/reviews can be made during hours and even days of argueing in POV-dominated debates. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if the "result" in the infobox can be contested in such a strong way, then leave it out of the infobox. There is no need to have it listed. If a reader wants to know the "result" of an operation/battle/war then they can read the text where they can understand the intricacies of the conflict and understand that sometimes there isn't a winner or loser. We don't have to include these parameters and no boilerplate answers can cover every scenario. We cannot force people to adopt anything, especially set-sentences for infoboxes. Woody (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize this isn't the place for this really, but Eurocopter, D'Este isn't without his biases and problems as well, and as far as I know I've been examining the latest work on Market Garden on the talkpage - apart from A Magnificent Disaster which I can't afford yet. I agree that POV editing should be avoided and agree with Woody on his point - although calling my sources 'questionable' seems unneccessary and POINTy. Skinny87 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - We should always rely on the sources if we use the infobox (which I'm beginning to go against) and in terms of Market Garden I've yet to see a single one that states 'German victory'. Skinny87 (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to a discussion here the majority of voices approved D'Este as one of the most professional and reliable WWII historians, far better than Wilmot and others. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't actually, as EyeSerene makes a good point that D'Este has an axe to grind in his book. But that's for another time and another place. I've still yet to find one historian who calls Market Garden a 'German victory, by the way. Skinny87 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me again. I never claimed it was a German victory; per my citation of Andrew Williams above (D-Day to Berlin), in my view it should be a tactical stalemate. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Stalemate" is a fairly specific term, with connotations of entrenchment and loss of maneuver; something like "Inconclusive" would be far better for merely indicating that neither side achieved a real victory. Kirill ^[pf] 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(←)I can only repeat what I posted on the Dunkirk talk page: I believe that, more often than not, summarising a battle in this way is unhelpful, as the space we've got in the infobox is too restricted and we almost inevitably end up with something that's over-simplified and is going to be a bone of contention. However, a standardised set of 'results' might be a good idea, if we can agree on what they should be. We could possibly even write them into a template for consistency. EyeSerene^talk 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that would avoid future unnecessary discussions. In my opinion the set of results should be as simple as possible, therefore would come out from the sources automatically (would avoid any need of interpretations). --Eurocopter (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that conversion to templates for its own sake is a good idea; people will still start disputes, either over the proper template to use, or over whether to use a template to begin with. A simple guideline on the wording itself would be as useful, and would avoid the overhead of having to maintain (and argue about) a mass of new templates. Kirill ^[pf] 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether we use templates or not, I still believe it is important to adopt this and I would like to see more input from other coords as well. Meanwhile, I changed stalemate with inconclusive in my proposed set sentences above. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill; a simple guideline would be the best approach. There are too many battles with too many results for a template to be workable. I suggest that the guideline state, in essence, that the result be whatever the result most commonly identified in sources is or be left blank if the result is disputed. That said, this is a worthwhile proposal, and it's great that you've raised it. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would entirely solve our problems Nick, as this is exactly why conflicts appear (interpretation of sources and sentences formulations). What i'm proposing is adopting a set of sentences (as simple as possible), so that it would be at anyone's discretion and need a minimum of effort to pull out the most obvious result from sources. My objective would be eliminating disputes, not leaving blank spaces for continuing them. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, the template was a bad idea^TM. My thoughts were following on from Eurocopter that if we stipulate a limited set of standardised summaries for the section, we'd also perhaps limit wrangling over the wording. Consider that dropped - a guideline would serve just as well as long as we emphasise that there is no room for personal interpretation and we must follow the sources. EyeSerene^talk 09:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with standard sentences is that they won't necessarily reflect what's stated in the sources, which is what we need to stick to at all times. For instance, I wouldn't know how to classify the Bougainville Campaign - the US landing and base development was a great success, but the later Australian campaigns on the island had no clear result as the war ended before the Australian forces reached the main Japanese positions and its now generally agreed that the Australian offensive was a bad idea. Labeling this an 'Allied victory' is technically correct, but removes the important complexity from this complex campaign. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in such cases the complexity of this campaign should be described in the main body of the article (aftermath section probably). The result in the infobox should really represent the most obvious basic wording. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I suppose the default could be to the standard choices, with good reasons being required to vary from it. It might cut down the number of disputes (though I'm not that hopeful). — Roger Davies ^talk 10:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would still be a small step to it. So, if nobody has nothing against it, does anyone have an idea of how such a guideline should look like? Personally I propose adopting something like a Battle results convention, which would contain something like The default result sentences to be used in infoboxes are... . However, if the result of a certain article is not covered by the default sentences (quite unlikely if we adopt standard choices similar to the ones proposed above) and there are a number of reliable sources supporting another specific result (this would not imply interpretation of sources, but using exactly the specific result used in sources) + other reasons. Any proposals welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest limiting the standard wordings, and pushing everything non-standard into the body of the article. For example:

The result may use one of several standard terms:

• "X victory"
  
• "Decisive X victory"
  
• "Inconclusive"

The choice of which term to use should be dictated by the sources used for the article. In cases where the standard wording does not properly represent the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section").

Kirill ^[pf] 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Though we should explain a bit each term - for example: Decisive X victory (should be tagged as a decisive victory, one which effectively changed the course of the war); Inconclusive (should be tagged as inconclusive, a battle which ended with tactical victory on one side and strategic victory on the other side, or which ended in stalemate, etc). --Eurocopter (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll work it in. — Roger Davies ^talk 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much what I had in mind ;-) If no one objects soonish, I'll add it to the template. — Roger Davies ^talk 17:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And to WP:MILMOS as well, with some descriptions in each case. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) The template is okay but for MILMOS, we really need to discuss it on the main talk page first. — Roger Davies ^talk 17:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, add it to the template for now and let's start a discussion on the main talk page as well. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not putting myself up for re-election

Hello my fellow co-ordinators. After a little bit of deliberation I have decided to not put myself up for re-election this year. Due to various real-life activities, I have not been around Wikipedia much these last few months and as such my activity as a coordinator has decreased far more than I would have liked. That inactivity is unfair on the other coordinators, especially as I see no end to my frenetic real-life activities.

Looking at the very strong nominal roll of candidates this year, I am in no doubt that I leave MILHIST in very safe hands. I will still be around, just nowhere near as active as I once was. Thanks for an interesting and enjoyable year! Best regards, Woody (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your dedication; be assured that we all appreciated it. Good luck with your RL stuff, and I hope that we will still see ya around the project every so often! Cheers friend, —the_ed17 (Talk) 17:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, nothing I can add to that. All the best, and I hope you find the time to drop in. EyeSerene^talk 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Good luck, Woody, wherever life and the wiki take you. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that, Woody. As others have said, feel free to drop in any time and chip in. Your views are always worth hearing. On behalf of the project, may I thank you very much for all your past efforts; they have been very much appreciated. — Roger Davies ^talk 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your dedication. Now if I get re-elected along with Tom, Ed, and Maralia we can fight it out for Maritime warfare TF spots :P. Good luck with the future. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Feeling sorry to hear this as well, considering that we served three terms together!. Hope to further see you around and who knows, maybe you'll come back for another term in September (perhaps for replacing me :) )! --Eurocopter (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot from me as well for your huge contributions. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I found this by accident, but I am glad I did. It appears that new FAR/FAC delegates are to be appointed, among the names being considered is former coordinator Yellow Monkey. While of little concern to us I feel that the coordinators - whoever they may be - ought to keep an eye out on this and see what developes. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Elections

More or less all ready to go, I think.

I've just added the referenda text. Tweak, expand etc as necessary, lady and gentlemen.

Pdfpdf has kindly updated the status box, with candidate names. He's added numbers for the candidates: I'm not sure how useful these are.

Anyhow, I'll take this opportunity to thank to all retiring coordinators very much for their past work and wish the candidates the best of luck!

— Roger Davies ^talk 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible return of Mrg3105

As a quick note, Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) appears to be editing from the account Shattered Wikiglass (talk · contribs) (I am not aware of any check user confirmation of this, but the editing pattern and style is clearly identical). While editors are able to register new identities as long as they don't engage in sock puppetry, the right to vanish only applies if they leave, and their history under their previous identity remains relevant. That said, Mrg's editing restriction was for six months, and it has now expired, and I'm assuming good faith. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's him. —the_ed17 (Talk) 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he does anything disruptive, there are still discretionary sanctions active over the entire range of articles he works on. Kirill ^[pf] 11:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review coaching request

See User talk:Kirill Lokshin#A-Class WikiProject reviews: we have some WikiProjects getting ready to set up A-Class review processes like ours, and they're looking for someone to coach them through their first reviews. I haven't been very involved with ACRs recently, so I'm wondering if any of the coordinators that have focused on them might be willing to help out, as their advice will probably be more useful than mine. Kirill ^[pf] 11:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be willing to help, but the real people to ask would be Abraham, B.S. (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs). —the_ed17 (Talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been working a little with the idea of A-class reviews and put together a rough draft essay concerning writing an A-class article and reviewing an A-class articles here. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to add this somewhere so others can read through it? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that should probably all feed into the Academy; but the sections on writing and the sections on reviewing are probably best separated into a new A-Class article course and the reviewing course, respectively. Kirill ^[pf] 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a hunch that would be the case, so I put them in separate sections for such an eventuality. How do I go about adding them to the academy, or do you want to do that? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just drop the material on the corresponding subpages for now, I think; we'll worry about tidying things up when we have a bit more to work with. I've added a link to a new subpage for the A-Class writing course, incidentally. Kirill ^[pf] 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hope it proves helpful int he long run, both to use and the other projects looking to adopt A-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really useful, thanks Tom. I've been mulling some ideas around for a really comprehensive reviewing guide, and the more we've got to work with, the better ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got some notes in one of my user space somewhere as I started writing a reviewing guide a few months ago. I'll look it out. — Roger Davies ^talk 08:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add this to the bugle, asking for those users willing to help contribute to reviewer guides for the academy. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Academy reviewing course

This is something I'm very interested in developing - I've left some comments on the talk page here; any input welcome ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A minor logistical question: do we want to maintain a separate talk page for each course, or redirect them all to the main academy talk page? We seem to have a mix of the two now. Kirill ^[pf] 00:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I say redirect: its easier to watch one talk page than to watch several talk pages, and a single talk page facilitates a single history, which means we can in time establish an FAQ for those arriving to ask questions rather than have to repeat the same answers on several different pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My fault, that last. I removed the former redirect for the reviewing page since my talk-page comment related specifically to the development of that page; I didn't think it was particularly relevant to anything else. Separating out the talk-pages would make sense to me, as if different editors are going to be working collaboratively on different areas of the Academy a single page will be less than helpful. However, Tom makes some good points, so I'm not too bothered ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of separate talk pages; if I'm discussing changes to the academy course on Assessment, I don't want that discussion to be jumbled up with discussions on copy-editing, citing, and all the other topics. – Joe N 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Academy errors

Tom, looking over what you wrote in the writing an A-Class article, there are a few errors I thought I would bring to your attention instead of just fixing them:

• Upon promotion to FA, GAs loose GA status, so if demoted at FAR, they are reassessed as either B or in some extreme cases C (in our scheme Start) class.
• I was under the impression that if an article had an ACR but was demoted at FAR it went back to B as well, or do we need to have a reappraisal ACR?

The first one is certain since that is what GimmeBot does during its promotion and demotion runs, and the second point is more of a procedural question in light of the first fact. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked about A-class in the scheme some months back, at the time Kirill's answer was that if an article was at A-class, then went to FA-class, then lost FA-class, it would revert back to A-class assuming it met all A-class criteria. I grant that its been at least a year, probably more like two, since I brought up the point but as far as I know that remains the standard operating procedure. On your first point: I assumed if it was our policy for FAs to revert to A-class after failing FAR/C then it would be the same for GA-class, which is apparently not the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought of A-Class like GA in this case: superseded by FA and not retained if demoted from FA. Since the A-Class requirements are so close to FA, it seems unlikely that an article would be demoted from FA and still meet the A-class criteria, and if so it can always be put up for an ACR, but I don't think that this should be the default. – Joe N 18:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Closable ACR

Hill 262 A-class review can be closed now by an uninvolved coordinator. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll close it; I've only commented. —the_ed17 (Talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! --Eurocopter (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob! Apologies to MBK for forgetting to add it to the newsletter. —the_ed17 (Talk) 19:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Xa_Loi_Pagoda_raids YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. Nice work as usual. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Tippecanoe says Charles Edward (talk · contribs) on my talk and Gia Long. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Academy content

This is coming along very nicely but I'm a bit concerned that we are making things look difficult, which is off-putting, when in fact they're quite easy once you get the hang of them. The sections on coordination and reviewing could probably use lightening up.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Best saved until after we get all the info in, IMO, that way we can lighten the atmosphere for the material all at once instead of making multiple trips. We still lack info in and on needed operations, for example GA-class reviews. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[Nod] Absolutely. I'm thinking of asking Noclador to design a Hogwarts-style coat of arms for it :) What do we think?  Roger Davies ^talk 08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Speaking of plans, I'm planning to log off an go to sleep, its 3:15 AM here, and I am tired :) See you all later today... TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not too Hogwarts-style - echoes of Wikipetan, methinks ;) EyeSerene^talk 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what about a tasteful Hogwarts-style castle with tasteful Wikipetan hanging out of one of the windows crying "Rapunzel"?  Roger Davies ^talk 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

O_O —the_ed17 (Talk) 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It'll do her good to let down her hair. As long as we're writing a guide, why not have an Office Assistant-style Wikipetan too: "It looks like you're trying to review an article. Would you like help with •Applying the criteria? •Blocking the nominator? •Opening an AfD?" EyeSerene^talk 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible FPC issue with Template:WPMILHIST Announcements

Further to an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#MILHIST Review department (also highlighted by Durova on the main talk-page), it appears we may be unintentionally causing a headache for the FPC process by spamming candidacy announcements around the project. The concern seems to be that editors arriving at the reviews via our templated announcments are !voting on pictures with an incomplete understanding of how to apply the FP criteria, potentially leading to unsafe promotions.

As we all know, uninformed and/or inexperienced reviewers are something that every review process has to deal with (ideally by helping them to become informed and experienced), but this might be something we need to rethink. Possible solutions could range from adding a caveat to the template reminding editors to read the criteria for a review process before commenting (perhaps linking the criteria too), to limiting the places where the template is transcluded to (not sure how we'd do this), to removing the FPC announcements altogether. Thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 09:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of getting into trouble with the FPC guys (whose excellent work I greatly respect) I think that some of them are a bit wrong-headed about this. If the criteria are so complex only experienced reviewers can reliably apply them, then there's something wrong with either the criteria or the information which is made available for editors when they consider a FPC. The same kind of view appears to be killing off FACs - the number of editors who comment on FACs appears to have declined since MOS compliance became a massive deal and it can now take a long time for FA quality articles to gather sufficient votes. I don't see any problem with linking to FPCs within the scope of this project. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I don't think it's reasonable to have a review process that actively discourages participation by non-regulars. If the concern is that comments are uninformed, then perhaps FPCs should have headers (or edit-mode-only comments) explaining the criteria, and people closing the review should be prepared to disregard comments that don't address the criteria, rather than trying to prevent editors from finding out about the FPC in the first place. Kirill ^[pf] 12:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that thought did occur. It doesn't hurt to meet them halfway though ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Warfare at FA

Coords may be interested in this discussion at WT:FA. Apparently, warfare has passed 200 articles, which is when they tend to subdivide the FA categories; however, the question here is what to split them into. —the_ed17 (Talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured lists checks

Hi, you may be interested to know that there is currently a state of upheaval at FL. The main idea is to clean up all of the lists, check they meet the criteria, and to remove a bit of chaff that seems to have built up. After an initial sweep, there are 3 lists of concern for this project: found here. These aren't major issues with the exception of the WWI vets one, but worth keeping an eye on as I am off for a couple of weeks now. Good luck to all incoming coordinators. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of battle at the Glorious First of June is one of mine - the stated problem is that all of the notes should have citations, but as far as I can see, they already do: what exactly is the problem here?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that while you have the lead cited, there are no citations among the tables. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Elections

I marked the election page as historical since the time allotted is past. I do have a question though: Is it 15 coordinators including the lead? And if so how do we resolve the fact that the two 20-voted users share the last spot equally? Should be bring them both in. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was the 15 including the lead, but could either be increased or reduced in the case of a tie or close placements for the last place(s). If this is so, then I guess it has to be decided whether the two who tied for last place come under the increased or decreased allottments. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to decide soon, as this point is holding up my delivery of the tradition stars coordinators receive. Not that its that bog of a deal, I just like to be prompt with such special deliveries :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

They both should be brought in as they came equal 14th after the lead coordinator. Congratulations to everyone - I think that this was the best field of nominees so far, and all the editors who nominated would have made good coordinators. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I will start handing out the stars. Thanks for resolving that for us Nick. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) Yes, they should both be brought in.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to reiterate Nick's sentiments: congratulations to everyone and I and look forward to working with you all. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means I'm in, so thank you, and I look forward to working with you and all the other new and returning coords. – Joe N 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats to all! I'm back from Ottawa now, so I'm back into the wikibusiness. Cam ^(Chat) 05:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, congratulations all, and here's to a successful six months! EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and went and added a section to the newsletter under the "Project news" section on the election and new Coordinators. Feel free to tweak! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop in and say that I'm honoured to be a Coordinator, and I can't wait to start helping out! Skinny87 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the newsletter...what are we going ot write for the "From the coordinators" section...? It's the 29th today! :/ —the_ed17 (Talk) 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorted - I'll do that. The focus should be the election and referenda, I guess. For info, I normally fill in any gaps, flesh it out, copy edit it etc, just before it goes to the bot for despatch, so I'm kind of de facto editor. The hold up is usually the contest; which gets wrapped on the 1st or 2nd of the month.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If two more ACRs pass we can say that we've set another record for those, and we can also have a welcome message from the coordinators, something along the lines of we're looking forward to making the project even better this tranche, thank you everyone who participated in the elections, stuff like that. – Joe N 17:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class & Cooption referenda

The election page is now marked as historical, so are we also closing the two referenda? I'd imagine anyone interested has probably commented by now; Cooption has general support (though some concerns about removal), and C-Class adoption is a fairly clear no consensus with 24 support/20 oppose/6 neutral(ish). EyeSerene^talk 09:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I already updated the assessment page to reflect on the C-class and no consensus results the other day. I'd add co-option, but I do not know where to put it. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably on the coords page, I'd've thought.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case then its already noted in the selection, unless we want to move to add it to the handbook I think its been taken care of. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably sufficient, then; the handbook is more of reference list than a policy statement. Kirill ^[pf] 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)