Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 45

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 41
• 42
• 43
• 44
• Archive 45
• 46
• 47
• 48
• 49
• 50
• 60

2013 Boston Marathon bombings

I've been keeping an eye on this as it develops, nothing editorial per se, just to see the information build in it. I noticed in the article that it now states that the Massachusetts National Guard in Boston has been mobilized to some extent to assist, and that the US Navy has sent an explosives team to aid the police as well. Given this, do you guys want to add the milhist tag the article, or do you want to wait and see what happens? I favor the latter approach at the moment, but since its news and the US is still technically fighting the war on terror I thought it might merit some discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Tom, I think it would probably be best to wait to see how significant the military involvement becomes before tagging the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

January – March 13 quarterly reviewing totals

G'day all, have the January to March reviews been totalled and awarded? As I've been away for a bit, I might have missed it, so I thought it best to ask. If not, from what I can tell there has been some discussion above about what should be included (GAN) etc. Was anything decided? Is anyone in a position to start compiling the data? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone opposed counting GANs when it was raised earlier; I'm okay with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm starting a break from updating our announcements template. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep checking it and updating. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Username	PR Jan–Mar 13	ACR Jan–Mar 13	FAC Jan–Mar 13	Total Jan–Mar 13	Awarded
AustralianRupert	3	20	1	24	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Kirk	0	7	1	8	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ian Rose	0	6	1	7	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
MarcusBritish	1	5	0	6	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Peacemaker67	1	9	2	12	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dank	7	24	22	53	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D	1	12	6	19	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Minorhistorian	0	1	0	1	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hchc2009	1	4	2	7	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Anotherclown	0	21	0	21	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Inkbug	0	1	0	1	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Sturmvogel66	0	7	2	9	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
PRODUCER	0	1	0	1	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell	0	1	1	2	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Errant	0	1	0	1	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Tomobe03	0	1	0	1	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria	4	2	23	29	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Grandiose	0	9	5	14	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
MisterBee1966	0	2	1	2	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Zawed	0	5	0	5	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hawkeye7	0	3	0	3	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Arius1998	0	1	1	1	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ed!	0	9	2	11	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Constantine	0	2	0	2	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney	0	2	0	2	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Parsecboy	0	1	1	1	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Cirt	0	1	0	1	Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
GregJackP	0	1	4	5	AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I've started tallying the reviews. I've done the ACRs and PRs. The PRs are not an exact science as there doesn't seem to be a central listing of all Milhist ones, so I may have missed a couple. Apologies. I only gave credit for PRs to those that had participated in at least one project-based review (i.e. ACR). In terms of GAN, I think it is going to be difficult to capture the data (even more so than PR). Does anyone know of a way to determine all the Milhist articles that had a GA review in Jan-Mar period? If not, then I don't think it is workable to include this in our tally. Additionally, is someone in a position to tally the FAs? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't think of any other way than to go through the history of GA listings here [1]. Would that work? Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is the GA log [2]. This looks more promising - I'll have a go at a tallying. Anotherclown (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to create work for anyone here guys. I thought it might be useful to encourage GAN reviewing by project members, as there seem to be increasing numbers. But bin it if it is too hard. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blast - just realized the log only lists articles that were assessed as GA, not GA reviews that were failed. Not sure this going to be achievable. Apologies for promising and not delivering. Anotherclown (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I can do the FACs later tonight, if no one else gets to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, before I do that: have we decided that we're only counting those who do ACRs (ie., only those already on the list above?) Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, my opinion is that this is the best course of action as I don't think we have the co-ord resources to award all participants. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, FAC should be done. I was surprised by the numbers - looks like both reviews and noms are way down. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

They were, and still are. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day Nikki, thanks for tallying the FAC reviews (and for all the reviews you did yourself!). Again, Dan, thanks for an amazing level of reviewing. I don't know how you do it. I have worked out the totals and will handing out awards. It doesn't seem like there is an easy way to tally GA reviews, so I propose not including them at this stage. If possible, though, can I ask that those that are keen on including them develop a course of action for collecting the data? If there are not too many overheads, we could then include it for the next time. In terms of the awards, I will hand them out using the following schedule: WikiChevrons to those completing 10 or more reviews, Content Review Medal to those with 3-9, two stripes for 2 reviews, and one stripe for 1 review. I will start at the higher numbers and work my way down, if someone else is free and wants to help, please start with the editors who did one review and work up. That way we won't have an edit conflict/duplicate work. The award templates are here. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested it, I'll try to work out a way of getting the GA data. I'm assuming we are working on the basis that only passes/supports are counted (I recall someone saying that fails/opposes shouldn't be included)? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, since we count reviews for A- and FA-Class noms that are not promoted (at least I assume we still do that), I guess we'd want to count reviews of GAs that don't pass, since it's still effort by the reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, yes I think if it is going to be included, it should include all GA reviews (either those that passed or were declined), as per Ian's reasoning. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll give out the awards for the 1s and 2s. Anotherclown (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok these are all awarded now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

So, GA reviews will be included next time? - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I could work out a way to do it... yes. Looks like a long drawn out process doing it manually. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we not do it manually then. I can write a script to process them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

a capital idea. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be handy. Would we reward anyone who does a GA review of a MilHist article or just those who are members of the project or meet some other criteria like participating in ACRs? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We should reward as many as possible so that as many people as possible will be interested in doing Milhist reviews, IMHO. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it might encourage non-project members to come into the tent if they reveiewed a MILHIST GAN and received recognition for their efforts. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we crank up the schedule a bit to make a challenge of it? What about pushing the chevrons up to 15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day, yes I support that proposal. I'm not sure if it will do much to encourage more reviewing, but maybe it will so it is worth a try. I would also like to see a higher award for those that do over 30 reviews (or some other high number), but I don't think there was much support for this last time I raised it. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of trying ... the totals for last quarter were disappointing, we need to do something. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The RfA mess

I'm one of the closers for the current RfA-related RfC, and I've been active in this role in the past and will be again in the near future. It's too early to say (but some have said) that the recent big RfC failed; we should give the new wikiproject for RfA nominators a chance to work. But if it doesn't work, then I'm inclined to agree with the majority view that there's a real problem to be solved. I'd like to get feedback from active wikiprojects: now that we're promoting less than a tenth as many admins as previously, what useful jobs that admins used to do aren't getting done properly, in your view? Suggested solutions are welcome, but at this point, I'm mainly trying to get a feel for the size of the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the last relevant discussion I remember seeing at WT:MIL concerned a link that is now WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#YahwehSaves. Is this evidence that admins may be overworked and aren't helping out in as many cases as in the past? - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the main issue is the growing incidence of backlogs on the central problem-reporting noticeboards. The 'front end' admin tasks are probably being better handled than ever before - in particular, problematic behaviour from editors generally receives a fairly rapid and effective intervention. ArbCom is helping by being generally less willing to take on cases which individual admins could feasibly manage. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Coords' mailing list?

Hi folks, I think somebody suggested a while ago that a mailing list might improve communication between coords and allow us to discuss things slightly closer to "real time" than this talk page. If memory serves, it was generally felt that this was a decent idea and I think a request might have been made to the WMF, but it seems to have been forgotten. Anyway, WMUK now has its own server and developers and, among other things, hosts a few mailing lists, so if you guys think it's a good idea, I could ask if they'd be willing to set one up for us. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. I would be interested in the details of the WMUK servers and developers too. That is something we could use in Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We don't have a lot of discussion on here, much less a mailing list, but it could stimulate more communication between us all. Would the archives be public? What would be the rule on retiring coordinators? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it could stimulate more communications; at the same time, unless it's fully open, it's likely to generate complaints from the wider community about unnecessary secrecy and exclusion of rank-and-file project members from discussions (cf. every other attempt to start closed or semi-closed mailing lists for on-wiki groups). My preference would be to not have a mailing list at all, and keep using talk pages for communications; little, if anything, of what we do requires an immediate response, and the benefits of being fully open and inclusive outweigh, in my opinion, the marginal improvement in usability and responsiveness. As a second choice, an open military history mailing would provide the email mechanism without the problems attendant with closed lists; however, I don't see any significant benefits of having it. Kirill ^[talk] 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't want to have my email on an open list as it could result in spam once harvester bots crawl the page, as well as potential harassment and unwanted emails from unhappy editors. I find the current email system, which uses a contact form, useful, as only the sender's email is provided to the recipient initially, allowing for the recipient to choose whether to respond directly via email, or to use the sender's talk page on wiki and keep their own email address confidential. But as Kirill mentions, we do better by being transparent in our communications. I don't think WikiProjects are "important" enough to warrant having their own off-wiki contact network, whereas those who organise Wikimedia entire require more means of communicating with the different levels of managers, volunteers, admins, editors, etc. to improve efficiency rather than create secrecy. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this HJ and offering to handle negotiations with WMUK, but I agree with Kirill. I don't think that there's a need for an email mailing list at present, and having a private off-Wiki form of communications is likely to be controversial given the community's attitudes (as one of its many recent controversies, there was a major argument in Wikimedia Australia last year concerning the use of its private members-only mailing list in which it was generally agreed that a public mailing list or discussion board was a better option for most matters). Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion for a Milhist-wide mailing list would be an excellent idea... probably much better and less controversial than coords only. It's not entirely needed, but hopefully starting it would get people to start more discussion between project members, thus tying the project closer together. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's a great idea, and I can certainly ask WMUK if they'd support a MilHist-wide mailing list if there are no objections. Just to address some of the other questions, I didn't imagine a mailing list replacing this talk page and I would hate to see the coord become a body that discusses things secretly and then announces them to the rest of the project (that's one of the most persistent criticisms of ArbCom and rightly so in my opinion); in fact I'd resign if that's what we became. I did think it might be useful in allowing coords to communicate better and perhaps less formally. I did think there might be merit in it not being completely public so we can discuss, for example, approaching potential coordinators to ask them to consider standing. But if completely open is what we want, it's very easy to make it so. Also, Marcus, a lot of people who don't want a valuable email address made public use a dedicated email address for Wikipedia or specifically for lists (though I don't, and my spam filters seem capable of handling the flak). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive proposal for June

Ok. We haven't done a drive for a while so I think its about time we co-ords actually co-orded. Most of us seem fairly busy ATM but I think we need to make a chop at this. The digs seem to be getting restless at least [3], so I think there would be some support for this. Essentially I propose a drive similar to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March 2011 backlog reduction drive. But would also add in Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. Happy to try and set this up myself but would probably need some advice on some of the technical stuff and help tallying and handing out awards at the end. Also wouldn't hurt if people helped advertise the imitative. Propose the drive for the month of June. Anotherclown (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Fully in support. Could we have a userbox or template to advertise the drive? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Was thinking some advertising in the Bugle and maybe some sort of banner / masthead or whatever we call it on the MILHIST talk pages etc. Anotherclown (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW I've started a draft of the documentation here: User:Anotherclown/Draft2. Mostly good old-fashioned plagiarism on my part. Anotherclown (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day, good idea, I was thinking of something similar; however, can I suggest that the awards not be cumulative. This was done last time, and it becomes a bit silly to award someone multiple barnstars for the same thing. Additionally, I think some thought needs to be given about how the points are conceptualised. Last time we had the situation whereby editors who rewrote articles to address the missing elements of the B class checklist didn't qualify for points, but those that assessed them did. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with not being cumulative, will amend docs. Not sure about the second point - obviously makes sense just don't know how to avoid that. Surely one shouldn't claim full points if one only did the re-assessment? In my mind I would see completing the B class check-list as only attracting minimal points, while actually dealing with the issues would attract the most. If what I've got so far doesn't convey that intent pls feel free to have a hack at it so we can test and adjust. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The proposed name is wackity wack. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Was wondering if anyone would notice! Not sure if "wackity wack" means good or bad though. Anotherclown (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I added a bit to your draft, in an effort to clarify the different ways editors can accumulate points (i.e content work or assessment). Please check you are happy with what I added. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks very much for that. Wonder if this part in the "How to participate" section should be tweaked also then:

"2.Update the assessment checklist in the {{WPMILHIST}} tag on the article's talk page (or request assessment at WP:MHA for articles to which you have added content)..." Anotherclown (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a go at rewording it slightly. Please take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that works. Anotherclown (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The draft looks pretty good so far. A couple of minor comments, in no particular order:

1. "Operation Screaming Monkey Research" seems a bit too light-hearted even by our standards (and, worse, will probably offend someone). To be honest, I don't think having an operational codename adds anything to the drive, as it's not a sufficiently long-term project to allow the name to become established in people's vocabularies; but, if we must have one, let's try to pick something a little more anodyne.
2. In terms of the scoring, I'd suggest putting a higher value on the requested photographs category—finding one tends to be more work than the current point value would suggest—and perhaps reducing the value for missing B-Class checklists (which, IMHO, are the least important of the listed backlogs).
3. Since the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves are only awarded by nomination/vote, I wouldn't list them in the awards table. We can certainly consider someone who does a particularly spectacular job with the drive for the award, but it's best not to create the expectation that the award is guaranteed.
4. In the statistics and progress sections, would it make sense to order the backlogs in descending-point order, to match the scoring table?

Kirill ^[talk] 11:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I've made those changes now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was planning to comment on this on the weekend, but it slipped my mind. This all looks great to me, and I like the focus on improving articles rather than just assessing them. I've just added links to what the B-class criteria involve - please feel free to move (or remove) these. Thanks also for taking the lead with kicking this off. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. I don't know how much I'll be able to take part, but props to Anotherclown for proposing this. I'll try to get it into the Signpost as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll certainly give it a prominent place in the next Bugle. Tks guys, especially AC, for putting the proposal together -- not sure I've actually put my name down for a drive before now, so must be convincing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the tweaks to the proposal gents, much appreciated. Adding to the Bugle should help in communicating it to the members so that would be a big help. Anotherclown (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW I've now moved the docs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/June 2013 backlog reduction drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/June 2013 backlog reduction drive/Worklists. Can someone pls review to make sure I've set them up correctly pls? Also is there anything else I need to do? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The pages look good. I don't think there's anything else that needs to be done until the drive starts. Kirill ^[talk] 10:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I did have one comment: do you want to set the goals at 0 articles, or something less. Needless to say, the backlogs are so large a 100% reduction isn't really feasible. How about something that makes the little progress things more encouraging? Just a thought. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Gday Grandiose. Good suggestion. I've gone ahead and set more limited goals. Pls feel free to have a look and tweak if you think they need to be adjusted. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a chance that B-class assessment will wind up being important for Level 2. (In what follows, I prefer the more neutral terms "working version" and "published version" to terms like "approved version" ... besides, non-Wikipedians understand perfectly well what it means to work on something and then publish it, they have no idea what it means that that a "reviewer" hasn't "approved" their edit yet, and those aren't very attractive words in this setting.) One of the criticisms of Level 2 is the claim that it unintentionally creates OWNership:

• Under L2, most readers can't even see the working version of the article, and they can't fix problems they can't see;
• Even for people who can see the working version, the gratification of making a change immediately visible to the whole world without having to ask permission or get their edit approved, is gone (or diminished).
• When someone perceived as a police officer is standing watch, it inhibits all behavior, not just bad behavior.

So for the trial on a handful of articles, we probably want to stick to Good Articles or better. But if the trial is deemed successful and people want to use the tool for real, some are going to want to use the tool on B-class articles, and if so, an important question will be how "mature" B-class articles are, that is, how far along in the review process they are. If they're not very far along, then Wikipedians in general aren't going to be on board with using a tool that tends to inhibit editing. So, please be thinking about this as you consider the application of B-class criteria. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I could get behind a drive, hence why I suggested a "March Madness" drive a few months back, although as you can all see I failed to follow up on it and the plan fell through. As for the format and such, I'll leave that to you all, as I have been rather busy in my new job the last few months. As far as a fancy name goes, you could call it something like "Project E-book", calling it a project rather than an operation lends to the idea that its temporary rather than long term. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Normandy in the Signpost

Hi folks, WP:OPNORMANDY will be in the Signpost this week. Could I tempt any coords into answering questions about the future of our 'operations' and what other projects can learn from them? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking for an uninvolved admin coordinator to close a discussion

There has recently been a discussion at Talk:Rape during the liberation of France#Until the article meets basic quality standards… about whether the article should be retained, moved to an incubator or deleted (in which I'm very much involved). This discussion appears to have concluded, and it would be great if an uninvolved coordinator with the admin tools could please close the discussion and take the steps which they judge reflect the consensus. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

May contest tallying

G'day all, in case someone's asking, the tallies were Parsecboy - 119 (from 18), Ed! - 70 (from eight), Tomobe03 - 32 (from seven), Ian Rose - 31 (from four), Peacemaker67 - 28 (from five), The ed17 - 23 (from one), Zawed - 22 (from four), RoslynSKP - 21 (from four), Abraham B.S. - 21 (from one), Inkbug - 10 (from two) and Djmaschek - 6 (from one). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate, I'll be happy to update the scoreboard with that info, and tks all who did verification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

More opinions required

An editor has made questionable non-standard (i.e. non-MOS) changes to the {{kia}} template, but refuses to address the technical or accessibility issues that I have raised repeatedly, and is favouring other editors views without consideration for consensus. More opinions needed, as there is a conflict of interest in my view here, and lack of correct procedure given how many articles use this template.

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Dagger symbol, confused with cross symbol, alternate symbols, and default settings for template:KIA

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Long-term article maintenance

We all generally keep a positive attitude about drama on Wikipedia, but I believe it's time to brainstorm some solutions to a looming problem, while things are still going well (at Milhist, anyway). Quantitatively, we used to promote many hundreds of admins per year; we've been averaging close to 2 per month for a while now. (We had 4 or 5 per month in the first quarter of this year, but we always get small bumps during big relevant RfCs.) RfA itself is part of the problem, but the main problem is that the total amount of suitable volunteer labor available is less than it used to be, not just in admin roles but in other roles as well. I'm seeing ample evidence that we're not getting as much help as we used to from outside Milhist when editors are behaving badly. Part of the problem is that our writers are often seeking "historical consensus", not just random data from reliable sources, but Wikipedians are generally unwilling these days to support protection or blocks if the problem is that some editors doggedly insert material against consensus, as long as those editors are otherwise well-behaved and use reliable sources. (Generally, the lack of help from admins and others has led to frustration and drama, but I really think the detractors are missing the big picture: if you've got fewer firefighters than fires, they're only going to deal with the biggest fires. And this is only going to get worse year by year, because replacements aren't coming close to keeping up with the loss rate.) Let me be clear: I think we do a better job than anyone has a right to expect dealing with conflicts at WT:MIL, so I'm not talking about an immediate disaster. I'm talking about the increasing distance between those Wikipedians seeking to do a good job with historical consensus and those who have other legitimate priorities, and the fact that we're having to shoulder a larger and larger share of burdens such as conflict resolution ... not that we aren't doing a great job, for the moment. I could throw out some suggestions, but I want to make sure first that we're all on the same page. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, is this something we don't want to work on yet? Not a problem, but the longer we wait, the fewer good options we'll have. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better to wait until we see the effects of the upcoming visual editor. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait on that, and also to wait to see the effects of the RfC on Pending Changes Level 2. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had the opposite experience: from what I've seen, admins and general editors are less willing to accept bad behaviour, and there's now not much tolerance for the view that disruptive but generally competent editors should be allowed to continue editing without changing their behaviour (a few 'protected species' excepted). While Wikipedia badly needs an influx of new editors and admins, the flip-side is that the experience level of the current editors and admins is pretty high, and many are no longer willing to put up with crap. ArbCom has also helped by pushing these kind of issues back to the admins to address - I don't think that what I and several other experienced and well-intented editors had to put up with in the lead up to and at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II would happen now (that situation was always within the scope of a single admin to solve, but they were unwilling to do so - no doubt in part because ArbCom was taking on such cases at the time and they could kick the problem upstairs). I enjoy editing here more than I used to as disruptive editors tend to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, we don't disagree, Nick, since you're saying that Wikipedia "badly needs an influx of new editors and admins". I agree with you that the supply of admins is adequate at the moment, and I think that's because we've already paid the cost in drama of dealing with the few bad admins out of the hundreds per year that used to get promoted. You make a good point that both Arbcom and Wikipedians in general have, and enforce, higher expectations on admins these days. We still have the problem that the replacement rate isn't coming close to keeping up, and that has to be addressed sooner or later. My suggestion for the moment is to encourage project members to consider adminship. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. Anyone who's been elected a coordinator of this project should have no trouble passing a RfA (hint, hint ;) ). I do worry that we're living on credit at the moment as "retiring" admins aren't being replaced. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

*COUGH* Ian, Anotherclown, Constantine, Grandiose *cough, cough* ... sorry, my throat's just dry this morning! (see Nick's post directly above) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A Class articles and lists target?

G'day all, I noticed we don't have an A Class content target in the main page. Is there any technical reason we couldn't set a target of say, 500? Given the standard of our A Class articles and the fairly short distance to FA/FL from there, I thought it might be a useful addition to the project targets. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, I think I suggested the same thing ages ago (before your time) and the consensus for not doing so was that A-Class is a moving feast since we so often move on from there to FA, thus a target would't be particularly meaningful. I thought that was fair enough but no objection to re-opening the discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would support the addition of an A-class target, even though it would fluctuate. There are many editors, such as myself, who just don't consider FA anything special, and a lot more hassle to get through an FA review than it's worth. But there are also some editors willing to take existing FAs that extra step from A to FA, but not as willing to take one from Start to FA. Perhaps an A-class target would fill in that gap where editors can work independently, those who perform Stub/Start to A-class improvements then stop, and those who complete the A to FA hurdle. A dynamic target, i.e. one where articles become A-class then could become FA, meaning the target has to be reached again, but all along the FA target is climbing as a result, is not a bad thing, is it? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that this robbing Peter to pay Paul issue happens at every level, B, GA, A and FA. They will always be fluctuating, but hopefully all will keep going in the right direction. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess the gap between B and GA, and between GA and A, has always seemed a bit greater than that between A and FA, hence the feeling that B and GA are more natural stopping points than A, and therefore more logical as targets. Obviously I have no disagreement with instituting an A-Class target because I've always seen it as an end in itself, as well as a way station for FA (which I clearly don't consider more trouble than it's worth!). If more people see things way now, perhaps it's an idea whose time has come -- let's have more opinions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The only concern I have about using A-Class as a separate target is that, in practice, the number of A-Class articles grows very slowly relative to the other categories, due to the abnormally high proportion of articles that are immediately taken to FAC. For example, over the past year, the A-Class count has increased by 46 (from 339 to 385); in the same period, the FA count—which one would expect to grow more slowly, given the extra work involved—has increased by 94 (from 608 to 702). I'm not sure, therefore, that an A-Class target would be effective as a motivational aid; a goal that appears to be too difficult to reach isn't necessarily going to encourage greater effort on most editors' part. Kirill ^[talk] 08:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we follow the idea of these classes the letter, GA are "Wiki's good articles", whilst FA are the "best of Wiki", but A-class are unique to each WikiProject and therefore the "best of Military history" if and before they become FA. GA/FA standards are shared by Wiki-entire, whereas MilHist tries to set a standard with its highest "in house" A-class criteria. Might as well promote the best that Milhist has produced without [as much] outside influence from GA/FA reviewers who are potentially more about meeting quality standards than dedication to the topic as historians. Before you shake your heads... yes, I know a lot of GA/FA reviewers are from this project and therefore are interested in the content as well as the quality, but it isn't unfair to say that there are also a lot of reviewers who will assess just about anything and are more interested in standards, whereas because all ACRs are generally handled by our members, there is a common-interest between nominating editor and reviewer, which may not necessarily be the same between nominator and GA/FA reviewers. Therefore a passed ACR can bring a more intimate sense of satisfaction than an approved FA. Well, it makes sense to me anyway. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

An alternate approach might be to have targets for "B and above", "GAN and above", "A and above" and "FA/FL"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a better approach from a statistical standpoint, but it has the disadvantage of not being directly correlated to easily recognizable milestones. An announcement that we've reached 1000 A-Class articles is more easily understood—and thus more effective for both motivation and promotion of the project, in my opinion—than a statement that we've reached 1000 articles of A-Class and above (particularly if the latter is caused by increases in the FA/FL counts rather than in the class being mentioned). Kirill ^[talk] 08:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I like "...and above" grouping either. Sounds like exam results.. having 5 "Cs or above" is good but it's better to know if someone passed with a borderline 5 "C" results or an outstanding 5 "A"s. Same with articles.. reaching 10,000 "B-class or better" could simply mean 9,800 are B-class and a just handful of A/FA articles; it's a bit too vague and unhelpful as a whole. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to track the number of successful A-class nominations? If so, we could use that as a target. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

How would that work? Is it like, if 400 articles go through an ACR and 300 passed, there's a 75% success rate? If so, how would it account for second or even third time round ACRs, as if you have one article submitted twice, first failed, second passed, technically that's a 50% success rate, which would need to be corrected to prevent inaccurate reports and false totals (as it would still only be one article that was assessed no matter now many reviews were required). Given that complication, it might not be possible to track nominations very easily. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I was more thinking if there was some way of tracking the numbers of promotions, which could then be used to measure progress against a target number. I can't think of any way of doing this easily myself (the only thing which springs to mind is to manually go through the archives and collate them into a tracking table), but others might have better ideas. Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If the idea is simply to get a count of successful nominations, then we could do it by having the project banner automatically put the applicable articles into a category and then querying the number of articles there. Kirill ^[talk] 12:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be a good idea, Kirill. I think the number of successful nominations at our project's highest class is a pretty important number. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

World War I edit-a-thons - should we be doing more to promote this?

I think that the upcoming edit-a-thons on World War I have sort-of passed us by. I knew about the Australian one and have advertised it, but had no idea that this was being organised to take place simulatenously in several countries. Ads for the global and Belgian events have also been posted at WT:MILHIST, and I've just added it to the WPMILHIST Announcements banner. Is there anything else we should be doing to encourage participation? (HJ, is there anything we can do to promote the WMUK-sponsored event in particular?). Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the UK one - we're actually very close to capacity and may well close signups soon. (we're running it as a more generally-oriented event as well, so there's been registration elsewhere). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wehrmacht Barnstar

I'd like to suggest a Barnstar award for extraordinary contributions to the furthering knowledge concerning the German Wehrmacht prior to and during the Second World War. I have created a prototype and placed it here. I'd like some feedback before continuing on to putting this onto the Barnstar page. Here's the prototype [4]Dmanrock29 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be a bit concerned about receiving this if it were put on my talk page. I really can't think of a good way of putting this without potentially causing offence, so my apologies in advance, but to be honest it looks a little like Nazi propaganda, probably because of the swastika in the center. Would there be any way of de-emphasising or removing that, and increasing the focus on the smaller symbols? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My opinion would be that there were a lot of countries involved in both world wars, and if we were to create barnstars for a select few countries, then it could lead to claims of project favouritism, bias and/or plugging national interests. I prefer to see barnstars that cover an entire period/war such as our task-forces cover. With so many wars and armies in history, I don't think the Wehrmacht is the ideal army to promote awards for alone, I mean, I know this would be given for contributing to Wiki and that it does not promote Nazism, naturally, but it would be like WikiProject Religion, for example, creating an award for editors who only work on Christian articles, and only those related to Protestantism. It wouldn't go well with Catholics, Muslims, or Jews to not be recognised for their contributions. So I stand with the belief that barnstars for projects needs to have a broader range when it comes to work on specific topics, as they're just as good to issue/receive but don't cause others to feel left out by doing work which can't be recognised. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Hchc and Marcus. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I do quite a bit of work on Wehrmacht (and Waffen-SS) units and leaders, and I wouldn't want one for the reasons outlined above. I prefer a taskforce approach, a WWII barnstar or a Balkans barnstar (the areas I generally work in). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest awarding any editor another, existing, barnstar, and dedicating it to their contributions in a particular field. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I can understand everyone's point of view on the subject. But the wealth of information that can be applied to ANY nation that participated in the Second World War could precipitate a national Barnstar. The militaries of the Empire of Japan, German Wehrmacht, Soviet Union, are not the same militaries either doctrinally or organizationally as those of their successor states/same country in different time periods. As for the swastika in the barnstar, it's used for historical purposes. The ribbon is made from the flag of the Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht. Some of your arguments train of thoughts would have us editing all symbols that could be seen as symbols of hate or offensive from articles. I've seen a barnstar colored as a rainbow which is generally held as a symbol for LGBT rights yet I'm fundamentally opposed to homosexual marriage. Maybe we should edit that barnstar? Or, Joseph Stalin as ruler of the Soviet Union was responsible for millions of deaths of Europeans as well as his own citizens? Yet, to suggest that we remove symbols representing his regime would be counter productive. My argument is simply this. Different people have different interest and different strengths, and obviously that would reflect in their contributions. If someone's strong suit is the WW2 German military and they've made tremendous strides to advance the knowledge of said military why should they have to break out and scramble in to unfamiliar territory to receive recognition for their efforts? That being said in the spirit of compromise I forward this revised barnstar. [5]Dmanrock29 (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No-one can stop you creating it or awarding it, but I get the sense that several of the coordinators don't necessarily support the idea. I'm not a coordinator, but I work on Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS articles because it is important to record not only their tactical and operational successes and failures but also their engagement in egregious war crimes in the Balkans (and virtually every other theatre they operated in). The ultimate issue for barnstars is whether people who work on the topic actually want to receive/display one. You'll find that out over time. IMO, the "other barnstars" issue you raise is WP:OTHERSTUFF and not of concern to WPMILHIST. Good luck with it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Frankly, equating Nazism with advocating equal rights for LGBT people is unbelievably disgusting. That said, I don't see the need for a Wehrmacht barnstar, for many of the reasons mentioned above. It'd be better to start with a standard WWII award and see if there's interest in country-specific awards later. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I feel the abhorrent crimes of the Nazi regime and any form of homosexuality equally disgusting.Dmanrock29 (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone would want to be presented with an award which includes Nazi symbols such as what's proposed here. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That point has been made and as such I created a revised one. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanrock29 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether you oppose LGBT rights or not is no concern of this project or even Wiki entirely, and should not be vocalised so openly because we're an open international community. The LGBT Wikiproject is probably one of the most popular and successful projects after Milhist, alongside a few others. I personally would have no issue receiving and displaying Template:The LGBT Barnstar for editing articles that appeal to gay-interests. LGBT people didn't start 2 world wars, didn't gas 6 million people and murder millions more under a corrupt totalitarian regime. I hold no belief in "sin" or other religious discriminatory mumbo-jumbo, therefore there is no bad history associated with LGBT, nothing that they are accountable for. I would be far less inclined to displaying any barnstar that relates to editing the Wermacht, or to go further, the IRA, al-Queda, or any organisation that has a particularly bad history associated with it. As I said earlier, if you award an editor with a generic WWII barnstar, the appreciation is going to be just as warm as with any design, because it's the thought that counts, not the image. But if the image feels controversial, the thought can be tarnished. Though Peacemaker is right that you are free to create and issue it independently, I think you can expect resistance, editors would either remove it or swap it for a plain star to retain the thought but attract less attention, and it is unlikely the wider community would welcome it included on the full barnstars page. I think the safest option is to create barnstars for task-forces that lack them, if you're purely interested in creating graphics, and forget barnstars dedicated to specific armies or units. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I generally acknowledge the suggestion to honor those editors who contribute effort, time and dedication to Wikipedia. It is a great example of what free cognitive capacity can achieve. However, in this instance I am very concerned with the suggestion brought forward and would oppose displaying this barn star on my user page. Let me try to explain why. Even today almost 70 years after World War 2, one treads on a very thin red line in German society when you show interests in the events related to World War 2, especially topics related to the Wehrmacht. Goods examples of how difficult this topic is can be seen in the political debates circling around issues such as naming a fighter wing after Werner Mölders, or ships after Erwin Rommel or Günther Lütjens, in the post war Bundeswehr. I often observe that editors who show interest in this subject themselves are allegedly being accused of being supportive of the values of Nazism and the totalitarian regime which led to the death of millions. There is just no clear distinction between the Wehrmacht and the crimes associated with the Third Reich and as said superimposed on those editors writing about this subject. I therefore concur with everything said so far and advise not to promote such an award. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Dmanrock, I don't know if you're familiar with our German military history task force, but you can see that there are over 12,000 articles assessed as falling into this group (though not all are WWII), with hundreds of them being A-class, GA and FA quality articles. Yet only 27 editors have chosen to identify themselves as members of this group, with but 1 of those identifying an interest in the SS, a few others do mention WWII. Don't bet that those 27 alone created all those high-status articles. I think you should take note of these figures, as it suggests that most editors err of on the side of caution, possibly for the reasons MrBee has stated above. You think people associated with LGBT are disgusting, but you'll find more people are wary of editors who appear to associate with Nazism, even if their only interest is to present German history from a completely neutral viewpoint: one of those views is hateful and intolerable prejudice whilst the other is a simply a social/cultural feeling that stems from the discomfort most people feel when someone seemingly has in-depth knowledge of the Nazis, regardless of their non-affiliation, it provokes suspicion. It's safe to surmise that we don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable on Wiki, especially in projects that deal with potentially controversial issues, whether they involve historical subjects, political views, conspiracy theories, or are related to sexuality or religion. A lot of editors don't want attention in those areas, and a barnstar simply commending an editor for their contributions to "German military history" or "WWII military history" is better all round, as you know what it means, they know what it means, and that's all that really matters. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Bravo Marcus, well said. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

June Backlog drive results

Backlog drive for June is coming to an end. I've drafted the points table here for ease of tallying and will populate when it concludes. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Rank	Username	Coverage (15 pts)	Expert attn (15 pts)	Refs (15 pts)	Grammar (10 pts)	Structure (5 pts)	Photos (10 pts)	Spting Mats (5 pts)	B-class C/L (5 pts)	WP:MHA (5 pts)	Total	Award(s)
21	Adamdaley	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	5 (1)	5	One Stripe [7]
7	Anotherclown	30 (2)	0 (0)	45 (3)	100 (10)	0 (0)	20 (2)	105 (21)	740 (148*)	100 (20)	1140	Tireless Contributor Barnstar [8]
18	Arius1998	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	20 (2)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	110 (22)	0 (0)	130	Three Stripes [9]
6	AustralianRupert	210 (14)	45 (3)	270 (18)	60 (6)	30 (6)	130 (13)	35 (7)	210 (42)	160 (32)	1150	Tireless Contributor Barnstar [10]
19	Cdtew	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	70 (14)	0 (0)	70	Two Stripes [11]
4	Dumelow	150 (10)	0 (0)	105 (7)	100 (10)	40 (8)	230 (23)	25 (5)	875 (175)	0 (0)	1525	Tireless Contributor Barnstar [12]
20	EricSerge	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	60 (12)	0 (0)	60	Two Stripes [13]
16	Gavbadger	90 (6)	0 (0)	30 (2)	0 (0)	50 (10)	0 (0)	20 (4)	0 (0)	25 (5)	215	Three Stripes [14]
12	gbawden	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	460 (46)	0 (0)	10 (2)	0 (0)	470	Three Stripes [15]
15	Grandiose	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	10 (2)	10 (1)	0 (0)	220 (44)	0 (0)	240	Three Stripes [16]
13	Ian Rose	120 (8)	0 (0)	90 (6)	10 (1)	15 (3)	10 (1)	15 (3)	50 (10)	105 (21)	415	Three Stripes [17]
17	Inkbug	0 (0)	0 (0)	15 (1)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	175 (35)	0 (0)	190	Three Stripes [18]
22	Lee Tru.	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0
5	Lineagegeek	210 (14)	0 (0)	60 (4)	290 (29)	20 (4)	0 (0)	15 (3)	630 (126*)	15 (3)	1240	Tireless Contributor Barnstar [19]
14	Nick-D	45 (3)	45 (3)	45 (3)	30 (3)	15 (3)	140 (14)	15 (3)	0 (0)	35 (7)	370	Three Stripes [20]
11	Parsecboy	225 (15)	0 (0)	240 (16)	0 (0)	35 (7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	85 (17)	10 (2)	595	WikiChevrons [21]
2	Peacemaker67	75 (5)	30 (2)	75 (5)	20 (2)	5 (1)	60 (6)	0 (0)	3645 (729)	50 (10)	3960	Barnstar of Diligence and Silver Wiki [22]
3	PINTofCARLING	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	15 (3)	2500 (500)	0 (0)	2515	Working Man's Barnstar and Bronze Wiki [23]
10	Sturmvogel_66	165 (11)	0 (0)	210 (14)	0 (0)	20 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	100 (20)	200 (40)	695	WikiChevrons [24]
8	Tomobe03	15 (1)	0 (0)	45 (3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1060 (212)	0 (0)	1120	Tireless Contributor Barnstar [25]
1	Wild Wolf	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	4000 (800)	0 (0)	4000	Barnstar of Diligence and Golden Wiki [26]
9	Zawed	90 (6)	0 (0)	120 (8)	0 (0)	20 (4)	10 (1)	15 (3)	625 (125)	60 (12)	930	WikiChevrons [27]

Are we doing any sort of check that the claim is accurate or that the B-class checklists (for example) have been appropriately filled out? I'm not sure it's worth the effort myself. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it would reward the effort required. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think we should trust the editors that have committed to the drive that they have done their job properly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Complaint about the work by User:Adamdaley, I went through the article related to his five points (140th Regiment Indiana Infantry) and through the assessment requests. The user placed the request at 12:10, 28 June 2013 [edit] the request was initially completed by User:AustralianRupert to Start class at 03:14, 29 June 2013 [edit]. It was again assessed by User:AustralianRupert to C class at 08:12, 29 June 2013 [edit]. So far as the page history says Adamdaley never assessed an article listed at WP:MHA (like the June 2013 backlog reduction drive article states he should of). User:AustralianRupert has correctly put the article into his worklist (it is number 26 in the relevant section). So I believe User:Adamdaley's five points should be removed from the above table. Gavbadger (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Type	Target reduction	Actual articles claimed
Military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy	1,620	95
Military history articles needing expert attention	13	8
Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation	1,772	64
Military history articles needing attention to grammar	410	63
Wikipedia requested photographs of military history	123	107
Military history articles needing attention to structure	386	52
Military history articles needing attention to supporting materials	905	52
Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists	2,567	3,033

Counts duplicates twice, and ignores those removed but not claimed for. I think it is obvious that success has been small in areas other than, first, a huge contribution to reducing the B-class assessment backlog; and, second, the removal of several articles incorrectly tagged as need photographs and/or expert attention. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the lack of success in the other areas was a natural consequence of the 15% reduction of the B-class assessment backlog, and given the original suggestion was that we needed to reduce the checklist backlog, I am very pleased with the result we have achieved. I might add that we have done some important housekeeping with the photographs and those needing expert attention, reducing those backlogs by over 10% and over 50% respectively. Personally, I have learned a lot about the various backlogs and some aspects of the project that I didn't know before, and I'm sure I'm not on my own. I might add that the Balkans MILHIST taskforce now has no B-class assessment backlog. We've also seen at least 57 more articles promoted to B-Class in June (with quite a few being promoted further). I don't have the skills to work out exactly how far we have moved forward towards our project targets, but not a bad effort at all, IMO. I think we should look to have another one before the end of 2013. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Gday all. Apologies for being offline for a bit. Thank you very much for everyones assistance in tallying these up. I had intended to do so myself but got busy at work. I've add the awards everyone is eligible for now and will start awarding if there are no objections. Congratulations are in order for Wild Wolf, Peacemaker67 and PINTofCARLING for taking out the honours! Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And... thanks very much to Ac for doing the heavy lifting re: getting the drive off the ground and running! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a curiosity.. why hasn't Arius1998 got an award for his points, or did I read it wrong? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Markup error. Thanks for pointing that out. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Complaint about the work by User:Adamdaley, I went through the article related to his five points (140th Regiment Indiana Infantry) and through the assessment requests. The user placed the request at 12:10, 28 June 2013 [edit] the request was initially completed by User:AustralianRupert to Start class at 03:14, 29 June 2013 [edit]. It was again assessed by User:AustralianRupert to C class at 08:12, 29 June 2013 [edit]. So far as the page history says Adamdaley never assessed an article listed at WP:MHA (like the June 2013 backlog reduction drive article states he should of). User:AustralianRupert has correctly put the article into his worklist (it is number 26 in the relevant section). So I believe User:Adamdaley's five points should be removed from the above table, can someone please remove his points please? Gavbadger (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? Gavbadger? Really? Five points? Or is this some in-joke I'm not across yet? I agree, as it happens, but strike me pink, you're keen. When Wild Wolf put together 4000? You appear to be the only one who cares, old son. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree this edit doesn't qualify, but I'm sure it is probably a misunderstanding of the rules (which were unclear even to me). Adam tagged the article and then "assessed" it as low importance. Seems a fairly minor issue though. Happy to adjust the points table if others feel it appropriate but I'm not sure it is really req'd. Anotherclown (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just forget it then, I was in a mood when originally posted, sorry. Gavbadger (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for setting this up Anotherclown - it was a significant success. We should probably make it an annual or six-monthly event. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's make it six-monthly, I reckon I might have enough of a scoobie to actually help organise it next time... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've issued the awards now, except of course for my own. If someone could pls do the honours I would appreciated it. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, tks for your efforts all round! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

June contest tallying

G'day all, the tallies were Parsecboy - 204! (from 22!), Ian Rose - 121 (from 17), Tomobe03 - 60 (from 11), Zawed - 58 (from ten) Peacemaker67 - 44 (from nine), Cdtew - 20 (from four), Inkbug - 15 (from two), RoslynSKP - 12 (from two), Djmaschek - 6 (from one) and Arius1998 - 2 (from one). Thanks to Zawed for verifying mine. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 13 review tallies

G'day all, I have made a start on tallying these. I only looked at peer reviews and ACRs. Can someone else please tally FAC, and GAN (if that has been agreed upon). If I have missed anything with the PR and ACR counts, please let me know. Once done, we can start handing out the awards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Username	PR Apr–Jun 13	ACR Apr–Jun 13	FAC Apr–Jun 13	Total Apr–Jun 13	Awarded
Kirk	0	1	3	4	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Ian Rose	3	11	4	18	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Peacemaker67	1	10	3	14	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Dank	5	18	25	48	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D	4	8	3	15	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hchc2009	0	6	3	9	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Anotherclown	0	17	0	17	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Inkbug	0	1	1	2	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Sturmvogel66	0	3	9	12	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell	0	6	4	10	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Errant	0	6	0	6	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria	1	2	29	32	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Grandiose	0	3	2	5	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
MisterBee1966	0	3	2	5	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Zawed	0	6	0	6	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hawkeye7	0	5	2	7	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Ed!	0	2	2	4	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Parsecboy	0	4	2	6	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast	0	2	0	2	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Cdtew	0	3	0	3	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Abraham, B.S.	0	2	2	4	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Piotrus	0	2	1	3	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Bomzibar	0	1	1	2	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Ranger Steve	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The_ed17	0	1	10	11	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Mark Arsten	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
AustralianRupert	4	15	1	20	Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013

Thanks Rupert! I'll do FAC later this evening. If we are including GANs this time, we'll still need another victim volunteer - but did we decide to do so? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AR, I did one PR, Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusades/archive1, I counted nine (rather than 10) ACRs, I did 10 GANs per this and four FACs per this. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think we had a consensus to include GANs and suggested changes to the thresholds for the awards here. Hawkeye suggested he might write a script so we could get the GAN figures without having to manually go through the GA log. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I just remembered that there is or was a script that tallies reviewers for FAC. Don't remember the name of it, but old FAC hands will know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I pinged Hawkeye about the script, but it might be better to go ahead with what we have using the old rules, and add in GAs next time when Hawkeye (or someone else) has a tool we can use to scoop up all the GA reviews. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, one script people use to help them quickly see supports and opposes at FAC is Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye responded asking if we can we wait till next quarter to do the GANs. On that basis I suggest we wrap it up and hand out the gongs using the old system. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, if the others are. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping start handing out the awards today. The templates can be found here. Based on a previous thread last quarter, we appear to have agreed upon a revised award schedule as follows: "chevrons...15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3". Based on that schedule, the following awards are proposed:

• Chevrons: Dank, Nikkimaria, AustralianRupert, Ian Rose, Anotherclown and Nick-D;
• Content Review Medal: Peacemaker67, Sturmvogel66, The_ed17, HJ Mitchell, Hchc2009;
• Two stripes: Hawkeye7; Errant; Zawed; Parsecboy; Grandiose; MisterBee1966; Kirk; Ed!; Abraham, B.S.;
• One stripe: Cdtew; Piotrus; Inkbug; RightCowLeftCoast; Bomzibar; Ranger Steve; Kumioko; Mark Artsen.

Are there any objections to this? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

My proposal to pump up the thresholds for each award was aligned with the proposed inclusion of GAN reviews (which hasn't happened this quarter), but I'm happy either way. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I reckon you could just go ahead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have handed out the awards now, except my own, of course. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just FTR, tks Peacemaker for this last, and AR for all the rest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce the number of coordinators needed to confirm A-class medal nominations

From memory, the procedure in which three coordinators need to confirm editors' eligibility for an A-class medal prevents one accidental (generally too early) award per year out of about 100 awarded. Again from memory, the first coordinator to check the nomination is always the one who spots the problem. As such, I'd like to suggest that we change Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review#Step 8: Tracking award eligibility (and any other relevant wording) to require that only one other coordinator needs to confirm the nomination or drop this requirement altogether. I'm raising this as I've just awarded five A-class medals, including four whose nominations had not attracted the three confirmations needed despite being open for over two weeks, and am concerned that this procedural step is overly complex and is delaying editors being recognised for good work. What do others think? Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I support reducing the requirement to one other co-ord. I, for one, don't always remember to check this page so probably haven't been pulling my weight. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I once proposed that only one coord need determine the award (because there's nothing subjective about whether one qualifies for it, unlike the Oak Leaves for instance), I certainly regard this as a step in the right direction... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reducing the requirement to a single confirmation sounds reasonable to me.

On a related note, could everyone please make sure to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM when they hand out awards? I think we're getting out of sync on that page again. Kirill ^[talk] 11:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Eminently sensible, the criteria is objective, it is a bureaucratic function. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not as simple as it looks, apparently. I will investigate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ask if we've decided on this now but Hawkeye's comment has pulled me up short -- what's not so simple and needs investigation...?? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be it was meant as part of the thread immediately above? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I have figured it out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Could we re-visit whether we have consensus for this? I believe all the current arrangement does is slow down the award process. As all good soldiers know, awards should be timely. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do. I've been meaning to action it for the last couple of weeks, but keep getting caught up in other things. If no-one beats me to it, I'll make the necessary changes tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just actioned this by changing the text above, and adding these instructions to the awards page (I'd appreciate if someone could check, and improve, my wording here!). I'll check for further text which needs to be updated tomorrow, but I think that this should cover it. Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Joint notification template?

Would it be useful to create a joint notification template for the coordinator team, to allow people to easily ping us from discussions on other pages?

For anyone who hasn't played with the notification templates yet, this would work like a specialized version of {{ping}}; however, it would automatically notify all of us, without the user having to individually enter usernames. For example, a user might enter:

{{@MILHIST}} Hello!

which would automatically generate a notification to the entire group:

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Hello!

This could potentially make it easier for people to request assistance from us without having to either contact some/all of us individually or find this page and leave messages here.

Thoughts? Kirill ^[talk] 00:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, and I imagine that it would be helpful to people who are looking for assistance/advice from any of the coordinators in a specific discussion - from time to time we're asked to weigh in on individual AfDs with a military angle and other discussions, and this would be useful. Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a fabulous idea. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting idea. To be honest, I can't really understand how it works, but I think it would be a good idea to implement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. The basic premise, as I understand it, is that WP:Echo notifies people when their userpage is linked to by someone else, and this template would link quickly to all the co-ords'. Would it need to be subs'd? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would need to be subst'd—Echo only seems to care that a link exists, not how it's formed—but we can test that out easily enough. Kirill ^[talk] 10:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. I can see it potentially being over-used and consequently bombarding us with notifications, but as long as it's used sensibly, it could be extremely useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since there seems to be some interest in this, I've created the template. I will try a test of it below; please let me know if you get a notification about it.

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: This is a test of the notification system. Please respond below if you receive a notification! Kirill ^[talk] 02:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes Kirill, your gadget works. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Also works for me Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Received. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer a bat-signal, but the notification also worked.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Why so serious...? ;-) (Mine worked too, BTW -- tks Kirill) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ack. - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

+1 for the bat signal, but this is a close second! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll post an announcement about the template shortly. Kirill ^[talk] 01:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Showcase

Hello all, I was just having a nosy at the showcase and realised there was something of a discrepancy between the Milhist showcase and Category:FA-Class military history articles. Take FAs as an example, 668 on our showcase, 716 in the category. It looks like Legobot was going to be used to update given the page history but a bot edit doesn't seem to have been successful. The page itself hasn't really been updated as a going concern since August barring Maralia's heroic efforts in February. My question to Coords is whether there is still an appetite to keep these updated? Woody (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually working on a bot that will update the showcase pages (as well as our open task lists, etc.); hopefully it'll be ready for testing fairly soon. Kirill ^[talk] 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks Kirill for working on that and answering my question. Woody (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

July contest tallies

The scores were: Parsecboy - 103 points (from 12 articles), Tomobe03 - 66 points (from 11 articles), Ian Rose - 61 points (from six articles), Peacemaker67 - 41 points (from six articles), Abraham, B.S. - 15 points (from two articles), Djmaschek - 12 points (from two articles), and Zawed - 3 points (from one article). Bring on the August contest! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:WPMILHIST Announcements

G'day all, I'll be offline for a week or so, if someone could maintain the announcements template in my absence that would be good. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)