Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 14

• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Archive 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60

Contacts

Seems like I'm the last coordinator familiar with contacts. You have to decide if this system should be continued or abolished. I needs some flogging out of inactive users and perhaps a list according to topics similar to the way we organized task forces. Just now I signed up a new user as contact (the minimum requirement should be to A-class on the topic), so there is possibly some interest in it. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that there are now task force coordinators, contacts are useless and should be abolished. --Eurocopter (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-coordinator (but coordinator-elect) opinion: The contacts are inactive, and were made that way for a reason. Also, what Eurocopter says is correct; With the TF coords, those coordinators should know the knowledgeable editors within each TF if they receive questions, which is what I infer the whole contact thing was about. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, what we should do is merge the contact idea in with the main membership list, since our members tend to write about there interests or specializations there. Thats my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 September 2008

Mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, it's great to see people committing to the project and going the extra mile. On the other, it's a second tier of project functionaries. Perhaps the concept could be reshaped slightly to reinforce the TFs? That seems to be were activism is most needed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the newest contact (for airborne warfare), and whilst I like the idea, it isn't exactly well advertised. Perhaps the page could be closed and those contacts still willing to be contacts (who haven't left etc) could be placed somewhere on the main MILHIST page, so that anyone needing them doesn't have to go to an obscure webpage? Skinny87 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The page does have an archive tag on it but it's easy to miss among the other stuff. And, yes, I agree that if we continue with it, it needs much more exposure. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true. I didn't even know such a thing existed until I stumbled on to Skinny87's talk page today. This may be because I'm new to MILHIST. But then, it's the new people who mostly need something like this, so it won't be any use with only the experienced editors knowing it. Chamal ^Talk ± 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We could move the contacts into the task forces as specialised and dedicated members that are willing to help new editors on certain topics. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we'd decided to retire the idea of having contacts due to the lack of participation (as well as an unclear definition of what, precisely, their role was). Given our increased shift towards our review processes and the availability of the logistics department and its associated infrastructure, I'm not sure whether trying to revive the contacts program—whether in its own right, or as part of the task forces—would really make sense; I would guess that "why won't anyone answer?" is a more pressing matter for most people looking for feedback than "whom do I ask?", at this point. Kirill ^(prof) 01:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need formal contacts like this anymore. The various task force talk pages are the best 'contact' for most matters, with the task force's coordinators being the appropriate point of contact for sensitive or urgent matters. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Kirill, like this poor chap who hasn't had a reply to: this, this or this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not contacts displayed on the relevant task force? Not all knowledgeable members in the task force will be coordinators, so it makes sense to have other contacts - it seems that not everyone reads the talk pages, either. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can make a proposal to the project to make contacts dedicated members of task forces who have written at least two A-class articles and are willing to help other editors on certain topics. Possibly this helps to counter the silence in the task forces. Any objections? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The two A-Class article requirement seems to be moving this away from being a position that's related to answering topic questions, per se, and more towards one of an experienced editor on some topic. I'm not sure that really makes sense, at least within the scope of the original position; if we were going to do that, then we might as well simply put together a central list of project members who've written A-Class articles, and just have everyone pick people to ask from that.

(A list of FA and/or A-Class authors might be something to consider doing regardless of its role here, incidentally, simply for its motivational effects; compare WP:WBFAN. But there are also drawbacks to anything of this sort, of course, particularly given that many of our top-end articles are authored by people that aren't technically members of the project.) Kirill ^(prof) 01:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Set up whatever you think good, however, the lack of activity and support from the task forces is a problem. I only suggested a method to help people to find experienced editors willing to help. Your suggestion don't quite fulfill that role. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Opening Business for the new term

Well, congrats to all of you who have been elected and re-elected. I'd like to jump right in and get down to business. Since we've had a significant turnover of coordinators, I think it may be time to choose TFs for all of us again just like what was done when it was implemented. The other business I can discern is the proposal with the contacts in the above section. Anything else? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard and thanks for the suggestion! I'm afraid that I disagree with completely re-organizing the TFs immediately on a gold rush basis. Some coordinators have been active within their TFs and obviously continuity is useful. Perhaps, it's better to see what gaps have been created by retirements; and which TFs the new coordinators are interested in. Also on the TF front, I suggest that we make it a requirement that TF coordinators (TFCs) do some of the basic stuff, like responding to messages that people leave on their TF pages. (See the example, above.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to have an upadate on the 0.7 progress, and we need to establish a system whereby task forces created after the election selection period get coordinator attention (the land vehicals one had no coordinators until voluenteers came along, the response was slow). Also, we have had some incidents regarding FAC/FARC bound material from the project that wasn;t quite up to par, so we need to push for more participation in the PR and ACR systems. Thats my take. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there are a handful of very interesting TFs and a load of less popular ones. Some are dormant. We also need to establish very clearly what we are going to do with TFs. That debate is probably long overdue. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we've also should begin a process of going over the older FA's to ensure that they're still of FA-Quality. During the pre-drive for 0.7, I came across a few that could use some help (notably in the citations section). Although we need to ensure that the newer articles working their way up the assessment ladder are given the attention they need, we need to also ensure that our older articles meet the new standards. Cam (Chat) 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Cam. We could indeed. The whole quality issue has been moving to the forefront over the last couple of months. (One major issue is that SandyGeorgia has noticed a decline in the quality of our ACRs, with articles nodding through.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger; I'm glad to be here. I find it surprising that the general quality of our FAC's has declined, given that the new ACR system was meant to downsize this issue. Cam (Chat) 05:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This, in general, also points to a general problem within the project. We place a lot of emphasis on PR & ACR processes within the Review Department. At the same time, we perhaps don't give the same light to FAC & FAR/FARC. Even if we're putting out new A-Class articles at a high rate, having a large number of existing FAs fall through the cracks because we didn't get the necessary effort put in at FAR/FARC is an issue that should be dealt with. Regards, Cam (Chat) 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's a connection between ACR and FAR but we do have a serious shortage of reviewers and improvers. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to say that there was. My point is that the ACRs attract more reviewers and improvers. While it's great to get new articles to A-Class and FA-class, we have, imho, sort of relegated FAR/FARC to a secondary task within the Review process. Cam (Chat) 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the PR and ACR processes are entirely within this project, while the FAC/FAR(C) process is external, so we tend to think that others are handling it. Thats my take. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, some old FAs are so skimpy and poorly referenced by current standards that they really need re-writing from scratch. Which, as we all know, can be weeks of work. The point has been made (at WT:FA I think) that FAs offer a really lousy return on time invested and that, for the same time investment, four or five ACs could be created in their place. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the quality of the articles the project is putting forward as FACs has declined. Rather, I think that the requirements of FA reviewers seems to have changed to include a much greater focus on MoS issues and the like. As this isn't going to change, I guess that we need to promote greater awareness of MoS issues which is being done through the new A-class standards. I agree with the need for a review of the task forces - many of them are dormant and seem unlikely to be revived. I'd put question marks against the viability of the Military historiography, Baltic states military history and Taiwanese military history task forces for starters as they all seem too specialised (can the Taiwanese task force be merged with the Chinese one without causing any ructions?) Nick Dowling (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You can add Nordic and Balkan to that list, no non-template traffic on the talk pages for over a year. I think there's a strong case for a European TF (this was raised on the main talk page) to handle this (and, say, Ireland, which doesn't have a TF), and retaining the active ones. The dormat TFs could then be moved to an inactive TF section and their tags removed from the template. I don't know how we update the existing template to reflect these changes, with code I suppose. Kirill will know. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Updating the template to handle whatever path we go down won't be an issue, I think, so I don't see technical considerations being a significant factor in deciding how to proceed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to do something as radical as mothballing a taskforce I suggest we make a motion on the main project talk page to get some feed back, otherwise it may appear that we are mothballing TFs for no apparent reason. I would prefer not to enter a new term as coordinator surfing a wave of backlash for axing TFs with little to no activity. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but let's explore the options are here first. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Task Force Adoption

Alright, since MBK004 suggests we get right on this....let's do it. Plenty to pick from, no one be shy! Cam (Chat) 04:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the table to show the current coordinators and those expressing interest. There's probably great scope for negotiation. For example, JonCatalán may well want to take "my" slot for MLV (he's very welcome to, he knows much more about it than I do!). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved people expressing interest into vacant slots where they exist: we've still got a lot of holes. There is an argument incidentally for having three TFCs for the really big TFs (maritime, WWI and WWII, for instance) but four may be unnecessary. As a rule of thumb, to get a minimum of two TFCs for each TF, to allow for wikibreaks etc, each coordinator needs to sign up for a dozen. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed myself from the Military aviation and US military task forces. I'm happy to discuss the others if staying there causes a clash. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've just taken myself off MLV to make way for El Catalan. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cam, you can have aviation if I could have maritime. And you could have WWI if I can have WWII. Is that agreeable? Unless anyone else has an interest in those TFs? -MBK₀₀₄ 06:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. On another note, would it be possible for me to be a coordinator of the Canadian Military History TF, seeing as that is my area of specialty? Cam (Chat) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Woody (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to become a coordinator for the MLV task force. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed YellowMonkey from the table because of his resignation. We have a few slots to fill because of that. Also, I see that Kirill has pulled out of a few as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've shunted a few around, moving from "Interested" to an actual slot where gaps exist. There remain a few slots to be filled and a handful are seriously oversubscribed. For these, it's probably best to regard "Interested" as a waiting list unless agreement can be reached with the incumbents :) Can I suggest that Tom and MBK work it out among themselves for the 2nd Aussie slot? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom is welcome to have the Aussie slot if he wants it. I also believe that Cam and myself have worked out an understanding for maritime and the world wars (I've already taken myself off WWI). -MBK₀₀₄ 03:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that's still only waiting list places. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We still have many gaps, the ideal being two coordinators per task force. At the top end, I see, coordinators have signed up for a dozen or more each. It doesn't really matter if you're unfamiliar with the subject matter: the coordinator job description outlines the role as "to serve as the primary points of contact for administrative matters [in task forces]". It's neither difficult not timeconsuming. So, if you've only signed up for a handful please take more on, especially those where Kirill is the only coordinator. He has an honorary/supernumerary role in the project and it's not really appropriate that we should have to rely on him to provide basic coordinator cover. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'll take on a few. Also, Woody would it be too much trouble/hardship if I could take your slot at Maritime warfare since that is my area of expertise? -MBK₀₀₄ 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, so far the TFs that you've signed up for with the exception of ACW and South America are the stand-by positions. The real need is on the ones where there is currently only one coordinator. Also, if you really would like to be one of the two at a certain TF, ask one of the existing two there (who knows, they may let you have it like Tom has with ACW). -MBK₀₀₄ 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Bedford: could we trouble you to take the free slots in TF (2) please? That is the greatest need and the work is hardly onerous. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside of the Chinese one, the other ones I have no real knowledge of. Of the ones already taken, the American Revolution and Memorial ones would be of the most interest to me.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The role is purely administrative. You don't need any specialist knowledge for it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger has already let you have the Memorials. As for ARW, if you'll let me have Southeast-Asian, we've got a swap. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is so done.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I'll also put myself as stand-by on ARW since Tom occasionally does have a wikibreak and I am semi-knowledgeable. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirill: Do you want to release your French slot to MBK and your Napoleonic one to Cam? They're both on standby and, if it'll help, it'll ease your regular commitments ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Kirill ^(prof) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pending any last minute second thoughts, this looks good to go. Does anyone fancy a bit of intense gnoming? If so (1) the task forces by coordinator list needs updating (I've added the names but not touched the TFs); as does (2) the banners on all the task force pages. Best is probably to list the two coordinators only, and leave off the standbys. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks to everyone for what has been a model of civilised cooperation. Everyone seems to have ended up with most of what they wanted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I'll take care of it. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good man! (In that case, I can wander off and make sure my TFs are on my watch list.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And it has been completed. Although I still haven't heard from Woody about maritime warfare, but that can be changed later if need be. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Adoption table

Task force adoption

Task force adopted	Current TFC (1)	Current TFC (2)	Interested
Fortifications	Woody	TomStar81	Bedford
Intelligence	Nick Dowling	TomStar81
Maritime warfare	Woody	TomStar81	MBK004
Military aviation	Eurocopter	Cam	MBK004 • Bedford
Military biography	Woody	Roger Davies
Military historiography	Nick Dowling	Woody
Military land vehicles	TomStar81	Jon Catalán
Military memorials and cemeteries	Woody	Bedford
Military science	Nick Dowling	MBK004
Military technology and engineering	JonCatalán	MBK004
National militaries	Nick Dowling	Woody	MBK004
War films	Woody	Roger Davies
Weaponry	Eurocopter	Woody
African military history	Woody	Cam
Australian military history	Nick Dowling	TomStar81	MBK004
Balkan military history	Kirill	MBK004
Baltic states military history	MBK004	Cam
British military history	Eurocopter	TomStar81	MBK004
Canadian military history	TomStar81	Cam
Chinese military history	Roger Davies	Bedford
Dutch military history	Woody	MBK004
French military history	Eurocopter	MBK004
German military history	TomStar81	Cam
Indian military history	Roger Davies	MBK004
Italian military history	Kirill	Eurocopter
Japanese military history	Nick Dowling	TomStar81
Korean military history	TomStar81	MBK004
Middle Eastern military history	Roger Davies	Eurocopter	Cam
New Zealand military history	Nick Dowling	MBK004
Nordic military history	Woody	MBK004
Ottoman military history	Roger Davies	Cam
Polish military history	Eurocopter	Bedford
Romanian military history	Eurocopter	Roger Davies
Russian and Soviet military history	TomStar81	Eurocopter	MBK004
South American military history	Jon Catalán	Bedford
Southeast Asian military history	Roger Davies	MBK004
Spanish military history	Kirill	Jon Catalán
Taiwanese military history	TomStar81	Bedford
United States military history	TomStar81	MBK004	Bedford
Classical warfare	Roger Davies	JonCatalán
Medieval warfare	Kirill	Woody
Early Muslim military history	Roger Davies	Bedford
Crusades	Roger Davies	JonCatalán
Early Modern warfare	Kirill	Nick Dowling
American Revolutionary War	TomStar81	Bedford	MBK004
Napoleonic era	Eurocopter	Cam
American Civil War	Roger Davies	Bedford
World War I	Woody:	Eurocopter	Cam
World War II	TomStar81	Nick Dowling	MBK004

Stepping aside

For a variety of reasons, which I've outlined on Roger's page, I've decided to step aside. Thanks for the past six months. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 09:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied more fully on your talk page but I do appreciate what you've done for the project and am sad to see you going. I wish there were a better way of selecting coordinators than the rather brutal business of beauty contests. Thanks again for your input, especially your advice, in the past, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's for the best for everyone. I think it'll freshen me up. I'm not too worried/hurt about a voter backlash, this is as brutal as a pillow. I've received much worse, including some double-dealing, fall-guy traps, faking emails to get people in trouble etc by political users who were all schmoozing it up when they wanted me to dispose their enemies etc...One guy even called me a corrupt crook and then he came schmoozing asking me to do an illegal block for him. Nothing like that happened here of course. The coords all have 5+ A/FAs etc and none of them are running about trying to start a personality cult and disciple-gathering while never doing any work unlike some "seniors" in some other WikiProjects. It's just a lifestyle change. I was in two minds about walking away and getting more article work of course due to increasing time pressures, and I think this was the right thing to do. The only thing I can't do now is close a few A-class reviews, which only cost a few minutes a week anyway. I don't tally the contest votes because I'm competing obviously. I'm not sure how many people would be put off writing A/FA class articles if they consider it to be an endorsement of a coordinator to be a "fingerwagging headmaster" (MOS) but its good to stay on the safe side. They might think "If that's how MILHIST is run I don't want to be a part of it". If I want to change something I can do my own thing, but I think staying away and not feeling pressured about helping to spruce up the FACs and FARCs will rejuvenate me. Which involves fixing up MOS and then harping to people about getting into good habits about MOS and why it's important for FAs... and why it's important because MILHIST likes to keep its quality tradition up. I'll continue to do these MOS things without proselytising about it of course, which I'm probably less inclined to do without. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that it is a beauty contest, after all, everyone who got elected has written lots of A/FAs and nobody did publicity stunts, which unfortunately is the staple diet of getting political job promotions in other parts of Wikipedia which is a credit to this wikiproject. The members of this WikiProject are good at working out who is useful and who is freeloading. I can think of a lot of serious article writers, predominantly oldtimers, who have criticised Sandy and the modern FA system, and said that they would boycott it. I don't mind whatever the system is, but I don't want MILHIST people to boycott MHR-A/FA. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator vacancy

With YellowMonkey's resignation, we are now one coordinator short. The next candidate is Bedford, with nine votes, to whom – unless anyone objects – I propose offering the role. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, 31 votes between them means quite much. I suggest we reconsider this and make a decision after we discuss the issue all eight of us. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see an alternative. If he was the runner-up, then I would say that he would be the fair next choice. There was a 20 vote difference between Roger Davies and myself, if that counts for anything. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We already enigineered an alternative: Kirill was elected the coordinator Emeritus; therefore Kirill+Corridintors+LC=9. Of course, math was never my strong point, so I bend with consensus. We need to discuss this with the community; I think asking the members if they would allow coordinators to exercise executive power with regard to filling vacancies would help solve the problem by allowing us to act independently of the coordinator elections. In this manner would could issue a comission for a coordinator that expires after the next election.

As for Bedford: If its decided that we really need another coordinator then I would be happy to have bedford in becuase bedford is good with T&A related matters, I am understandably concerned though given the 31 vote difference.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 October 2008

Exactly, Kirill can step in to fulfill the full role until the next cycle of elections. I have concerns about taking the next runner-up when there is such a gap in the vote count. Let me qualify this: In the February 2008 elections I had 22 votes (the runner-up), while Woody had 31. This is about the amount I'd be comfortable with for an executive decision to promote a fill-in replacement. The situation was much more clearer back in August 2007 when Woody had 14 (and wasn't selected) while Roger had 15 (and was). In this situation, Beford has 9 votes, while Catalan has 30. That gap is just too great for me to be comfortable with it (and from the vote count it would seem that at least a good number of our members who voted would as well). -MBK₀₀₄ 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If Kirill's role is the same as any other coordinator, then I agree that perhaps he should just fill the ninth spot. OTOH, if his role was not supposed to be the same (he was looking at spending less time than a normal coordinator with the project) then I think we would need another ninth coordinator. I should note that had I not ran for coordinator, then Bedford would have been the ninth coordinator, regardless of the amount of votes he received (assuming everyone else who ran was the same). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I have no problems with filling in to a certain extent—the number of coordinators is somewhat arbitrary anyways, so there isn't necessarily nine full positions that need to be filled—but I was not intending to be a full-time coordinator (and, given my other obligations, almost certainly won't be able to devote that level of attention to it); so going ahead and filling the empty slot may make sense regardless, especially if major initiatives that will require a lot of participation are on the table (as they currently appear to be). Kirill ^(prof) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) The vote difference is a red herring and I shouldn't have mentioned it. The election system works on a "first nine past the post" basis (unless there's a tie for the ninth place) and if a gap is created in the nine everyone below it moves up a step. The only difference here is that an editor dropped out just after, rather than just before, the election ending. Bedford has worked extremely hard for the project in the past and has a proven track record for getting on with the job. The consensus seems to be in favour of offering him the job. Can everyone live with this? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me - Bedford was the 10th placed candidate. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Let it be known that I am reluctant to elect Bedford. I don't see him as having the backing of our members given the turnout in the election and the number of votes for Bedford, especially given his recent issues. That said, I don't see any other option, we could leave it blank but then we would be a coord down with a hole in the taskforce coords. So, I see no other option but to do ask Bedford. Woody (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken entirely but if YM has dropped out 24 hours earlier, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the event that Bedford declines, I do not propose going further down the list. The rules, such as they are, say only that the "number of Coordinators may be increased if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position". An alternative would be to ask past coordinators (perhaps Wandalstouring and Kyriakos) to help out when we're hard-pressed. They have both said they will do this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Woody on the backing of Bedford by our members. I would much prefer and support the co-opting of either Wandalstouring or Kyriakos to fill-in instead. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a short re-election period, for one position? It's not orthodox, but I don't think it would be terribly horrible to set up. If we're talking about the support of our members and what not, then this would be the only real democratic method of doing it—asking old coordinators to take the position is more "undemocratic" than giving the position to Bedford—a position that would have been his had YM dropped out a day earlier, or had only 8 of us ran instead of 9. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That had occurred to me but what do we say? That we wish to hold with a second election because we don't like the way the rules applied to the first and that effectively we wish to veto a candidate? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true, and the rules of the vote were rather clear—the top nine candidates (regardless of the numbers of votes). But, with the majority of the coordinators preferring to have someone who has more backing perhaps we need to reach a compromise. Another problem with a new election, that I see, is that most of the current coordinators will throw their support behind one of the candidates, thereby making the election rather pointless (Bedford would probably receive the greatest amount of votes again, except if someone new runs). JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with a second election is that unless it is given similar prominence to the first (pan-project banners, bot notifications etc) we may well find ourselves fielding a host of complaints after the event from people saying that they would have voted if they'd known about it and contesting the result. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's getting that convoluted, we may be better off just operating with a vacancy; having a second round of elections would be rather damaging to the credibility of the coordinators as a body, in my opinion.

(It's worth pointing out, incidentally, that there's precedent for unilaterally co-opting a former coordinator without going through any sort of election. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 01:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have received the following message

I'm aware of YellowMonkey resigning. I will accept, well aware of the vote gap that makes me have to prove myself far more than others would have to.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

which I believe bodes well. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion unfold. True, my vote total was disappointing, but I think I have proven myself with this project in the past. I'm ready to begin. Also, I wish YellowMonkey all the best and hope things improve to where he can once again serve as a coordinator for this project, as he has done an admirable job in the past and present, and I'm sure he will in the future.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll be aware then of the misgivings that some coordinators have.What would you offer them by way of reassurance? Would you, for example, be prepared to step down if such a request were made here for you to so and that request was endorsed by a majority of coordinators? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If a majority asked me to step aside, I would step down. As for reassurance, during my time as admin I never abused my position to bully others or insist on my way in rebuke of consensus.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can proceed, then, with the understanding that Bedford is prepared to step down should worst come to worst. I don't think it's really that big of a deal, regardless; we've had huge gaps in the votes before, and they haven't really correlated with anything in particular. (In all honesty, getting a high vote total doesn't necessarily mean one will be successful as a coordinator either; consider, for example, Petercorless.) Kirill ^(prof) 02:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I am in the minority with regards to my view on this issue, and I accept that. But I do have a concern with how Bedford explains his adminship on his userpage. As a coordinator of this project, Bedford would be someone that new editors look up to (even more than they do now), but that statement does not (IMHO) put our best foot forward with regards to how our coordinators are presented to the rest of the community. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's our role to decide what editors have on their user pages but it might be in everyone's interests, including Bedford's, to move on and perhaps leave what happened in the past behind.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can proceed too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, you may also want to relinquish your TF spot at ACW for Bedford since that is (I think?) his area of interest. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to put the same question to Tom :) I've just bought a heap of ACW books. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I already have a library of such books. ;) --Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I retain reservations about Bedford's promotion to Cooridnator as well, but in the spirit of Assume Good Faith I am willing to accept his accesion to cooridinator for the project. This doesn't mean that I have to like the idea, but policy demands that we assume good faith until our contributers demonstrate a clear reason for us not to. In addition, if Bedford can show the community he can be trusted with Coordinatorship privilages, it may help him win back adminship privilages. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that, Tom. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I'll ever get them back; I'd be happy just to get rollback back, something I ahd long before I was an admin.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Prioritising main issues

The following seem to be the main issues affecting the project. It might be help if we prioritise them, and decide what form they should take? Easiest is probably to add comments under each section: we can add headings if it gets unwieldy.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

W0.7 review (urgent)

While the review is completed, we have a way to go with the articles themselves and little time to do it in. I proposed a route forward above (see [#Replacements] for full rationale) but the outcome was inclusive. The problem is we have about 400 candidates for replacements. The basic idea is:

1. Consolidate the worklists into 100-article checklists
2. Give the list a second pass, reducing the number of replacements to a minimum (using a "can we live with this?" criterion).
3. Classify them by four criteria: "KEEP", "USE LINK", "IMPROVE (reason)", "REPLACE/DELETE".
4. No further action on "KEEP"
5. Post links to W0.7 page for the "USE LINK" articles
6. Post messages on article talk pages requesting improvement. (This is likely to have limited success.)
7. Find replacements for "REPLACE/DELETE". If unsuccessful, recommend deletion.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised there has been no response at all to this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like aplan. I refrained from commenting not so much because I had no comment, but becuase my schoolwork isn't allowing musch time to help out with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Same with me. I couldn't even help out with the drive because of Hurricane Ike and four exams that I just finished yesterday. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. So who do we get to do it? Or should we leave it to peter out? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to adress this. Do we have time frame for phase two? I could help over the weekend, although it wouldn't nessicarily be all that much every little bit helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good man, Star! We've got to get the whole thing done and dusted by Oct 20. Setting up the checklists isn't too bad (I can do that). Working through them per the above will take an hour or so each, I guess. The ideal is each coordinator taking one or two (it gives a great understanding of the state of the union). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I'm no longer in office, but I can help except next week(Mo-Fr) when I'm out there collecting pollen. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gratefully accepted, WT. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any other volunteers to get the checklists done. I've done one and Bedford has started another. And it's getting urgent. All help gratefully received, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, no can do. I've got enough on my plate between Operation Tractable's FAC & enough physics work to make anyone cry (why oh why did I put "works well under pressure" in on my freaking program plan?) - Cam (Chat) 06:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You have my sympathies :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

W1.0

We might like to start thinking about sharpening for the W1.0 release, which is scheduled for next year. It is likely, for instance, that the current articles selected for W0.7 will be selected. One possibility is setting up a specific task force to manage and coordinate the large number of articles involved. Wandalstouring has suggested a way forward:

Improving the popular core tagged by 1.0 should be the next task to face with a large drive. There are usually plenty of sources listed on the articles, it only needs footnotes. We can handle that although it's the biggest task we yet faced. The problems are that tagging on the talk pages is useless and long lists deter volunteers. I suggest therefore to combine several methods and make small lists.

• First we split things up according to topics. We can do that with a level of time and below one of geography/political units for battles, wars and personnel.
• What is tagged by the general topics task forces can be structured according to time and on a sublevel further specifications(haubitzer, rifle, etc.).

If topics overlap we need to draw a line what goes into which way of categorization. I can't yet cover all cases.

Afterwards we split these up into small worklists of 5-10 articles(not every worklist has equal length). An editor can sign up for these worklists and we can try to recruit taskforce members (and contacts while we're at it) who already have an interest into the topic. Their task is to footnote these articles using at least the listed bibliography on the topic. They are free to improve the articles, but only B-class is required because that's the level we can live with. Anything below that is a pain in the ass.Wandalstouring (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be in our best interest to hold a "release version drive" wherein all articles having tags for 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 are checked against all criteria, and when needed worked to to gain and maintain a B-class rating. If we were to set up a system whereby our articles within 1.0's scope are those that revieve the most attention in the monthes leading up to the release we can positions ourselves to be ahead of the pack when the 1.0 team picks its article by ensuring all our articles genuinly represent the best wikipedia has to offer. In this resepct we have a platnum oppurtunity: if our articles are all B-class or higher when 1.0 selects them we can further the image of our project being wikipedia's flagship project by extended the reputation of Milhist to offline frontiers. It may encourage people to look more favorably upon us and wikipedia in the long. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

1.0 tagging has already started. I don't know if they are yet finished, but think so. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that we create a drive wherein 1.0 articles within our scope are the focus of the drive and we attempt to improve such articles before they are officially selected and moved onto the CD. This would be a two parter, I think: ensuring B and above ranking articles maintain or improve there assessment positions, and bring the stub/start articles selected up to B-class prior to the 1.0 take version X for the release verion. It may also be in our interest to carry this mentality over the the contest department and award extra points for people working on an article slected for offline release with version 1.0. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Task forces

Various matters here:

1. Can two coordinators handle busy TFs. (TBH, in my view, yes.)
2. Should we consolidate existing dormant task forces? (This is one way of tackling "orphan countries", like Ireland, that fit into no specialist TF.)
3. What can we do to invigorate the TFs?
4. Do TFs need the support of Contacts as well?
5. Could/should contacts improve our TF support?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe two coordinators can run task forces—tbh, our task forces are not necessarily that active (even the larger ones). There is only a small core of active members which partake in article writing and review. I think the best method of creating activity in the task force is to award people for their good work. For example, after I made the "tank badge" discussion immediately picked up in the task force, because it offers motivation for people to work. Perhaps a more general award should be introduced for people who have worked well for their task force, and it would be awarded through a vote open to that task force's membership and the coordinators? In this fashion, I believe, we will highlight the members who are truly interested in investing time and energy into WP MILHIST and the task force they belong to—and we will provoke motivation. In regards to contacts, I think that they should be maintained separate from TFCs because not all TFCs are knowledgeable in the TF they run—or their might be a non-coordinator member who is just as knowledgeable. But, we should specify contacts for each active task force, as opposed to the wikiproject as a whole. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I, too, think the key is motivating/bringing on new editors. This is easiest at TF level because most people focus on one or two aspects of Milhist rather the subject in large. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would like to propose something radical: a complete reorganization of the way we introduce, run, and maintain or task forces. I figure now is as good a time as any to bring this up. This reorganization would happen in three phases:

Phase 1: Georgraphical task forces. We have a lot of task forces for countries, but I think we would do better to create Eight master geogrpahical task forces: North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, Australia/Oceania, and Antartica. From here, we reorganize our geo task forces into these groups and suspend the creation of any new geographic task forces. This would allow us to mothball inactivated task forces ealing with regions on the earth while still maintaining task forces for them.

Phase 2: Establishing task forces. There will always be a need for new task forces since our project encompasses what may be the worlds largest collection of R&D related labs and such, but I think from now on we should encourage potential task forces and thier supporters to establish a work group for a trial run (something like 60-90 days) to see if the members will buy into the group and give the members of the group a chance to show that they can be effective within the project as thier own task force. If at the end of the trial period the group is still functional, has demostrated a committement to maintaining articles, and has gained community acceptance (like other members agree that the group would be a welcome addition to the project) then we can create a full blown task force for the work group, otherwise the group can disband and be reobsorbed into thier parent task force. This owuld spare us the work of having to update the template and create the task force pages and such by allowing us a chance to see whether the potential task force will grow or be doa.

Phase 3. Introduce the concept of work groups. I see a need for something to exist between individual editers and the task forces. A few people will always share a common goal or thrust and it would be good for us to promote this across the project. I therefore think we should embrace the idea of work groups, informal gatherings of editers who share a common interest or goal, and advertise such groups as subsets of task forces. By doing this we can further invigorate the task forces by allowing them a chance to demostrate to potential new members that they can handle more spcialized intersts (like collecting editers who share a common love of tanks, or sniper rifles or such) and as such our task forces can be used as a way of promoting our project to the rest of the wikipedia. In this manner, we could further extend OpRTF by enouraging editer participation in the task forces.

These are of course only ideas, but I am intersted in here what others think. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my intrusion. I would suppose TomStar81's proposal. Rationalisation is long overdue, and 'master' TFs for each region are a good idea. My only worries would be the massive back-end task involved (re-task-forcing 60,000 articles, anyone?) and other systems admin worries which Kirill would be much better to talk to. Regards to all. Buckshot06(prof) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with TomStar81's proposal is that generalizing task forces may cause a drop in interest. For example, the military land vehicle task force can easily be rolled into the weaponry task force, but it's far easier to organize the MLVTF by itself and cause a drive in improvement over relevant articles—something which wouldn't have happened had the task force not been created. A European task force, for example, would encompass tens of thousands of articles and it would make it much more difficult for an innovative editor to take the lead and organize the task force's membership in such a way that activity and progress in article improvement would spike. I think that the creation of a motivational factor is much more important, at this stage, than reorganizing the task forces—a reorganization which would not necessarily increase activity (just the illusion of activity). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I brought up the work groups. I am not proposing that we discontinue the use of our current geographical task forces, I am proposing that we freeze the creation of additional geogrpahical task forces. As to you comment about rolling task forces into each other: thats why i suggested work groups. To use your own example: If we had begun the land vehicals task force as a work group and you guys showed there was protential in creating a MLVTF then we can green light the creation of such a task force, but if it failed then we could simply maintain it with the weaponry task force without the need to mark a bunch of pages as historical. The idea is have potential TFs demonstrate that they are not just a "spur of the moment" thing but can in fact wehter the test of time. This system would also allow for the creation of additional geogrpahical task forces if interest is shown via a workgroup first. For example: if someone proposed creating a Irish military history task force then they would be asked to create a work group on the master European task force page and un the work group effectively for 90 days (ballpark figure). If at the end of that time period the work group demonstrates to the community that it can stand independently then it can be established as its own independent task force, with the parent being a EurTF. If the work group fails to demonstrate that it can stand on its own then it can be reobserbed by the EurTF since the TF pages were never created. Remember, these TFs are formed by consensus, and consensus can change, so this allows for the possibility of the creation of a Irish task force at a latter date. In addition, if the TF idea for Irish MHTF fails to materialize they members can opt to maintain the workgroup as a subdepartment of the European TF. I think it would be a net gain for the project as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Phase I proposal suggests that current geographical task forces be reorganized into greater geographical task forces, based on continents. That's what I was commenting against. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? (Not asking to be bother, just to get a better idea of where you and others may stand. :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If the "greater task force" (let's say "European Military History") exists simultaneously with the "sub task forces" (let's say "Spanish Military History"), then I believe that the European Military History Task Force is redundant and is just adding extra bureaucracy. I think that inactive task force pages can be archived, to avoid having to recreate them in the future, and the task force canceled—but, I don't see the point of then rolling them into a "greater task force", because that task force will be just as inactive as the task force it just consumed. All activity will be in the "sub task forces", where the activity was originally, because it allows users to focus. There's no guarantee, in other words, that active users in the "Spanish Military History Task Force" will be just as active in the "European Military History Task Force"—just the illusion that they are, since the task forces overlap in domain. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally there wouldn't be any sub task forces, just a failsafe task force that could be looked upon to provide an alternative to a task force that is, or will be, mothballed. I concede a point with regard to beuracracy, but in my minds eye I do not see a master TF (European TF) competing with a more specific TF (Spanish TF), the idea would be to have all nations represented under at least one TF and those with the backbone and legs required to stand and walk on thier own would be granted the chance to do so as independent task forces. Thanks for commenting, BTW, its always nice to get other people's opinions on such matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One issue that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the role of task forces—even inactive ones—in maintaining project cohesion. One of the main reasons why so many task forces were created (particularly national ones) was to prevent the editors interested in those topics from forming separatist WikiProjects which, even if not particularly active, would be quite detrimental to both our attempts to standardize at the article level and to our general functioning as a single project (compare WP:USRD with their seceding task forces and such). I'm not sure, to be quite honest, whether this remains an issue of substantial concern; but I think that we do need to step carefully to avoid creating such a cluster of subsidiary projects, which will be much more difficult to absorb in the future if they come into being due to confrontational circumstances.

Aside from that, I can see the benefits of continent-level task forces as organizational tools, but not so much as editor groups; if there aren't enough editors working on country X to sustain a task force, then merely clustering those editors into a larger group won't really change that. Editors working on Ireland and editors working on Hungary won't suddenly start collaborating on some common topic merely because we lump them into a single task force, since the topics don't really intersect regardless. Kirill ^(prof) 21:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cant argue with that. I guess what it comes down to is having the ability to demonstrate that we have all countries covered to some greater or lesser extent, and I think the best way to do that is via the establishment of continental task forces. I do relize the role that the current task forces have in ensuring that the existing TFs do not split into indepedent projects, this sort of system already exits with regards to religion, and the difference is telling: by having all religious topics funtion as an independent project they seem to spend more time bickering with each other than actually working on the encyclopedia, where as our TFs answer to the project, and as a result usually cooperate with each other than than comepete with each other. At any rate, this idea needs more input; it sounds like there is some interest in it, but more input is needed as ro how much interest actually exists and to what extent if any this should be implemented. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the task forces, especially those I adopted, I have two questions:

1. Do we really need a Taiwan TF? It only has one semi-active member, and only 91 articles. We should probably put it back into Southeast Asia
2. Almost all the globe is covered, except Central America and the Caribbean. Should we turn South American TF into a larger Latin America TF, or should we create a separate Central America/Caribbean TF, using CAC as its TF shorthand for the WP banner?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Perhaps, after the participant lists have been cleaned up, we could do a table of task forces, showing numbers of active members and last non-template posting (as a crude yardstick of activity). This may well help us form a view as what to do next (if anything). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagging & Assessing

Various options here:

1. Should we hold any drives until some of the more fuindemental quality issues are addressed?
2. What should be the focus of our next drive? When should it be?
3. Should we aim at finding B-Class articles, hidden in Start but as yet unassessed by class? (15,000 articles?)
4. Should we re-check B-Class? (3,000-ish articles)
5. Should we aim to tag all outstanding articles that have no TF (6,000 articles).

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What was the rate of success of the last drive? I think we should recheck our B-class articles, because a lot of them are not B-class articles. I also think that there is a misconception (telling from the WP MILHIST writing contest) that B-class articles are close in quality to GA-class articles, when I don't think this is true. We are promoting articles with one or two citations to B-class, because we believe this covers the requirement for references. Either these articles should go back to Start class or there should be an important distinction between B-class and GA-class. In any case, I for one would support a new tag and assess drive. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The response rate to drives has been progressively falling off. The first one, perhaps because of its novelty, attracted many very experienced editors. The later ones markedly less experienced, typically looking to find out how the project worked and wanting to get stuck in. There's a real risk of getting important work done by people who aren't experienced enough for it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not run them all at the same time? When we have our next T&A drive, why not mutlitask it to include a BCAD, stub drive, fair use image check drive, etc? We could potential bring in dozens of people who may not otherwise show any interst in it if we try to do it all at once. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My take is that experienced editors aren't participating because they've been there, done that. The problem with multi-function drives is the huge potential for confusion, especially with inexperienced editors. Other than that, I have no real desire to spend my entire life here setting up and running drives (which are a massive time sink) and would like to see considerably more input from other coordinators on any future ones. Perhaps, as a rule of thumb, coordinators proposing ideas should be the ones to implement them? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps run a big drive once every 9-12 monthes then? It may be good for diversity. Also, I am concerned that if you implement a policy wherein a coordinator suggesting a policy has to implement it I may stop suggesting ideas since my techno savvy is only in the mid range :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[Chuckle] I said "rule of thumb" not "policy" :) Manpower is a serious issue though. Let's run through it. We have eight coordinators. Woody is busy in RL; Nick is on holiday until end October; you, MBK and Cam have heavy study commitments. That leaves Eurocopter, JonCatalan and me (and I've no idea how the other two are placed). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR/FARC

1. Should we set aside resources specifically to rescue articles?
2. Is this good use of editor time?
3. Are there other priorities?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the questions too well. If the editor is interested then he or she should definitely rescue the article. I don't understand the difference between someone working on an article and taking it through FAC, and rescuing an article going through FAR. Perhaps we should motivate these editors with some type of award, since they are not awarded credit for helping the article get to FA unless they specifically as for it (something not every editor is willing to do). And, the upkeep of the quality of our WP's articles is of utmost priority, IMO. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a needed part of the project, but for more input here I think we may need to bring in FAR(C) trolls to get a better idea of where we are weak. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We are weak in reviewing, in general. We have four (I believe) FARs opened, and yet none have really received any dedicated responses from major project members. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think FARs tend to be a waste of effort unless the article's primary maintainers (if any) are involved. We're not going to be able to bring a random article up to FA level without input from someone specializing in the topic; and, since the range we cover is so large, the odds of finding someone like that who's not already involved with the article are quite small. Kirill ^(prof) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but we can get the commentary to delist it, which is just as important. Without the star, it will give future editors motivation to get it back to FA standards. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Kirill on this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure my point is not missed; my belief is that by partaking in the review by voting to delist the article we will in turn motivate an editor (or several editors) to take it back to FA at a later date. Right now there may be no motivation, because like it or not humans are greedy. The fact that it's currently FA means that someone who rewrites it while it's FA gets little to no credit (is not added to the FA nominations list), while if it's delisted then that editor will get the credit. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've clarified that because you make a very good point, which I completely accept. To clarify my position, I think that backs-to-the-wall rescue attempts, by hitherto uninvolved editors, are a very poor return on time invested. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ACR quality

For whatever reason, our ACR is out of sync with FAC. The major problems include MoS issues and sources. The ACR process could be tweaked to up standards. Options include:

1. Increase the reviewer minimum for a pass from three to four.
2. Introduce a five-point checklist (based on the criteria) which each reviewer must certify.
3. The closing coordinator is required to discount any one-line "supports". Reviewers would be expected to suggest improvement for every article they review. I have yet to see an ACR (or FAC, for that matter) candidate that really does "meet all the criteria".

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to include the table with three links that is included in all the FACs, in our ACRs? That would help us fix early issues of dead links, disambiguation pages and whatnot. A point system may be more direct and easier for a general reviewer to comment, and it may "force" some reviewers to make a more in depth review of the article in question. OTOH, some reviewers just don't have much to say—not all reviewers, for example, are good when dealing with prose. Manual of Style is important, but I don't think we should focus on that. The power of the MILHIST A-class review is that the article is being reviewed by "historians", and so we can check the factual accuracy of an article, while on FAC this isn't true. I think we should focus on the accuracy of the information in our articles before they go to FAC, which is a more difficult process, but focuses on entirely different parameters. We can also comment on Manual of Style, but these are generally easy changes and I don't think we should prioritize MoS over factual accuracy. Besides, if we force reviewers to make in depth reviews when they originally couldn't, then we are supporting "bsing"—just to make the review—and we will slow down the process considerably. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's easy enough. I was thinking along the same lines, adding the criteria/FAQ. I take your point entirely about accuracy but it's not that easy finding genuine experts. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Catalan on most of this. MoS issues, unlike glaring difficulties in prose, are relatively easy to fix. replacing a hyphen with an endash doesn't take a lot of brain power and writing ability. Prose and sources, on the other hand, do. Our ACRs, therefore, should focus more on those two aspects. Lately, we have several editors who have become more involved in commenting on MoS issues, while glaring issues in prose and verifiability continue to stand out. We're wasting editor resources on MoS. Cam (Chat) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should indeed change some things in the A-class review process, but I'd not quite agree with Roger's proposals. Considering the low level of activity within the current process, it would probably take a very long time to gather five supports, while a five-point checklist will increase bureaucracy. Regarding Roger's last point, i've seen many successful A-class reviews after which articles were ready and put under FAC immediately, so I see no reason to adopt it. The major problem of our current A-class review process would be inactivity and lack of constant reviewers (we have one month-old A reviews with a total of four comments - that makes a comment per week). So my proposals to solve this issues are:

1. Set up a new 10-day deadline for A-class review (with an option to extend it for maximum 4 days) - thus add back the "Attention needed" note to project's template.
2. Create a rotating system in which three coordinators would be assigned every month, their task would be to participate in that respective month's every A-class review. We should assign reviewer-coordinators for a certain month two months in advance, in order to be clear for everybody when is going to be his turn (this would allow eventual changes in the schedule, if problems caused by holidays/wikibreaks/etc appear). I'm pretty sure that if adopted, this system would solve the major problem of the current A-review process, inactivity.
3. Also, a closing coordinator should be assigned each month, responsible with archiving every review at the proper time.

Here's an example of how an A-class review process schedule could look like:

Reviewer coordinators	Period	Closing coordinator
Catalan Eurocopter TomStar81	1 October 2008 - 1 November 2008	Roger Davies
Nick Dowling Cam Woody	2 November 2008 - 1 December 2008	Kirill Lokshin
MBK004 ninth coord. Roger Davies	2 December 2008 - 1 January 2009	Eurocopter

--Eurocopter (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I think that this, in general, is a good idea, I don't agree that we should maximize the amount of days an A-class review can be open. By doing so we are limiting the amount of commentary. The fact of the matter is that not everyone may have time to review within those ten to fourteen days. Time span between comments will be a reality and it's something that the "author" should be ready to experience when he or she takes the article through a FAC. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Must it be a coordinator who is reviewing for a month? We could try to recruit other capable editors and thus reduce the workload per editor. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We should inspire editors to review by offering them motivation in the form of awards—the reviewers award is good, but perhaps we should begin to also give out the WikiChevrons to offer a break in the monotony of the type of awards given out; otherwise, the motivational factor of the award will decrease over time. Perhaps that A-class award should also be extended to those that make particularly good reviews? JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo Waldalstouring's question. There are some quite capable non-coordinators who could fulfill this role as well. Also, if we are going to use the table that Eurocopter has proposed, we should also take note of when they are available when making the assignments (myself for instance couldn't take on the role during the proposed slot I'm in now due to final exams at university). -MBK₀₀₄ 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That type of "hard" schedule will always result in someone having something unexpected come up, messing with the schedule—and we have effectively cut off motivation and necessity for non-coordinators or non-listed reviewers to partake in the review process. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I try to participate in as many A-class reviews and peer-reviews as possible, but I generally avoid commenting on articles on topics I don't know anything about as this seems unfair to the editor who's nominated the article. As such, while having dedicated reviewers is a good idea in theory, in practice it may discourage editors. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to get the FAC external link checker into an ACR page? it would help with source verification. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We can apply the template to our ACRs, although I'm not sure how to do this automatically. The template is at Wikipedia:Featured article tools. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult to set up the A-Class review page such that it pre-loads template content when it's first created; but I'm not sure of any good way to prevent people from inadvertently deleting it when they fill out the nominations. It could still be better than nothing, though. Kirill ^(prof) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

MBK004, the table above is just an example, nothing definite. The reason that I propose only coordinators within this schedule is responsability (I really think that if we establish a convenient schedule for each of us, we would fulfil this task accordingly). We can proceed in a similar way with the task force coordinating, each coordinator would add his name to the convenient period for him. Any support in order to move forward with it (points two and three)? --Eurocopter (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Personally, I'm all for point #2, but I think that #3 isn't needed. Any coordinator who hasn't commented on a review ought to be able to close it. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with MBK004 in that it shouldn't be limited to coordinators. Many of us, with our own article writing, logistics, assessment, and general project management, have enough on our wikiplates as it is. The project shouldn't have to rely on us to run article review, article assessment, and article logistics all on our own. At the end of the day, we can't be the only ones. As an example, if I'm the only one commenting on an ACR, I guarantee there will be some numerous and glaring MoS issues remaining (particularly with those bloody dashes;) when the review is complete. Cam (Chat) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind, I'm wondering if we could link article logistics and A-Class review together somehow? We don't have to search high and low to find copyeditors..they're all listed at logistics. We shouldn't have to search high and low to verify content..we have ready access to significant resources listed at logistics. Perhaps we need to have slightly more collaboration between departments in order to solve this problem. Cam (Chat) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Applying this system would not mean that non-coordinator reviewers won't participate in the A-class reviews anymore. This will only guarantee to us that we have three inputs within every A-class review (even within the ones with mininum interest and activity), in order to conclude it in a reasonable time. I really think this can't damage to the process and if nobody opposes it, we should apply it as soon as possible, considering also that we have several 2-week+ old A-class reviews with insufficient inputs. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That time scale is something they should get used to as they approach FAC. A true solution would be motivating all editors to review by distributing different awards. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, the experience I have with this process tells me that such measures won't work, and we need to establish somebody which would have guaranteed inputs and make sure that all proceedings run accordingly. However, i'm not going to insist anymore on this as I notice the lack of interest in my proposal. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The ACR process works, it's just that it's a long process because reviewers come over time. Before trying to solve the "problem", we need to look at why these problems exist in the first place. These include because there is a lack of motivation and interest in reviewing (which offering a prize would then instill the motivation required), and because the ACR is not very well advertised (adding open ACRs in the monthly bulletin would probably help). By forcing coordinators to partake in the review, to "guarantee" comments, isn't going to help. Furthermore, it will perpetuate the likelyness of that coordinator voting in support just to get the review over with. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, our problem is inactivity, caused by lack of interest in the process and i'm pretty sure this won't be solved by giving a couple of barnstars. That's the reason I proposed an organized system, in which assigned persons would have certain responsabilities in the process (similar to FAC and FAR). --Eurocopter (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The FAC does not have assigned editors reviewing articles. There are editors who have taken it upon themselves, and volunteered, to check certain things. These editors are not an "important" part in supporting the article, either. They normally check links, sources and MoS, while other (more random) editors normally throw in supports. I am not proposing a "couple" of barnstars, but issuing a large number of barnstars, continuously. Even making new barnstars to break the monotony in old barnstars. This will give the idea that this person is becoming an important part of the process, and this is an important feeling for any editor (and why most editors continue to work with Wikipedia). JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC and FAR have assigned persons which manage them properly. They do not need assigned reviewers because they are not confronting with inactivity problems. Everything we do here on wikipedia is voluntary, and once we candidate for a coordinator position, it means we agree with the open tasks mentioned at the top of this page. So if this schedule would become a coordinator task, then we should voluntary add our names into it and fulfil the task. Also, I did not propose this just to gather three supports, I proposed it in order to get three proper inputs from persons which, by the way, are certainly familiar with the process and A-criteria. You can play with your barnstars as long as you want, but that still won't guarantee that we have sufficient input in every review. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC and FAR do not have assigned reviewers, which is what we're talking about right now—talking about anything else would just be a red herring. We do have assigned personnel to close reviews, like the FAC process—they are called coordinators. The problem by choosing three coordinators to review an article is that these coordinators will feel pressured to review it, even if they don't want to—thereby, you are setting up a perfect situation for bad reviews. Motivating reviewers to make good reviews is by far a better option than putting pressure on people who "volunteered" to review every single ACR for that month, and almost closing off the potential for other reviewers to make reviews as well (since, theoretically, we now have "dedicated" reviewers). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are just insisting on this idea, that if we have 3 assigned reviewer coordinators it means other editors cannot participate anymore in the process. That is completely false, as those inputs besides assigned coordinators would not influence at all the other editors. I see no reason why a coordinator should feel so pressured as we never have more than 10-15 reviews a month (that means a review within 2-3 days). I wish you good luck with your "motivation" strategy, I just can't wait to see your achievements. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for hostility or sarcasm. In any case, the problem is that we are pressuring the coordinators to partake in the review because they have been assigned to review for that month, according to your table. So, obviously there is pressure. I may not want to comment on every ACR, because I don't believe that I can pass good judgment. But, if there are three assigned coordinators to review per month it will send a message that there is less of a necessity for extraneous reviewers to review the article in question. That's what I'm saying, and what seems to be missed. Regardless, if any given coordinator is really interested in reviewing then he or she can do it whenever she feels like it, so that means that the table is irrelevant. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that if other coordinators agree with your proposition, I would be interested in trying it. Attempting it is better than doing nothing. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) I should mention that the current system is that coordinators who participate in a review do not close it (for COI reasons). Whether we want to stay with this or not is another matter. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What about leaving it to the coordinator's judgement? Without the time limit there is no reason for a coordinator to vote in support and then close, anymore, and so we might not have the same issue. IMO, it would shorten the time an A-class review is up, since sometimes they are up for weeks at a time, even when they have enough supports to be closed. For example, I closed one the other day that I had supported, but there were four votes of support, and so since there were three without mine I felt I could close it—I felt I could close it regardless, since I thought my vote was genuine. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we have to establish if the A-class review process is working from now on by rules or by personal "feelings". --Eurocopter (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally against this simply because I believe the more eyes the better. I also think an uninvolved coordinator is likely to come to the article with fewer preconceptions and is therefore less likely to rubberstamp it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that voting in support and then closing is suspicious, but we were voted coordinators for a reason (people trust us). I voted in support of the article I closed a couple of weeks before I closed it, not just to close it. If we have a policy against supporting just to close, and the fact that there is no more time limit, then there shouldn't be an issue. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, the point remains that some COIs can become particularly significant. I agree with Eurocopter on the idea of having assigned coordinators who close ACRs for given months. That said, I don't think that pressuring non-coordinators into commenting on reviews is a particularly dire issue. If we look at the Review statistics from the last three-month section, only one of the top three ACR reviewers (Eurocopter) was a coordinator. BorgSphere & Cla68 were the 1st and 3rd most significant contributors to the ACR process. We had three other non-coordinator reviewers with at least 4 reviews during that segment, twelve with at least two (and even that number has gone up in the last month alone), so I don't think the number of ACR reviewers is too much of an issue.Cam (Chat) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, since the closing coordinator and the "assigned reviewers" in Eurocopter's system are never the same, the three who are required to review would still be able to input significant comment (and just because I'm not on the list for October doesn't mean I won't be contributing to ACRs). On our own, the coordinators are capable of providing a significant amount of feedback, so the issue of other reviewers isn't as significant as it might seem at first glance. Cam (Chat) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking somewhat generally, I don't think assigning particular coordinators to do reviews is going to be a net benefit; in my experience, different people may have different areas (both topical and functional) in which they excel, and forcing them to work outside of those areas tends to produce worse results than allowing them to self-select into roles which they feel comfortable with. Fundamentally, I think the answer is going to involve getting a broader base of participation rather than simply obligating coordinators to fill in the gaps; obviously, the former won't be as quick or as neatly planned as the latter, but I believe it will develop into a more effective—and more sustainable—system in the long run. Kirill ^(prof) 01:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on a roster either. For instance, I tend not to review ships articles because I'm not that interested in the subject and prefer to spend my time elsewhere.

The most effective way to attract reviewers, I've found, is to personally invite them to join in. Once they've taken the plunge they soon start growing in confidence and contributing regularly. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to maintain a list of editors who have written GA or higher or know the MOS and invite them on similar topics? Wandalstouring (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I can give full testimony to Roger's approach working. An invitation to join a review got me involved with Wikipedia again after a 6-month wikibreak, so that approach definitely works. Cam (Chat) 06:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Members list

This came up before the election but the active members list is ripe for pruning. A quick look through revealed that many participants hadn't edited for three months, our usual trigger for moving to inactive. The TF lists will also need looking at as otherwise they'll be out of sync. There was a talk of finding a bot to do this as it's a tedious and thankless task done manually. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirill said he had some scripts somewhere that he has looking into dusting off for the job, has he had any luck with that yet? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've found the scripts for it, but haven't had an opportunity to set them up and run them yet. Hopefully I'll have time this weekend. Kirill ^(prof) 12:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent news! Thanks, Kirill :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, were you aiming to do the TF participants too? Or do we need to make other arrangements? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything available to do TF-based lists, since we've never updated those in the past. The TF lists aren't used to generate automatic mailings, so there hasn't really been an issue with retaining inactive users on.

It would be possible to modify the script to do something for the TFs, I suppose, but I'm not sure whether maintaining fifty separate active/inactive lists is really useful. Kirill ^(prof) 04:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree you entirely that active/inactive for the TFs is unlikely to useful. However, TFs probably do need pruning somehow so that we can a reasonable picture of membership levels and decide on their continued viability. To clarify, TFs do receive ongoing maintenance: their articles are tagged, ACRs etc are posted there, and we have coordinators. Plus, the more TFs we have, the longer it takes to tag articles as the list takes longer to search through. Over the year, if the TF has no active members, this probably adds up to a lot of pointless activity. Another way to achieve the same aim is to wipe all the TF member lists and invite, via a bot message to all active project members, re-registration. Swings and roundabouts, I guess. Your thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiping lists should be a last resort, if it's done at all; it'll almost certainly greatly annoy the members without bringing any real benefits.

For our purposes, it may be sufficient to generate new TF active/inactive lists and examine them, without actually going through and modifying the actual lists on the task force pages. We can then determine which task forces are inactive without creating a lot of extra headache with maintaining more complicated lists for the obviously active ones. Kirill ^(prof) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was very much seeing vaping the lists as the nuclear option. Surprisingly, large numbers of projects do seem to do this annually though the impact on membership is, as you imply, probably quite significant. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

I've uploaded the updated lists, incidentally. Kirill ^(prof) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed, Kirill. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All things considered we are still doing pretty good with active membership. Thanks for the updates, Kirill.

Anything else?

This is bound to be far from exhaustive. Are there any other majorish matters I've overlooked? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to establish a system to replace/remove coordinators who are inactive, resigned, on extended break, and so forth. This comes nder the larger heading of executive power, so we would need community apporval for anything, but the fact that our last two coordinator elections have left us one coordinator short has IMO demonstrated a need for such actions. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have cooption, which works well enough. I'm against any process to remove coordinators: the term is only six months and coordination is (or should be) no big deal. If someone is seriously abusing their position (closing reviews in favour of mates, for instance), we can always revert or restart. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that I'm the only coordinator to have ever been subject to a removal motion (albeit one which lasted only a few hours before being thrown out of court), and the experience convinced me that we don't need a formal process to get rid of coordinators. Given that there's not much coordinators can do wrong in their official capacity and its only a 6-month position anyway, adding a removal process would be a form of guideline creep which would probably only be used by disruptive editors. In the unlikely event that a coordinator ever goes off the rails they're probably going to end up being blocked for their behavior anyway. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify something: when I said remove, I was thinking about LordAmeth and his long wikibreak, which I felt may have justified a remove and replace. Things like exercising the right to vanish or being banned, stuff that is outside of the project that effects a user's ability to operate in cooridator capacity, thats what I mean by "remove". I am not talking about removal based on edits or anything of that nature, if you are here, and you are working, then you are doing what you were elected to do, and to be removed from a position in which you are doing your job becuase one or two people disagree with you is no excuse for coordinator removal. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

←The results of the election will appear in the upcoming signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-29/News and notes -MBK₀₀₄ 00:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah! As Nick pointed last election that's one step closer to all becoming officially notable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)