Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 → Archive 35

Project representation at Wikimania 2010?

I'm not really in touch regarding the format of wikimania events or what issues are usually discussed there, but I would be interested in participating at the 2010 event especially as it's running not very far from me. I'd also be happy to represent our project together with other fellow coordinators if we find an interesting theme to promote. I was thinking of something like "developing and coordinating a successful Wikiproject", which would be presented in an essay or a stand. Considering that we are one of the best wikiprojects with a considerable number of active members, I believe it's worth doing it. However, I'm not sure this is doable and I'm curious to see input from other people. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've thinking of going, via Berlin, but I'll have the dog with me.  Roger Davies talk 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Going as a tourist, or with a purpose? --Eurocopter (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It'll be en route (yeah, I know, some detour) to the house in Provence. If it happens, the route'll be: London / Berlin / Gdansk (1500 km). Then: Gdansk / Berlin / Provence (2000 km). Then: about three weeks in Provence, per usual, before returning to London via Lyon and Paris (1200 km). (Mixture of holiday and business.)  Roger Davies talk 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I was refering to a wiki-related purpose. Attending the conference as a tourist or you plan to present something there? --Eurocopter (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Whoops :) That depends on whether do something Milhist-related.  Roger Davies talk 12:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It might be worth doing; certainly, any number of people would be interested in such a presentation.
I'm tentatively planning to attend as well, but it's still up in the air at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is Wikimania 2010, anyway? I haven't heard whose hosting this year. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Oof, Poland. I won't be able to attend :) Hopefully it moves to Chicago or Minneapolis for either 2011 or 12. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Minneapolis or Chicago would be nice...I'll be in Ottawa for the next four years after this, so that would be much easier to get to than Poland. Granted, the food is better in Europe...Cam (Chat) 06:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point, Toronto or Ottawa wouldn't be too bad either. I'd go to one in any four of those cities. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, there are a number of bids already for the 2011 Wikimania (link). I think Montreal has the best case so far, but New York has a good base of support behind it, so we'll see. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, if Toronto gets it I'd almost certainly go, and I would consider Montreal, but I think that New York would just be too far. Ah, the problems of living in the middle of nowhere... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that there would be a few topics this project can present on which would be of interest. Our success in implementing high-standard and reasonably vibrant A and B class processes springs to mind, for example, and a no-holds-barred assessment of the project's strengths and weaknesses would probably be useful to people who attend the conference. I live over 15,600 km from Gdansk and have no hope of getting leave at that time, so I won't be attending ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, if we are at least 2 or 3 coordinators decided to attend the conference, would it be any point to present somehow the organization and positive achievements of our project? --Eurocopter (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps—you'd need to submit a proposed presentation, and I'm not sure when the deadline for that will be—but keep in mind that you'd need to do something with broader appeal than simply "look at how great our project is". For example, a presentation on WikiProject best practices, as distilled from our own experiences, would definitely be worthwhile; but you would need to actually produce something that would be applicable to other editors/projects, not merely a history of our own work. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course our presentation wouldn't be about how great we are, but how we achieved our success and what could other people learn from it. I would go there to present our experience so people might take us as an example, i'm not going there to praise ourselves which is completely pointless (I have many other better things to do - as I'd be supposed to drive 1.000 miles till there, and you wouldn't want to drive 1.600km through Romania and Poland). Presently, this is just an idea, a practical project should be made only after we decide if it's worth making this effort and who and how are we going to make it. That's the reason I'm waiting for input from people with wider experience with wikipedia organization, development and bureaucracy. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that's what Kirill is getting at. Talk about best practice through the prism of our own experience.  Roger Davies talk 10:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion are we going to do something regarding this or not? I'm insisting because I'm decided not to candidate anymore at the current coordinator election and the only thing which can make me running is wikimania 2010 participation, since I'll need some legitimacy to represent the project. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how much support we get from the membership before you make any decisions :) It would be great if you did coordinate the Gdansk presentation.  Roger Davies talk 09:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't 100% guarantee, I'm afraid, this early to be attending. But it doesn't just have to be coordinators doing a presentation. We have loads of Europeans in the project. Are there are no other people, say in the Polish, German, or Rumanian task forces who might be interested? It seems to me the way forward is to find out who is interested in helping with a WikiMania 2010 task force. I'll put a message on the Milhist talk page/task force talk pages.  Roger Davies talk 08:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Done! Discussion suggested HERE.  Roger Davies talk 09:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Sincerelly I don't think someone should coordinate such a group, but 4-6 people with each of them presenting a certain segment of the project would do. Discussing this on the main project page is a good idea, let's see what other people think! --Eurocopter (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

February Bugle

We haven't had any mini-features for a while. (Last August, in fact!) Does anyone fancy doing one for the February issue? About 200-250 words, I guess.  Roger Davies talk 11:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be a good place/time for me to (finally) write up the featured content statistics I started working on in December. Maralia (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good :) Some other ideas: Milhist awards and how to use/obtain them; images in milhist articles (Durova might be a good person to approach for that); getting the best from the Academy (one for the future maybe!); being a coord (from a coord's perspective, a good one for election month?)... EyeSerenetalk 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
We are coordinating with AuntieRuth55 to get feedback from here students on how the academy can help the newest of the new; I'd suggest saving an editorial concerning the academy for that event. We could also do our own review of the declining number of reviewers on Wikipedia, especially since the post article this week omitted any mention of the A-class reviewing systems and their pool of editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of article reviewers down across Wikipedia in 2009

The Signpost article on declining numbers of reviewers is well worth a read (and I see that Tom has commented on it). While our A class reviews have held up well, there seems to be a persistent shortage of peer reviewers. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Major milmos incident

We may have a major milmos incident on our hands: according to this one David Levy (talk · contribs) has been moving our articles at "Unit name (country)" to "Unit name" on grounds of "unnecessary disambiguation"; I only caught it when he attempted to remove the section from the milmos without raising the point for discussion. A check of the contributions as of my time stamps reveals that this goes back intermittently across the last 500 edits; if the black hole goes much deeper may need to organize a some sort of project to get everything moved back to its proper place.

For the moment David is apparently preparing to raise the point in discussion, but I am concerned the damage is already done. What should we do about this? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, nothing; there's no real urgency here, in my view. Let's see where the discussion goes; David has a valid point that our stance on this is contrary to the generally accepted one (for what seemed like good reasons at the time, to be sure), and it may well be that, four years later, it's no longer necessary to do things that way. It doesn't hurt to re-examine the matter, in any case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A lot of those moves seem sensible to me - for instance, II Field Force, Vietnam (United States) plainly didn't need a disambiguation and 82nd Airborne Division (United States) probably didn't need one (AFAIK, this is the only '82nd Airborne Division'). I see that David has started a discussion on this on the main project talk page, which is where it belongs. I don't see that any 'damage' has been done, or that this is a 'major milmos incident' - it looks to be very good faith editing to me and its overall effect is harmless at worst. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I should clarify that the urgency isn't that a change has been made, merely that as a result of a change we now have an issue of a system divided. Naturally, uniformity is needed to an extent that the manual of style suggests ways by which the uniformity may be obtained; consequently my urgency in the matter is to make ensure that this becomes all one thing or all the other. The messages are more to provide background than anything else; I hope to avoid major concern among the coordinators by enticing them to read this first so as to provide sufficient background for the discussion. I know the move works because I have used it before, but I suppose I should employ it with greater care to avoid giving the impression of a nuclear incident :) At any rate, thanks for the swift reply, I do appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "major milmos incident" might be overstating the impact a bit; when I saw the headline, I assumed that some rogue admin had deleted MILMOS or something of the sort. ;-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm getting relaxed in my old age, but I also doubt that there can be a 'major incident' concerning any part of Wikipedia; it's just software and radical changes are usually quickly reverted when someone makes them (hell, even the main page only stayed deleted for a few minutes when it was accidently nuked) Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note that I was unaware of the guideline's existence until now (and based my actions on project-wide conventions). I have initiated the aforementioned discussion, and I have no intention of performing any further page moves of this type pending its outcome (a courtesy for which I would sincerely appreciate reciprocation, as I put a great deal of time and effort into what I perceived as straightforward cleanup).
Incidentally, I'll point out that a majority of the edits in question were double-redirect bypasses following the actual page moves. —David Levy 07:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem; it's not the most obvious of recommendations—and indeed one that contradicts the general rule—and there's no way you could have known about it without having read WP:MILMOS itself (which few people not heavily involved with the project do). Hopefully the discussion will produce some useful outcome either way. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your extraordinarily courteous response is downright refreshing and truly appreciated. —David Levy 07:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
'Tis the spirit of AGF. Admittedly, discussion before action would've been nice, but what is done is done, and since you were operating on the precept of AGF and BOLD there's no point in being discourteous. Think of it as a learning experience, and you'll be that much wiser for it in the end (for that matter, I will too :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, the only action that I perceived as bold was the removal of the advice in question. I did so with the understanding that the edit would be reverted if contested (at which point discussion would commence). Under no circumstance would I have reverted back.
I wouldn't have even considered moving all of those articles if I'd realized that this was anything other than uncontroversial cleanup. —David Levy 08:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A few points

Hi all. A few points:

  • We have an outstanding Chevron w/Oak Leaves nom that could use a few more editors for completion.
  • I was reminded by EyeSerene that we still need to effect the merger of the Australian/New Zealand task forces, I'm going to reopen that discussion by weeks end so that when the newsletter goes out with the announcement we can get feedback for a name. My preference is for Oceania, but we will see what happens.
  • I need a favor relating to the elections. It happens that I am going to be out of town for most of March (more on that later), and I wonder if someone would volunteer to make sure the election goes smoothly. I believe I'll be able to find a signal to freeload off of while out of town, but just in case it would be good to know that someone's got my back on that such as it were.
  • Portal:Battleships is up and running; should that be added to the main listing of portals we maintain?
    • I don't see why not Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Should we leave the milmos dablink discussion open until after the election, or should we move forward with discussion while the elections are ongoing? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think discussion will occur at its own pace regardless of what we decide (election or not), so I assume you're thinking about when to bring it to some sort of conclusion? I'd say when the thread starts getting archived would be a good indication that interest is waning; I don't think we need to put an artificial time limit on it. David Levy should perhaps also have a say as it's his proposal; he might want to take a poll or something, or want an uninvolved (maybe from outside milhist) admin to close up. EyeSerenetalk 09:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I like that idea, and asking an 'external' admin to close the discussion is a great suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PR tool

I've located a neat little tool introduced on Wikipedia in October 2009: {{Peer review tools}}. I am of the opinion that if this is good enough for the wiki-wide peer review process it ought to be good enough for use in our internal PR process as well. Before I go adding it though I wanted to get input from the rest of you: should we add this to the PRs we run? I think it would help the reviewers at the PR level - in particular, I see this tool as a useful reviewer aid for FA-class articles coming in for tune up on the PR circuit. If we do adopt the tool, I would also be interested in knowing if we will need to alter or create a new PR process to incorporate the toolbox in the reviews. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a major problem with that, though it could lead to PRs being more focused on technical issues rather than content issues, which is where, in my view, they add the most value. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Further to this ANI thread, RAF Rudloe Manor is currently being targeted by an editor who knows the truthTM about the station's involvement in UFO investigations. The editor, Truthseekers666 (talk), is currently blocked, but I think we can expect their return in the near future. Might be worth a couple of extra pairs of eyes on the article. EyeSerenetalk 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I watchlisted it after ALR asked for assistance, haven't been able to take a proper look at it yet. In any case, the article is fully protected for now. Woody (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Watchlisted as well. If the issue pops up, I'll do what I can. Cam (Chat) 03:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
That has got to be the single funniest "justification for being unblocked" I have ever seen! I've said it before, I'll say it again: I love being part of grand conspiratorial plots that I had no previous knowledge that I was a part of! Cam (Chat) 03:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
He's also made a video - Goodness me. I did enjoy the unblock request - I suspect (and hope) that this guy is taking the piss and isn't serious... It's even funnier than the time 23prootie (talk · contribs) claimed that Yellowmonkey and I were master minding an Australian conspiracy against him/her. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. If he thinks that we are all MoD guys out to get him I've got bad news: I'm US, not UK. That should be the first sign that his argument is falling apart. May as well try sinking a battleship with a BB-gun for all the good his accusations are. One thing I am a little intrigued about though: if what he is saying vis-a-vis the UFO investigation is in fact correct then the page is eligible for membership in the black project working group, and if the page is listed there then it will be subject to inspections on a periodic basis to keep BS out of the article. Just something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@Nick - I'd like to think so as well, however I do know that Williams and his ilk were fairly regularly detained trying to break into the tunnels, and trying to get through the fences at Rudloe and the various other military sites around there. Note that I have worked in the vicinity but not at Rudloe Manor itself. I lived in Box for a couple of years. I'm also aware of personal harassment of some of the security staff at Rudloe Manor and Basil Hill Barracks, with some postal gifts delivered; envelopes of white powder, dog faeces etc. One of the groups carried cans of irritant gas that they used when they were detained.
@Tom - It's pretty much as I articulated on the talk page; The investigation unit dealt with all reports that might suggest low flying, some of those could not be attributed to known aviation activities, so the reports were logged and held on file. Many of these have recently been released under the Freedom of Information Act and one of the media reports on the topic identifies that some of the redactions are personal comments by the investigators on the witnesses. Make of that what you will...
ALR (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well then you're obviously an MoD stooge, Tom, probably in the pay of Prince Charles. ALR, you're ruining a perfectly good conspiracy here; the complete lack of evidence from their photographs taken in the tunnels only proves that the MoD/SIS/Illuminati did a good cleanup job when they left. More seriously, I don't know if this really comes under "black projects"; it looks to me like the whole shaky edifice has been constructed on the basis of a few reports dutifully taken by investigators because simply escorting the "witnesses" from the building would have been more than their job was worth. I like your idea below of a special alert list for articles we need to keep an eye on. EyeSerenetalk 10:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
A bit difficult not to be, what with MoD employing nearly half a million people plus all the private sector contractors involved in delivery in defence :)
ALR (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
One a related note, please see this related to ongoing efforts to track me down.
ALR (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
To wrap up this thread, Truthseekers666 had been indefblocked for attempted outing. We may or may not see them again in other guises, but for now things seem to have resolved themselves. Cheers all :) EyeSerenetalk 09:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That was pretty inevitable really. I hope that you're OK ALR - the frequency with which disruptive editors turn out to be genuinely irrational really worries me as an admin. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New Special Project?

Some months back I recall that I gave the name Operation Silent Sentry to a 24-hour project to keep an eye out on an article up at the main page. With this recent business concerning truthseeker, I wonder if may be worth resurrecting Silent Sentry as a special project where users can place articles that are currently subject to edit wars, high vandalism, fringe theories and such and place them within the operation scope of such a special project so we can better track them. This would have the benefit of keeping all such content in one place and would simply the process by which editors could request that others keep an eye on pages that need extra eyes. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the current ad-hoc system works fine, and creating lists of 'troublesome' articles could lead this project into hot water. Edit wars need to be addressed through page protection and mediation and vandalism through blocking the vandals and protecting the page if it gets out of hand. There are already perfectly good Wikipedia-wide noticeboards to report these problems, and we shouldn't seek to duplicate them. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing actually, I don't really see a need for such a project since its essentially doing what WP:PP and WP:AN already do. Tagging troublesome articles for the project via special project would allow us to better track said articles, but I am unsure if that is really worth a new special project just for internal tracking. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

More coordinator participation needed

There has been a nomination for the Chevrons with Oak Leaves languishing for over a week now without a majority of the coordinators voting here, and there is an ACR in the section at the top of this page that has not been actioned on since it was placed there at least 24 hours ago (and I truly do not want to close 95% of them for the project this year). -MBK004 02:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If no-one beats me to it, I'll close the ACR as no consensus/not promoted when I get home in a few hours Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Now closed. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I've awarded Brad the Oak Leaves, with 8 participants we officially reached majority. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

February Newsletter

Anything else we need to add to this before it goes out? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to clarify when you're talking about referendums, it seems to imply that C-Class will be up for another vote. – Joe N 14:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Noted and reworded. Good suggestion, Joe. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a short editorial, feel free to add/remove as you guys see fit. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial looks good Ed, and thanks for the copyeditting in the for the coordinators section. We need the results of the contest department and then, absent any other suggestions, we will get this newsletter out :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've validated all of the contest except my own entries and the two portals, so if somebody has some spare time to handle the rest...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm on it, tks for doing all the rest mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about the portals myself so left a note on the contest talk page for feedback but I don't think we need wait on that as I can't imagine it affecting the top scores. Still have the awards to hand out, which I'll do now, but would appreciate if someone else can update scores on the main contest page (Cirt's can be added later if applicable) and prepare it for March. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've copy-edited the newsletter a bit (to help balance the news column with the content column). Please revert or whatever as you feel fit.

    Just a thoght here, but I am a bit concerned about the way we're bigging up the coordinators' role both in the newsletter and in academy course as I think it may be off-putting to new people and makes it sound all more difficult than it actually is.

    People have started voting already so the election page needs watching :) I've hidden the two votes so far in.  Roger Davies talk 16:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest re the coordinator candidate advice? We want nominees to approach the election with eyes open, but you're right that we don't want to drive good editors away. EyeSerenetalk 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps just refer them to the responsibilities section of WP:MHCOORD? The academy page is incredibly long (7,000 words) and should probably only be about a third of that length. The rest could, I suppose, go into a new coordinators' FAQ but, to be honest, even there it probably needs vigorous pruning.  Roger Davies talk 18:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right that we've tried to cover too many eventualities in that FAQ (myself included as I've added to it recently). The Academy needs lots of work though; it's been on my mental to-do list for ages, but the best-laid intentions of mice and men and all that :( I don't see a problem with changing the link in the newsletter, though of course the talk page election notice has already gone out. EyeSerenetalk 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't just thinking of that :) Although it's sensible enough, is the "Election Process" section really contributing much?  Roger Davies talk 19:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I was actually hoping to touch on that yesterday, but after dealing with a sore throat all day I elected to hit the sack, and while I got well rested I also discovered that I am running a very mild fever. Go figure :) Any way, I put the academy page out as a testing the water maneuver to see if it helps the process any. I'm looking to get some feedback on the main talk page and our talk page after the election and see if the academy page encouraged anyone new to run or if it answered any questions that some may have been afraid to ask. From what I have seen just thus far, its actually made things worse, but even this is good since it means that we now know conclusively that the page needs more work, maybe even a lot more work :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
MBK has now tweaked the text to remove the link to the academy. Is this good to go now? And would you like to arrange this? If not, I can :)  Roger Davies talk 20:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean. While all good information, the "Election Process" section isn't strictly relevant to that page. I'll comment it out for now until we decide what to do with it. EyeSerenetalk 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, the advice from... sections could probably be combined; there is some repetition where great minds have thought alike :) EyeSerenetalk 20:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the thing is to do is to break out the FAQ and the Election Process sections into separate articles, then hang them off this page, linked to as a hatnote in the preamble to the the Handbook section above. And, as you say, the contributions from great minds could probably be consolidated and de-duplicated, perhaps with attributions at the end of each line?
Is anyone else, incidentally, a little concerned about the general apathy to the election?  Roger Davies talk 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That might fit the bill nicely. Perhaps I'll have a bash at that tomorrow if I get the chance and no-one else has beat me to it :)
Why do you believe there's apathy to the election... or is that a gentle nudge to get on with writing up our noms? :) EyeSerenetalk 21:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apathy is actually a Wikipedia wide problem, its getting harder and harder to get people to contribute in any meaningful manner. If push comes to shove, we can see about co-opting a few people; however, I prefer not to borrow trouble since we still have the better part of a work week for people to nominate themselves. As to the news letter, I'll email Cbrown and see about getting this out in the next 24-hours or so. Thanks to everyone for the additional input. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this is something that might be addressed (in part anyway) by the 12-month term proposal? What we'd lose in flexibility we might gain in stability, and it really does seem that the elections come round very quickly. EyeSerenetalk 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you

Though I will wait a bit to see what kind of participation we get from other editors in terms of running for coord, it is looking increasingly likely at this point that I will not seek re-election to the position of MilHist coordinator this coming Tranche. Real life priorities have increased at this point, and the growing possibility of massive (possibly even full) scholarship funding for my undergraduate degree has forced me to shift a massive amount of my time towards school. I also want to devote what little on-wiki time I have to more article writing.

That being said, I also wish to thank each and every one of you for an incredible experience over the last eighteen months of coordinating the military history project. From dealing with the four-thousandth consecutive "Hagger?!" vandal on the Iowa battleships to the (in)famous Sesquipedalian Barnfish incident, it's been an absolute riot. Each of you taught me invaluable skills, from consensus-building to peer-reviewing to copyediting to reference finding. At a time last year which saw my love of history falter (mostly because of a history teacher who ran their classroom as a cross-breed of North Korea and Stalin's Gulags!), this project kept my love of history alive. Though I have since opted to shift my focus in the long-term from history towards international politics, my love of history was kept alive and well by each and every one of you. For that, I owe each of you my thanks. Cam (Chat) 05:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A full scholarship. Damn, that would be nice. I hope you get it! Yeah, I echo most of your points. Though I'm not in the running for a scholarship, I've found myself increasingly drawn away from both Milhist and Wikipedia due to school, and, well, real life (an amazing concept, that). I've made commitments to Cam to add information to Japanese battleship Yamato, then took a month to do it. I've made commitments to rewrite articles and have never finished them. I've made commitments and goals here and never did them or followed up on them. I stepped up to be a judge of the Wikicup, yet J Milburn has been saddled with a majority of the work. All of these are things I feel quite badly about, yet RL still draws me away. We'll see if I run, but it's looking a little sour at the moment.
Cam, don't lay all this on us. I've learned a lot from you as well, so thank you my friend. If you want it, I will help you as much as I can with any battleship/battlecruiser articles you want to finish and/or write. If you ever come through the Upper Peninsula for some (insane) reason, my door is open. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Semper Fi, Cam; I'm honored to have worked with you. As a fellow student myself I can appreciate the merits of the full scholarship, and like Ed said, I too have learned much from you. Wherever life takes you it is my hope that you find success in all of your endeavors. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations and good luck with the scholarship Cam. Undergraduate university can be a lot of fun. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not going to be standing for reelection. I've been a coordinator for two years now, so I think that this is a suitable time to bow out, especially as I'm now undertaking a part-time postgraduate course in addition to working full time in what can be a busy and stressful job. I plan to keep up my general level of editing though, and should continue to do pretty much everything other than the coordination role I haven't really had enough time to do justice to since I started my course last July. I'd also echo Cam's comments above - I've enjoyed working with all the other coordinators over the last two years, and I think that the project is in great shape. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cam and Nick (and ed if you decide not to stand), it's been a real pleasure and privilege working with such exemplary editors and I sincerely wish you well with your RL priorities. I'm very glad you'll still be editing; I'm sure we'll run into each other occasionally, which lessens the sorrow of saying goodbye to coordinators I've come to regard as friends. Remember that you're always welcome on this page too :) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear this guys, but I quite understand. On the other hand, it does finally make you eligible for long-overdue Oak Leaves, which I'm sure you'll be nominated for the moment your tenures finish after the forthcoming elections... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Cam, Nick and Ed (if you decide not to stand) I must say it has been an absolute pleasure working with the three of you, and I wish you all the best of luck with your studies, RL in general and I'll be seeing you all around. :) As an aside, I, too, have just commenced my first year at university and at the moment I am sitting on the fence as to whether or not I will stand for reelection. If not, I would like you all to know that I have enjoyed every minute I have occupied this position, which was predominantly the result of working along side such excellent editors as yourselves. :) Thank you all. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The pleasure's ours, Bryce. You've got to make the best decision for you - your future is too important to worry about a web site - but know that you've earned a lot of respect round these here parts :) EyeSerenetalk 20:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Normandy special project

It seems that we have some sort of consensus above (including Cam's permission); can we go ahead and move this into project space? EyeSerenetalk 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be done. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll do a little bit of formal reformatting when I have the time (probably this weekend at some point). Cam (Chat) 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming we're going to use "Operation Normandy" for this, as Eurocopter suggested, and place it under the WWII task force? I'll set up the new page name and the associated links sometime in the next couple of days, f nobody else gets to it before then. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
No objection to this, although I'm not hugely taken by "Operation Normandy" (I can't think of a better alternative though). EyeSerenetalk 10:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Overlord? ;p
Although i think they should have stuck with the planning name of "Thunderclap"; sounds much more dashing!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
...or like a particularly nasty socially-contracted infection :D I prefer Overlord actually, but I appreciate that it could be misleading. EyeSerenetalk 12:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
....you have so just ruined that for me :( --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
My apologies - I had just been reviewing some training material discussing the PSHE component of the national curriculum, and my mind was obviously still on that :) I have no objections at all to Thunderclap - it's attention-grabbing and has a historical relation to the campaign. EyeSerenetalk 18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
While Overlord is not very original, Thunderclap doesn't seem very suggestive to me. Personally I would still stick for Normandy which fits the best. But this is just my personal opinion and I'd agree with anything a majority decides. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I was actually joking about Thunderclap; it appears to be a on-paper excerise that was conducted some time prior to the campaign to evaulate the Anglo-Canadian invasion plans. So it wasnt an actualy suggestion just a personal observation about the yanks not being able to pick a decent codename ;p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's amusing how often one can tell from the codename if it's a British or US operation. I used to run an exercise for officer trainees called Operation Frogfoot, based on part of a dessicated amphibian we found when planning the exercise :) Anyway, back on topic, I'll go with the crowd - Normandy's fine. It really wasn't my intention to make an issue of this :P EyeSerenetalk 09:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

← I've gone through the basic motions of moving the page and setting up links from the appropriate places. Someone involved with the project might want to look at adding more material to the page. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the move! I've added stuff to it as well. Cam (Chat) 05:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Kirill (and Cam!) EyeSerenetalk 09:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I've written something up for the next newsletter - amendments welcome :) EyeSerenetalk 10:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

...looks pretty barren with only two days left for folks to submit their nominations. How many seats are we looking for? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel like not many members bothered to click the links we sent to them, whether the text message or the newsletter... (tangent point: perhaps it's time to give the full contents of the newsletter to everyone). I'm still on the fence, but if it's still this way on Sunday afternoon, I guess I'll stand again... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't really sure if I was going to run again, but if we don't see some more people want to in the next day or two I suppose I will. It seems like we're seeing more retirements than normal this time.– Joe N 04:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I can run too if necessary, but sadly I wasn't as active as I had hoped during my previous term, which is why I don't plan on standing again. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do I see co-opting in my future? Cam (Chat) 06:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we should extend the nomination period for an extra week and, possibly arrange for a bot to send a message to all the project's members. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That would not be a bad idea. I just asked Karanacs (talk · contribs), Cplakidas (talk · contribs), Magicpiano (talk · contribs) and Chamal_N (talk · contribs) to see if they would want to stand. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If no additional members sign up within the next 24-hours I will extended the nominations period and ask Cbrown1023 to send out an emergency notice to all project members urging people to sign up and contribute. This does really highlight the point I made above though, about how apathy is fast become a Wikipedia wide problem. It is frustrating to have so many members and yet get such a limited response. In some small way, I take this personally since I feel that this is a reflection of my first term as the project's lead coordinator, and that in this position I should have done better to encourage more participation. Incidentally, this could make a great Signpost Story, if anyone's interest in running it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be best just to defer the election a month and use the time get a bit of a buzz going in the project. For instance, putting messages on all the taskforce talk pages helps generate a bit of sense of occasion. The "emergency" message needs some thought too (humour might be the best option here). It's possible that the underlying problem is a combination of apathy, a sense of disconnect with the "management", and insufficient momentum.  Roger Davies talk 08:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thinking more about this, people often forget that Wikipedia is essentially a hobby and needs an element of fun to be appealing/satisfying.
  • Incidentally, the "emergency" message could (and should) include a PS about Gdansk Wikimania to see if we can recruit a team.  Roger Davies talk 09:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The number of coordinators has always been somewhat arbitrary; I don't think that having a smaller number of candidates is a major cause for concern in and of itself. I would recommend continuing with the election even if the number of candidates remains sub-optimal, and co-opting a few people afterwards to plug any manpower gaps in the short term; the project membership as a whole is likely to view that more kindly than either emergency mailings or sudden changes to the schedule.
(Certainly, running a Signpost article on this would be foolish. We have more than enough bad press without going out of our way to generate it ourselves.)
We should also consider reviving the earlier discussion about moving to annual elections; this may help alleviate any potential issues with participant apathy.
Aye - just left a message about this on the election page. With the extention I don't see why we shouldn't be able put it to the community as a referendum this election, the result to take effect from the end of the 6-month March-October term. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
We have neglected, incidentally, to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Banner for this election yet; that should really be done at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Replies to Kirill in order: yeah, I think having 7-9 coords would not be a problem.
100% agree.
100% agree.
Done.
I've been bold and extended the nomination period to give people a chance to see the notice and nominate themselves. @Roger, at the least it certainly needs to be a part of the next few newsletters. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I've extended the voting period to 28 March.  Roger Davies talk 21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I changed it to the 28th everywhere else but on the status page. :-) Thanks, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And I've just noticed I was rabbiting on about deferring a month (Gawd knows where that came from) when I was basically supporting Tom's idea of a week. Otherwise:

The "emergency message" should probably go out on 14 March, giving a final 24 hours to get noms in and to announce the start of voting on 16 March. Then one reminder for voting about 21 March.  Roger Davies talk 21:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, I appreciate it. I'll get the message composed and out around the 14th.

(ec & od) I honestly don't think it's worth making too much of a fuss about this. Not that it isn't important, but as long as articles are being written without hindrance and the usual project backoffice functions are being completed, our job is done. This could just be a natural dip (or even a stabilising) in participation; the number of coords recently has been unusually high and one dip doesn't indicate a trend. There has been as few as three coords in the past so I don't believe an apparent lack of interest in being a coord is anything to move into crisis mode over :) I agree that extending the period might be useful, but we should avoid doing anything to give the (false, I believe) impression that Milhist is dying around us or that it will fall apart if there aren't 16 of us. EyeSerenetalk 21:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The thought about project stabilization does make sense, we have been growing for a while but now that most of what we have seems to up and running it seems to me that the push is now shifting from a "more, more, more" perspective to a "polish and improve" perspective. That would explain the lower than usual turnout. And we are far from falling apart; its just that most of our members, as Kirill pointed out, are not here for the whole nine yards, they just want to work on articles. As a practical matter, we can make do with fewer than usual coordinators; there have been times when one or two coordinators have been absent for most of the term and we still manage to do just fine. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
And as you and others have mentioned, there's always cooption if we need more manpower. I really don't think this is something you should lay on yourself, Tom (as you suggested above), even in part; if you've let the project down - which I don't accept for one second - then all us coords have. We're a team. You've done a great job in the hotseat, and Wikipedia itself seems to be going through a transitional phase. I think Milhist has been remarkably successful in maintaining participation and quality. EyeSerenetalk 09:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to bow out; I've just been informed that I'm likely to be sent to Afghanistan anytime from June to November. I'll still continue to monitor this page and occasionally help out, but more substantial work is likely to beyond me. On the bright side, it means that the monthly contest is likely to be a bit more closely contested in the future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Please stay safe, and remember that we will be here whenever you get back. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm also sorry to see that we'll be losing you. I hope that your deployment to Afghanistan goes well and you come home safely. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Finally! Someone else can win the contests around here! Lol, joking. Good luck, Sturmvogel, I wish you a safe deployment. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
To quote Monty Python, "Ain't dead yet"! Thanks for the good thoughts, but I'll still be contributing in the meantime, just not at the same furious pace. I may have burnt myself out during the 35 Days of Russian Battleships as I just can't seem to muster the energy to finish the damn Lion-class BC article. That, or maybe it's just a sign of caffeine withdrawal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sturm, I like you, you're funny. :-) Do come back safe and consider dropping me a line if you ever happen to browse the wiki while you are over there. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
We'll have to see just how much access I'll get when I'm over there. I'm not real optimistic since I'm going over as part of a Slovenian training team for the Afghan Army. But when I do I expect that I'll be pointing out various people's flaws, reverting changes to "my" articles, complaining that OMT has barely progressed in my absence and that the WikiCup really doesn't count without my participation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
While I suspect that your operational security rules will completely prohibit this, Wikipedia and Wikicommons could always use more PD photos of non-US forces in Afghanistan. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Storm, good on you and stay safe—and Nick, you're an opportunist after my own heart! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck Sturm and take care :) Also noting that I've asked Ranger Steve (talk · contribs) if he'd be interested in standing - I think he's excellent coordinator material. EyeSerenetalk 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Referendum on the extension of coordinator terms

Its been proposed that we hold the referendum on coordinator trance extensions with this election vote, but I take issue with this for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the proposal is still in its infancy. No discussion has occurred on what month to hold the elections, no effort has been made to get community feedback on the matter, and some coordinators still have not weighed in on the idea. Furthermore, no one has suggested when this switchover would be made, and that could result in issues if the current tranche is extended for a year and the volunteers are coming in on the expectation of six months and end up going a year then how many will reconsider. As it is, the status quo we have is stable; and I see no reason to immediately change it. Lets take our time and get this right rather than rush into this with no idea about how this will work out.

Having said that, I want feedback from the rest of you: should a referendum vote go forward this election cycle, or should we wait? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that we are delaying the start of voting for a week, I don't think that it's unreasonable to try to place a referendum on the ballot this election. If we held the referendum at this election, we could hold elections for the first one-year term in September. While I don't have a problem with the way the current system is, I can see why it would be easier to make the change and don't think that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to do so. – Joe N 02:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As the guy who brought this up anew recently, my proposal is simple:
  • During this election we put up a referendum to extend coord terms from 6 months to 12 months starting from the following election which is due in September. In other words, nothing changes as far as the term goes for candidates in this current March election, and if the motion to extend terms is carried, nothing changes about the election process except the term (and obviously the fact that we have annual September elections only, not March/September 6-monthly elections). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Ian plagiarized my idea ;-) (kidding). I think that we should do this. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Ian's (Ed's? ;-)) idea, and think we should go forward with this proposal. If I remember correctly, no one voiced any opposition to the notion and the purpose of a referendum is to gauge the MILHIST community's stance and thoughts on the issue. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ed/Ian's suggestion; this should be a pretty uncontroversial change and there's no reason to delay it for another six months. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: this is all Ian. I thought about it a little whenever this question came up before and believed that the best way to go about it would be what Ian just said (ie 12-month terms start in Sept, not March). Two different minds, same idea...but he said it on-wiki first. ;-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a referendum to the election page [1] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - that wording looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Support this idea. I think proposing September as election month makes a lot of sense too, as we have so many editors whose editing needs to fit in around the academic year. EyeSerenetalk 09:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Further to this, in the light of Ian's comment in the discussion section would it be worth adding an option to the referendum to start the 12-month term from this election? Pros: it would address the concern that we're being too hesitant and creating too much bureaucracy, and might help address the participation issue. Cons: us coords have had a while to think about it, but project members haven't - we might find ourselves trying to do a 'hard sell', and if the proposal isn't approved we could find we've poisoned the well next time we bring it up. What do others think? EyeSerenetalk 22:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it'd be better to wait: I'd like to know how long a term I'm running for, and this wouldn't be known until we can see if the referendum passes or not. Also, it might be wise to have it tied sort of to the academic year. – Joe N 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Joe. It's likely that a 12 month period will attract (or repel!) different candidates, and I think that members of the project should know whether they're electing candidates for a 6 or 12 month term at the time the election is held. It may also be necessary to tweak some nomination, voting and administrative procedures if the proposal for 12 months terms is successful. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
While personally I'd be happy for it to start this election/term, I made the proposal with deference to the idea that we shouldn't risk confusing this election by pushing a longer term this time round, so I stick to having the 12-month term commence with the September election—assuming the motion is passed, of course...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, particularly that voters should know what they're voting for, though since you brought it up I thought it was perhaps worth exploring as an option :) EyeSerenetalk 10:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate that, tks Eye, although I don't reckon in that comment I was pushing a 12-month term starting this election, I just wanted to make sure that in this election we put the question about it starting from September/October.
I think.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with much of what has already been said really. I agree that voters should really know how long the terms are that they are voting for, even if it may seem a bit bureaucratic at first viewing. Woody (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quarterly report on Black project pages

I have conducted the first sweep of the black project pages for the new year, and I am making the following suggestions

  • Can someone look at the Blackstar (spaceplane) article and tell me whether we need the all caps names toward the end of the document?
  • Aurora (aircraft) has been rather liberally sprinkled with cn tags and other in text notes, but the big template at the top already reports on multiple issues. I think we could safely remove a number of the small cn tags in favor of adding an unreferenced section in the big template.
  • Both B-2 Spirit and F-117 look to be eligible for GA/A/FA class, if anyone would like to coordinate with the aircraft project to get these articles through I think it would be worthy of a March editorial in The Bugle on the first successfully promoted black project article(s) since the adoption of the tougher black project standards in the MILMOS last year.

I have not yet had the opportunity to check the images or external links in the blackops articles (we are heading out to eat, like now practically...) but I will get to this when I get back unless someone beats me to it. On the whole though this most recent pass looks to show no major issues with the blackops articles. Submitted for review on behalf of the black project working group, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the B-2 and F-117 really 'black projects'? They're been public for a long time now, and a number of books have been written about the aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are since they began as black projects and we can never be sure that all of the information from that era was released for publication to the public. -MBK004 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ACRs for closure (#?)

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship is ready but since this is an WP:OMT article, I will not close it. -MBK004 05:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hello, is anyone able to close this or do I need to break my self-imposed rule of not closing OMT articles? -MBK004 02:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I could, but I'm also an OMT-er. Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Love to but already commented/supported. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I also commented/supported. I think it would be fair enough for MBK or Parsecboy to close in this case. I wouldn't hold it against you as concensus on promoting the article seems clear, I feel. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I think that there's a clear consensus to close this one as promoted, so there's nothing wrong with an involved coordinator doing it per this conversation. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
              • I'll do it this lunchtme if everyone can wait. Be good practice (but stand by to correct my errors!). Ranger Steve (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
                • I think I've done it right. Only thing I'm not sure on is the actionoldid field in the talk page article milestones. Can anyone tell me what it is/does? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe it is the id number of the version of the article that was promoted. In this case it would be id number 354240617. This number can be found by going to the History tab of the article, and clicking on the link that has the time and date, e.g. "03:04, 6 April 2010". The url chain will then have the id number at the end, e.g. "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovetsky_Soyuz_class_battleship&oldid=354240617" (the last bit being the id number). Anyone please correct me, if I am wrong. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Seems like a logical explanation at any rate so I've added that figure. Cheers for that! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for closing it, and since this was your first close as a coordinator, I will leave a detailed critique on your talk page shortly so you don't make any mistakes again. (One of these days I am going to write that Academy article on how I do this). Just an FYI that I usually go back through each closure done by any other coord to make sure that everything conforms to the others. -MBK004 02:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ACRs for closure (more)

If I find a bit of time I'll do it tomorrow MBK, but anyone else feel free if you want. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Can someone just check before I archive this? Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You got everything but updating Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Drat, it'll have to be third time lucky : ) Thanks Ed. Now can someone tell me where I archive this to? The archive below, or just delete it (sorry for the query's, just want to get it right)? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_28&oldid=1190135391"