Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Handbook[edit]

Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.

Coordinator tasks[edit]

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
Assessment
  • Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
    • Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
    • Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
  • Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
Peer review
A-Class review
Featured content
  • For each new featured content candidacy or review:
    1. Add the candidacy or review to the {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} template.
  • For each concluded featured content candidacy or review:
    1. Remove the candidacy or review from the {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} template and the corresponding section in the review department.
    2. If the content was promoted to featured status (or demoted from it), add it to (or remove it from) the project showcase, and note the promotion in the monthly newsletter if needed.
Quarterly Reviewing Awards
  • At the end of each quarter, all editors that complete at least one A-Class review receive a Milhist reviewing award. Create a new thread on the Coordinators' talk page and paste the following boilerplate into the body, leaving the subject line empty:{{subst:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing Table}}. Save the thread, reopen it and change the months and year in the subject line and table, add a comment under the table, sign and save the thread again. Then tally the qualifying reviews:
    1. Tally A-Class Reviews. As only those editors who complete at least one Milhist A-Class review receive an award, start by tallying them. Go to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/201X]] (inserting the correct year) and click on the links to check all the A-Class articles that were promoted, failed, kept or demoted in the relevant quarter. Tally the number of articles reviewed by each editor. One suggested method is to use a simple pen-and-paper tally of usernames as you scroll through the relevant archive; another is to save the relevant reviews into a word processor and delete all content except the usernames of the reviewers, then tally from there. Regardless of which method is chosen, it can be time consuming so you may need to do it over several sessions. Once done, add each editor who completed an A-Class review to the User column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table, and add one point to the ACR column for each article that editor reviewed.
    2. Tally Good Article Reviews. One method is to go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare revision history for the quarter and tally the articles added by each editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. Add one point to the GA column for each MilHist article that those editors reviewed. Note that the accuracy of this method relies upon reviewers listing GAs per instructions.
    3. Tally Peer Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive and click on the links to open the archive pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the PR column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
    4. Tally Featured Article Reviews. Go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations, and click on the links to open the archive of review pages for the relevant quarter. Check the talk page of each article to determine whether it falls under MilHist. For each article that does, check whether it was reviewed by an editor listed in the Quarterly Reviewing Table. If so, add one point to the FAC column for each MilHist article that editor reviewed.
  • Tally the total number of points for each editor and add them to the Total column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table.
  • Award all reviewers in accordance with the following schedule (the award templates are all available under "Military history awards" below):
    1. 15+ points – the WikiChevrons
    2. 8–14 points – the Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
    3. 4–7 points – the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes)
    4. 1-3 points – the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe)
  • Sign the Awarded column of the Quarterly Reviewing Table for each editor to signify that the award has been presented.
Member affairs
Miscellaneous

How to...[edit]

Boilerplate and templates[edit]

Open tasks[edit]

Topics for future discussion[edit]

  • Collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, universities, and various other institutions (e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM)
  • Article improvement drives
  • Featured portal drives
  • Notability guideline for battles
  • Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks
  • Using the "Results" field in infoboxes
  • How far milhist's scope should include 'military fiction' (possible solution, see scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force)
  • Encouraging member participation in the various review processes (peer, GAN, ACR etc)
  • Recruiting new members (see User:The ed17/MILHIST, etc.)
  • Improving/maintaining popular pages
  • Motivating improvement from Stub to B-Class
  • Enabling editors to improve articles beyond B-Class (possibly utilising logistics dept, also see WP:FAT for related ideas)
  • Helping new members (possibly involving improving/deprecating welcome template; writing Academy course)
  • Recruiting copy-editors to help during ACR
  • Recruiting editors from external forums/groups/etc.
  • Simplifying ACR instructions (old discussion)

Missing academy articles[edit]

Open award nominations[edit]

Nominations for awards are made and voted on by coordinators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. An A-Class Medal nomination needs at least two coordinators' votes to succeed, and the Chevrons with Oak Leaves a majority of coordinators' votes. All coordinators are requested to review the following:

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Rupert has a couple of ACMs with Oak leaves owing, the first one I'm the nom on, otherwise I'd do it myself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ACRs for closure[edit]

All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either the promotion or non-promotion of the article under review. Any A-Class review filed on or before 30 June may be closed by an uninvolved coordinator. A guide to closing A-Class reviews is available. Please wait 24 hours after a review is listed here before closing it to allow time for last-minute reviews.

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Task Force categories[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hate to ask it at this point, but could we add a "Medical" task force--general topics to our lists? We are getting a lot of hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc., (especially since a large group of early nurses have just been dumped in) and the doctors/nurses in particular are just going into that nebulous group as "Biography" but it would be better to put them under Medical. auntieruth (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Ruth, not sure about this one, to be honest. I think it might be too narrow, to be honest, and probably duplicates other lines of operation. The people can becovered by national and biographies task forces, while the hospitals can also be covered by national and maybe specific conflict task forces. That said, the topic of task forces might need some consideration and if there is a broad consensus, perhaps we could consider that one. Coincidentally, I was wondering about another one yesterday...I wonder about expanding "Films" to "Films, video games and fictional works", or something similar. Not that the topic interests me much, as I'm not much of a fan of any of these things, but I have noticed a gap while adding task forces. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Equally, I wonder about potentially expanding the British task force (which just covers England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) to include the Republic of Ireland...maybe it could be called the "British and Irish task force" or some other all encompassing name (if there is one). There are other possibilities for merging too, for instance Portuguese topics potentially could be dealt with maybe under a "Spanish and Portuguese task force", while a home could potentially be found for Belgian topics by grouping it with one of the other European task forces...perhaps the Dutch task force...? Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts:
  • Films is a joint task force with WikiProject Films, with a hybrid assessment tracking system (i.e. the task force's assessment categories are identically generated based on an assessment in either the MILHIST project tag or the Films project tag). Because of this, I don't think it would be practical to change the scope to include material that's not covered by WikiProject Films. Having said that, my impression is that most fictional works will be covered by other topical or national task forces in any case; do we have a significant number of fictional topics with no task force coverage at all?
  • Belgium could indeed be rolled in with the Dutch task force (perhaps renamed to "Low Countries military history"?), given how much shared history exists in this case.
  • Spain and Portugal could potentially be combined (into "Iberian military history"?), but I would be a little hesitant to do so, given how distinct the two countries' respective military histories were much of the time. Other than the two countries being next to each other, I'm not sure that there is much shared between someone working on Spanish military activities and Portuguese military activities.
  • Adding Ireland to the British task force seems like a faux pas, politically speaking. Having said that, are there a significant number of Irish military history topics that aren't already covered by the British task force (either because they involved conflicts with the British, or because they cover the period when Ireland was part of the UK)?
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day Kirill, thanks for the comments. Yes, I've mainly been using national task forces or conflict specific ones for fiction etc. I like the idea of the "Low Countries military history task force" and was thinking the same. Re Spain and Portugal, agreed...I guess I'm really just thinking geographically/regionally rather than shared histories. Same re Britain and Ireland. I guess my concern with just covering Irish topics in a British task force, is that it could be seen to support a point of view. I'd argue that by putting Ireland in the task force's name, it gives it equal weight. See for instance the mark up used here, where maybe someone was trying to make a point: Talk:Irish Army. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That would be why I have repeatedly suggested organizing continental based task forces to help cover the gaps such as they were. Having task forces for Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Europe, Oceania, and Antarctica ensures that all nations and regions are theoretically covered by the project. If we followed up with regional task forces (ie Asia Minor, Middle East, Central American, etc) then we could disband a number of our nation-specific task forces and reactive them as components in the larger continent/region scheme, which would in theory allow us to reorganize the project's task forces into larger bites that would arguably increase editor participation while lowering the number of task forces that through editorial hemorrhaging now serve as a little more than task forces in being such as it were. Reorganizing in this fashion would also help the coordinators somewhat in that fewer task forces would lend the perception that the project's coordinators are making efforts to keep the project alive by combining or disbanding sections that no longer serve the project's best interests. If we could reorganize the national task forces in this way we would be in a position to gauge how open the community as a whole is to further reorganizations of this nature, which could allow us to fiddle with the other two tiers of task forces to see if we could reorganize them to better cover the military history fields as a whole. Any discussion of this nature, however, depends on both coordinator support and community support, and as you may have guessed from the above post I've made this suggestion before only to have it turned down as a whole, so the coordinators as a body haven't thought the idea useful enough to move forward with previously, so I don't know if anyone else would like to seriously discuss the matter with me and/or the other coordinators again. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually like what Tom is saying, for a lot of reasons. The "task forces" have long ago become a way of "organising" our project rather than an actual area of effort with dedicated members etc. I think it is time to accept this, and instead make our "task forces" about universal coverage rather than a grouping of interested editors. Continental "taskforces" (we'd have to come up with something other than "taskforces" to cover this, as the term implies a group of people working on it) is a great idea IMHO, with regional "taskforces" (again, with another name) beneath them. It helps to divide our work up in a sensible geographical way, so that people that are motivated in a particular geographical respect can focus in, yet doesn't detract from temporal approaches (ie WWI, WWII, etc), or specialisation approaches (AFVs, fortifications, etc). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd retain "task force" as that is what the greater whole of Wikipedia calls such sub-sections in an established WikiProject, although for the sake of creativity I'd favor using "Joint Task Force" for the description so we could better play-up the jointly run pages with Wikiprojects that also have a claim to existing military articles - for example, the theoretical "North American Joint Task Force" could be see an a collective effort to run Military history pages with the assistance of WP:USA, WP:CANADA, WP:MEXICO, and WP:GREENLAND, and since those groups could now coordinate off one specific JTF page, which would make efforts to notify and involve said projects in collaborative efforts that much easier. Note that if this is a success, we can look at the other two task force categories and see about reorganizing them as well (if need be). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • So, I have a question: what is it that we actually want task forces to do (or be)? If the main value of one (to the project, and to participating editors) is for categorization of articles, then I'm not sure that broader categories are going to be more useful than narrower ones. Consider, for example, our hypothetical North American task force:
    • Individual editors are, I suspect, unlikely to think of themselves as "North American military historians"; if they have a geographic interest at all, it's probably more likely to be based on national boundaries (e.g. "I want to write about the Canadian military", "I have a book about US aircraft", etc.), simply because that's the way both actual militaries and typical military historiography is structured. If we roll these topics into one bundle, then someone looking for articles to edit about the Canadian military will need to wade through categories full of US military articles to find what they're interested in, which seems like it would make the task force less useful to them.
    • Partner projects will, as a matter of principle, only care about articles that are in their scopes. WikiProject Canada, for example, might be very interested to get statistics/worklists/etc. for articles about Canadian military topics; they won't, however, care about the same for articles about Mexican military topics. If we can only provide this information on a continental level, then I'm not sure any of the national WikiProjects would have any reason to participate in this arrangement.
    • As a practical matter, in cases where dual-tagging arrangements with national WikiProjects already exist (e.g. either the MILHIST tag or US tag will categorize articles into the US task force), we don't have any effective way to stop the other project from continuing tagging; even if we try to roll the task force up into a combined North American task force on our side, the other project will still be generating the substantive pieces of the national task force.
  • If our main goal is to ensure that we have 100% article coverage by "geographic" task forces, while at the same time providing a categorization that will be useful to individual editors and attractive to potential partner projects, I would argue that we'll get more value by adding more narrowly scoped task forces that line up with the scopes used by these partner projects and their associated militaries (e.g. having an Argentinian military history task force that can be run in partnership with WikiProject Argentina and can work with Argentinian military historians and institutions, versus having a South American military history task force that doesn't have a one-to-one relationship with an external project or military). Now, obviously, this would mean that we'd need to figure out some way to have a large number of narrow task forces without unduly increasing overhead; my impression is that the current per-task force level of effort on our part is quite minimal, and that this consequently shouldn't be a show-stopper, but perhaps others have a different view on this.
  • On a slightly different note, I would suggest that we should consider how we can make task forces more useful to individual editors, regardless of how they're structured. At the moment, aside from the assessment statistics and the "needing attention" categories generated from the assessment checklists, I don't think there's much that the typical task force offers; the other portions are either unmaintained (in the case of, e.g. the open task lists) or not really used (in the case of, e.g. the participant lists). Are there things that we can do (via structural changes, more automation, better templates, etc.) that would actually make these task forces more "usable"? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps then the best way forward would be to continue to discuss this here and add a special report tab to the upcoming Bugle edition soliciting input from the community on the task forces. Ultimately, any attempt to reorganize the task forces has to be done with community consent, so we're gonna need to include them in any reorganization attempt. As for the narrow scoped task forces: to adequately cover all those bases we'd need task forces for every country that operates some sort of military, and that could get exhaustive for us since the world has something like 200 nations, from superpowers all the way down to micro-nations. Admittedly we wouldn't need to have task forces for every nation since some nations are military-less, but there are a decent number out there that have some sort of military presence. From this point of view then a continental and region based set up allows us to cover all the nations on earth with a vastly reduced number of task forces for overhead. We can still keep nation specific task forces if the community thinks that the national task force in question is warranted, and we would still be in a position to create new nation specific task forces if the community wants. Otherwise, the continental/regional based task forces could be used as a sign of good faith that we do work to cover the military forces of every nation, even if the nation in question isn't specifically named. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, Tom, yes, I agree totally regarding community engagement. I wonder if the task forces could be made more robust by having sortable sub categories. I don't know if this is possible, but for instance taking the example mentioned above about Argentina, could we have say a "Latin America task force" (as we currently do), but have sub-categories within that which allows articles to be sorted by countries within that task force. That would allow someone who is only interested in the one country to get a list of articles in their field of interest that they can work on. Perhaps that solution would also work for Ruth's question about a medical task force. For instance, it could be a sub category/task force within say "Science and technology" (for example, or something else if that isn't appropriate). @Auntieruth55: Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This would actually be quite easy to implement by using the task force inheritance capability within the banner template (i.e. having the flag for one task force automatically sort the article into another task force, similar to how, for example, all ACW task force articles are automatically flagged for the US task force as well). In the case of countries versus continents/regions, we could have the larger task force inherit tags from its constituent smaller ones; thus, for example, all articles tagged as "Italian", "French", "German", etc. would automatically get a "European" tag. This also has the advantage of allowing continental/regional task forces to be quickly populated without the need for extensive manual re-tagging, since we'd be able to leverage the existing national tags. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • That's wonderful news. If it wouldn't take long to repopulate the categories with the new task force parameters then we could be in a position to quickly reorganize the task forces with minimal down time so as to avoid mass disruption for project participants if they agree to move forward with this. @Kirill Lokshin: For the sake of example, if we moved forward with idea and used the continental and regional areas laid out in the Regions of the World template as a base to estimate, how much would we already have in place to convert over to and how much would need to be created or reorganized to bring this idea to fruition? I know at a minimum using the template would mean we'd need a whole new oceans and seas task force, but that aside everything else seems to be present in the project hierarchy to some greater or lesser extent. @AustralianRupert: @Auntieruth55: Sort-able categories seem to be doable, and honestly that would likely be the best way to keep the majority of the editors we have with the project through the reorganization if it moves forward, and right now that is still an "if" since we still need to hammer out some details and obtain community approval for a massive reorganization. Moving forward with this does open up an interesting door though: As a possible unforeseen added bonus here, the abrupt absence of nation-specific task forces could allow editors with a particular interest in national or sub-national topics to re-organize themselves by either creating categories to allow them to be sub-sorted within a continental or regional task force, or alternatively by creating special projects with a national or sub-national goal much as the existing special projects have done (admittedly, with mixed results). That would give our task forces undisputed broad coverage while allowing editors with individual interests leeway to edit within a sub-category or to create special projects to pursue specific interests, potentially resulting in an increase in quality content. This also somewhat addresses Kirill's concern above about editors retaining their "national" contributor mindset as opposed to the theoretically reorganized system which would make them "continental" contributors. Do you think that the special project angle here would be worth looking at too, or should we just stick with the continents and regions at the moment? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @TomStar81: Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we get rid of the national task forces and create continental/regional ones in their place by inheriting the tags. Rather, I'm suggesting that we retain the existing national task forces (as a baseline stance, which can potentially change on a case-by-case basis with regard to specific task forces) and also create continental/regional task forces by inheriting the tags. I think doing it the other way around (actively getting rid of the national task forces, but then inviting people to re-create them) would simply add complexity to the process and waste everyone's time. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      • @Kirill Lokshin: So a moratorium of sorts on additional nation and region task forces, and what we have get folded into a theoretical continental/regional task force set up. I am getting that right? Have to be sure I'm singing the same tune here :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I think that's essentially right. We'd create the missing continental/regional task forces (automatically populating them from the national ones to the extent possible). The existing national task forces would be kept as they currently are for the time being (i.e. no en masse disbanding/restructuring/etc.), with the idea that we can come back and decide how to approach them at a later date, once we see whether/how the continental/regional task forces are working. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
          • G'day, yes I think this would be the best approach. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
            • So, if I can just clarify with a specific example, under this system there would be a new "European" task force, which would inherit all the articles/lists currently in the existing national and regional (British, French, Italian, Balkan, Nordic etc) task forces (but those national and regional task forces would still be retained separately within the banner), and all the central European and Iberian articles/lists would then be able to be placed in the European task force instead of having no geographical task force coverage. If, down the track, we decided we should have an regional "Iberian" task force to cover Spain and Portugal, we could do that, as we could if we wanted a Portuguese one. Is that what is being proposed? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Correct. The idea here is to cover with continents those regions that are not currently covered by task forces or would be too small to justify a task force. This would also allow us to gauge how much support any new task force would have without creating new task forces that go under shortly after creation. In a perfect world (by which I mean the world according to Tom [lol]) the continental and regional task forces would stop the creation of and assume control over the existing national task forces so that we could eventually at some point down the line merge the national task forces into the regional/continental task forces, although I grant that there are merits to keeping the existing national task forces for the project. Going with continental and regional task forces would, as you have surmised, allow us the flexibility to cover the stuff we don't already have without prejudice to creating new regional task force. And as an added bonus, it would allow us to cover regions that currently slip through the geographical cracks without having to create new national task forces for every nation that has either a military or some sort of military-related history. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
                • Support In that case, I support this idea wholeheartedly. I have long thought every article/list should have a geographical "home". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • Glad to hear it! Now if we can get a few more people on board we can start draft preliminary plans to get this out there for the community. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Anyone else on board, or does anyone else have anything that they would like to discuss here? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • I suggest you actually flesh this out as a proposal, naming the continental task forces and explaining what will happen in the first instance. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • Good idea. Lemme work on that and I'll get back to you... TomStar81 (Talk) 01:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Outline and Draft of the proposal[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Alright, after working on this for a while I've built a proposal and visual aids for the proposed Continental Task Force concept so that everyone can see it. I have it sitting in a sandbox of mine here. Keep in mind that this is still just a proposal, and as such we are free to discuss and revise the proposal, although for obvious reasons I'd prefer we discuss here so as to keep the discussion all in one place :) TomStar81 (Talk) 12:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks good to me at first glance, although I haven't gone through the mock-up task force pages in detail (I assume they're all basically the same?). A couple of thoughts:
  • Tagging an article for the ARW and ACW task forces already automatically generates a US task force tag as well, so all of those articles will wind up in the North American task force by default.
  • If we're going by continents, then presumably the final task force should be "Australian" rather than "Oceanic"? However, that would be a step back from the inclusiveness of the current name, so we may want to think about a different hybrid name for it (e.g. "Australia, New Zealand, and Oceania" or something along those lines) to minimize the potential stepping-on-toes portion of this.
  • Are the Central American/Caribbean nations going to fold in to the North American task force? I've seen different definitions of the term that either include or exclude those areas.
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm conscious that I haven't been involved in this discussion to date so up-front I'll state my in-principle support for the proposal to implement continental TFs and that the current proposal looks very good to me. I'm more than happy to support this reform (its been a while coming). That said I agree with Kirill's points above. IRT the "Oceania" name - that was the subject of considerable debate a while back when the Australian, New Zealand and South Pacific TFs were merged (essentially because out of these the Australian TF was only one that was still in regular use). As I recall "Oceania" was not chosen for a number of reasons, not least of which was because the majority of people that live here do not use that term. I hate to get down into the weeds by raising such a specific issue at this point about a proposal that is still being broadly formed but it is bound to come up at some point (especially as it seems ANZSP is the only national TF on the chopping block, unless I've misread the proposal). Am I right in my assumption that the current plan is to appropriate ANZSP and turn into the "Oceania" TF? I agree this probably makes sense given ANZSP already covers the bulk of the region, my only misgiving is about the name (realistically the only editors active in this area at the moment are a handful of Aussies and Kiwis). Anotherclown (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
G'day, Tom, overall it looks good to me. I'd suggest a couple of tweaks: the Central American and Caribbean nations could form their own t/f potentially? Same same with Middle East...I'd say. It covers a broad group of topics/countries anyway, so probably meets the intent if not the exact form of the continental system. Ottoman...well I think of that largely as a period task force rather than a regional one (its description says it only covers upto 1922, so we could recategorise it as a period task force and then cover successor states by either Europe, the Middle East or Asia...which one is more appropriate...probably lots of debate, but we might just have to make a D on this one). Also, I'd suggest just leaving the ANZSP task force as it is...nothing really to be achieved in changing its name IMO. It is already a super-continental task force anyway and covers a broad area already. Also, to echo AC's point...the term Oceania did not receive broad support when we discussed merging the Australia and New Zealand task forces way back when. Final question/confirmation RFI, we are intending to keep the constituent categories inside the larger parent so that say if an editor wants to locate Spanish articles within the European task force (or any other combination), they can? Anyway, thanks for your work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I'm actually all for leaving the ANZSP task force as it, I reorganized it as "Oceania" only because recently that term has displaced Australia proper as the preferred term for the area in the US geography books. The bonus there is that it means 50% of our task forces already operate on the Continental task force scheme. @Anotherclown: Your assumption about this being the current plan is wrong, its actually the current proposal. The finalized version of this (when we get to that) will be the "Plan", and that will go out for the community to weigh in on. Also, you both have to concede some hilarity here that Anotherclown is worried about the Australian, New Zealand, and South Pacific task force, while AustralianRupert brings up the Caribbean region :) @Kirill Lokshin: As far as the mock ups go, they are essentially all clones of each other save but for the finer details (members, article statistics, etc). Those would need to imported to fill out the pages, although that should not be too hard to do. The tricky part here such as it were is going to be getting the new categories and template parameters established, which I suspect will be time consuming but not too tedious.
As far the regions are concerned, there are a handful that will automatically lend themselves to creation (in particular, the Middle East), but I think the best way forward here would be to gauge the community's feedback for the proposal and then move on the issue of Regions. My rational for that opinion is that when the community looks at the new continental scheme they will inevitably bring up regions as part of the discussion on whether or not they should be included, so we can get a feel for what the editorial base thinks its going to need. For some regions, like the Caribbean, I suspect the editorial base will push to have a regional task force created to cover the area, while other regions like the Arctic will be judged unneeded by the community. In a sense, you can already see that happening here as we discuss which regions are to be included/excluded from the new format, if it is adopted (and dare I say for the first time that it looks like it may be formally adopted this time :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Given ANZSP covers the same area as the proposed Oceania, I see the logic in making it a continental taskforce. I suggest we just use ANZSP as the name of the continental task force, rather than use a term that doesn't have wide acceptance. My understanding is that there will be some special cases: Turkey contains the traditional boundary between Asia and Europe (the Bosphorus) so is both European and Asian, Russia is also both European and Asian, and the Caribbean, Central American states and Greenland should all considered part of North America. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The topic of Greenland brings up an interesting question: how would we handle overseas possessions? In other words, would an article about military activity in Greenland be categorized under North America (because that's where it's located), under Europe (because it's technically part of Denmark), or both? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I think they have to be handled geographically rather than politically, ie New Caledonia should be under ANZSP, not Europe. But it does raise a good question regarding the interaction between regional/national taskforces and continental ones, ie would Greenland be in the North American continental task force, but also in the Nordic (or a future Danish) taskforce? Would New Caledonia be in the ANZSP continental taskforce, but also in the French national one? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: My understanding of the current proposal—and @TomStar81: can correct me if I'm misinterpreting—is that the existing national task forces (and their respective categories) would continue to exist once the continental task forces are created; indeed, a large portion of the categorization by continent would be accomplished by re-using the existing national task force tags in the banner, and having them automatically generate the corresponding continental task force tag as well. If this is the case, then there should be no problem with an editor navigating between continental and national categories; someone looking at the European category would be able to either go through all the articles in one pool, or go to the specific category for each national task force.
It may be worth, incidentally, clarifying the language in the proposal in this regard, since there are some sections that talk about "merging" national task forces (implying that they would no longer exist) and other sections that talk about retaining them and discussing them again in the future. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Let me state unequivocally that the current plan for the national task forces is to operate jointly with the continental/regional scheme now under discussion. If this passes and is implemented then at some point in the distant future (12-24 months perhaps) we can look at the national task forces and see if there is any interest in disbanding the group in question. Right now, though, we are not going to do anything with our national task forces other than considering the possibility that they should be under a continental umbrella such as it were. Categories for the national would continue to exist for the vary reasons Kirill mentioned above. I'll update the proposal to reflect this. As for overseas possessions, I have an idea about that which piggybacks on the original point raised by auntieruth55 about adding task forces to cover other gaps. I just figured to start with the nations and regions first, since that found unexpected support. To a certain extent regional task forces can be created to cover the gaps here, but we would need to work out the finer details. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for creating TF that are broad, and non-national, but rather descriptive. There are a lot of sensitive souls using Wikipedia, and even some relatively leathered souls might object to a TF that is labeled for the (currently) dominant political power in the region. I'd somewhat object to ANZSP over Oceania simply because I'd never get the order of initials right in assigning task forces. Australia, New Zealand, South Pacific? But that's just an old girl's confusion and I can teach my fingers. The plethora of states that might or might not it into the South Asian ( as opposed to South east Asian) would be interesting. And I suspect categorizing Greenland with North America or Europe would depend on the article. If the issue is about Greenland relations with Canada, or ? auntieruth (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
We can always put certain areas into two task forces in the event that the two areas overlap or are judged to overlap. There is a lot of that on site anyway, so a little more couldn't hurt. In the case of Greenland, I've always thought of it as part of Europe, though I suspect that other peopls in other areas think differently on the matter. And ANZSP can remember by virtue of Alphabetical Order: Australia, New Zealand, South Pacific (at least that is how I remember it, if you find something that works better for you then by all means use it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm happy with the proposed continental scheme, with the proviso that we retain the current ANZSP nomenclature. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I concur with PM - this is a war stopper for me actually. I will not support a proposal that results in what has been one of our more successful TFs being renamed to something that is probably going to be unrecognizable to those that might actually want to contribute to it in the future. That said I do not wish to stand in the way of reform and this seems a logical one with some modifications, so I again offer my support (albeit qualified as stated). (Also permission granted for someone to hit me with a trout if I ever call it "the plan" again. BTW trout for you too Tom as you did same in your response to Kirill right after correcting me). Anotherclown (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Impromptu straw poll here: do we go with Oceania or ANZSP? Sound off here so I can get a feel for which of the two options has the larger support base. Then I can update the proposal so we can move forward with the plan :) TomStar81 (Talk) 15:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • S:6 O:0 N:1 (with 12 coordinators total, majority and/or consensus will be a minimum 7 S/O in the poll)
  • With respect, I don't think so, Tom. The existing consensus for this taskforce name is ANZSP, so your proposal to change its name to Oceania would need a minimum 7 coords, and by my count we already have 6 in support of ANZSP and one neutral. So far as I am concerned, the existing consensus has just been confirmed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 19:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I would prefer ANZSP, just because I think people interested in that area would be more familiar with that titling. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • concur! ANZSP MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • yes, as I said above, I can teach my fingers to do stuff (I'm a knitter, so muscle memory is an understood thing), although ANZSP is not intuitively obvious to me. And putting articles in two TFs is a regular thing. I'm more concerned about the Middle East-Africa-Asia nomenclature. For example, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia aren't Middle East, and although they are on the Continent, their issues are much different from those in the southern part of the continent. I'm more likely to think of it in European or Med terms rather than African. How do we deal with places like this? auntieruth (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • hi Ruth, I don't want to distract from the straw poll, but I think that, like Turkey and Russia (both Asia and Europe), some states will be in two continental taskforces. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ANZSP. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Honestly don't much care.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: So, moving forward then, we have consensus to keep ANZSP as a task force. That leaves us with the other five proposed continental task forces. Are we in then in favor of adopting the proposal as it is currently, or does it need additional work? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward with the proposal[edit]

I'm off another back east trip for a funeral no one saw coming, so I'm taking a down day. Given that the rest of this week sees some pretty big holidays state side I'll put this up on Monday or Tuesday to solicit project feed back. We are a little short on the overall support here (7 would be majority consensus) but in the absence of any serious oppose commenters I will assume at this point that the rest are on board for the overhaul. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've moved the disccusion to the primary project talk page its here if anyone's interested. I have also added the discussion to the template. I am of the mind that we should send out a mass media message for this, but I can't remember how to do that and we still have no academy article to walk us through the process, so that will have to wait until someone else with a batter grasp of the tool steps up. Is there anything else we need to do with the given proposal? Any editing, trimming, add, etc that I forgot to include/exclude? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I was asked what the timeline for this should be; given that its Christmas and that the proposal was off the main page for a few days I wasn't going to take any action on it until January 4 (Monday), when everyone's likely gonna be back from vacation and after the December Bugle edition goes out so we can broadcast this discussion to other interested parties. I'm not opposed to accelerating the timeline if that is judged to be in our best interest, its just that the end timing of this was tricky due to the holiday season. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
      • G'day, Tom, yes, I think it would be best to wait until early Jan. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Agreed. There's no great urgency, and it will be easier to get things going once everyone is back from their assorted holidays. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Happy new year all. Just a reminder that on January 4 if there are no additional comments or questions I intend to move forward with the new task force scheme currently out for discussion on the project talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sounds fine to me as well. Off the top of my head, there are a number of different things that will need to happen to make this work:

  1. The Asian, European, North American, and South American task force pages need to be created.
  2. The {{WPMILHIST}} template needs to be updated to (a) include the new task forces and (b) pass through the national task force tags to them, as appropriate.
  3. The assessment categories for the new task forces need to be created.
  4. The announcement/task templates for the new task forces need to be (a) created and (b) configured to pull in the associated tasks from the national task force templates.
  5. The lists of task forces (on the main project page, in the navigational template, on the assessment page, etc.) need to be updated to include the new task forces.
Have I missed anything major?

TomStar81, I'm assuming you'll be creating the task force pages, and I can help with the template updates. Will anyone be around to help out with the category creation? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I can get the pages, I'll set something up in various sandboxes first to make sure everything checks out, then we can move them out into the mainspace. Also, since it was my idea, I feel obliged to help out with the category creation. What do you need me/us to do? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
There are about 150 or so categories that will need to be created. I've put a full list (as well as instructions for how to create the actual category pages) at User:Kirill Lokshin/sandbox#MILHIST continental task forces. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
...So, funny story: I forgot that I work this week :) I'm gonna need to take this in smaller bites in order to get through it this week. For now I can archive the primary discussion, but I'll need to handle the sandbox and category creation a little a day for the rest of the week. Sorry about that. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Sorry for the delay, I usually need a day to get over the soul crushing paperwork the Va has us filling in. Anyway, I've got a series of task force pages up in the sandbox for each proposed rebuild, they can be viewed at the following links: I think all the red links and the hypothetical categories in the sandbox pages are correct, although an extra set of eyes would be appreciated. If all this is correct then all thats left are the categories, which I can start on tomorrow. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks nice MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I made a minor tweak, but otherwise it looks fine to me. Thanks for doing this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I made a few tweaks. I'll be away on holidays from tomorrow, so can't help out with the rest of the framework, sorry. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: If there are no additional comments, questions, concerns, or suggestions for the above continental task force designs then at some point today or tomorrow I'll move forward with the category creation and then move the sandbox continental pages out into the Milhist mainspace. Assuming this is a success, it should help us better reorganize to meet the demands of the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Alright, I got the categories created and moved the userspace project pages tot he main space - with the exception of the South American task force (I forgot that we had one that was renamed and moved to the Latin American military history task force, and I don't want to mess anything up unnecessarily). If anyone would like to double check to make sure that everything got set up and/or moved correctly I would appreciate it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Good job, Tom! There may be a glitch, as Category:Military history articles with no associated task force just jumped to 17,500 articles! From a quick look, many of those on the first page should have a taskforce already... What the &^%$ is up with that? Any ideas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
No idea, but I figured I would end up dividing by zero somewhere, so there has to be a cause and effect between the two. Now at least I know what it is. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This is actually unrelated to the new task forces; the bulk of the articles in that category are redirects and disambiguation pages, for which we recently enabled the missing task force check in the template. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way to run a script or bot (I really have no idea on these things) to categorise all the "category talk" pages as "Cat"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The template already automatically sets the assessment class for anything outside of article space. Do you mean something to automatically assign task forces? I'm not sure there's any clean way to do that, since the appropriate task force(s) aren't necessarily going to be obvious from any existing tags (whether on the category itself or on the articles inside it). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're right of course. We need a backlog drive to clean it up... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Do I need to do anything special to make sure that all the subpages and everything else current at the Latin American task force get moved to the South American task force? Its been 24 hours almost, and I would like to get that page in line with the other task forces sooner rather than later. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I've created a bunch of subpages for the European, North American and Asian task forces, for instance the userbox, popular pages, and article alerts. I hope that was what I was meant to do. Will the statistics tables and popular pages lists etc update automatically (as currently they are blank)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, will articles that are in the children categories automatically appear in the parent categories, e.g. if tagged for the British task force, will it automatically appear in the European task force? Or do we have to manually start adding these? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
TomStar81 and Kirill Lokshin, I just added the European task force to Talk:15th (Scottish) Parachute Battalion (a redirect) and it doesn't show up in the banner or in the categories at the bottom of the page. All the new TFs should also have a shortened version of the full syntax for example, |European=y should work for |European-task-force=yes, to save people time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Well we were bound to have teething issues with this, so I can not say that I am terribly surprised to hear this. On a related note, I decided to be BOLD and moved our existing Latin American task force back to its original location at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/South American military history task force, however when I went to move the associated pages I got a lot of notices that they already existed and could not be moved. Is this something I/we need to be worried about? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: The problem you're seeing is caused by the {{WPMILHIST}} template not actually having been updated to include the new task forces. I'll work on that tonight.
@TomStar81: I was under the impression that we were going to (re-)create the South American task force, not rename the Latin American one. Is that not what you had in mind? I'm concerned about the Mexican military history articles, in particular; they belong in the latter but not the former, and I don't see any good way to filter them out except by hand. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kirill Lokshin: Actually, I was trying to feel that out up above...but no one replied, and I was unsure if it was advisable to leave one odd task force out. I moved the task force only after 2.5 days of no apparent community input on the matter, and even then it was done only after two debates with myself over the advisability of moving forward with a move. Frankly, I would have welcomed some feedback on this point, since I had forgot that we had a South American task force once before and that came back to me only when Wikipedia notified me that the sandbox page couldn't be moved because the target was already in existence. As for the current situation with the task forces: I think it preferable to have separate task forces for South America and Latin America, so the question then becomes should we move the renamed Aouth American task force back to Latin america and recreate a SA task force from scrath, or keep the current SA task force and rebuild the Latin America task force from scratch.
I'm not sure that I'd recommend splitting them out; especially under those titles as Central America is usually included in Latin America. Honestly, I don't see any particular virtue to splitting them at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it really boils down to whether Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean would be covered under the North American task force or the South (Latin) American one? To keep things clear, perhaps we could rename the Latin American task force to "South and Central American" (cf. United Nations geoscheme for the Americas)? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That would work for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm relaxed about that, but thought we were putting Central America with North America? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm also cool with that. Alternatively, we could just create a specific regional "Central American task force" and put the nations most identified with Central America in it. That was something I had brought up during the initial phase of the continental task force pitch - any regional-specific nations that didn't fit well into a continental scheme could be covered in a regional task force. No one from the community replied on the point while this was under community consideration, although as you can see from the project's own Middle Eastern task force the concept of a regional-specific task force is something that we have used with success in the past. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd say we'd be best off sticking to a continental structure, and put Central America with North America (or South America, if that is thought more useful). Any regional/national task forces should be below the continental level IMO. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Given the UN geoscheme has Central America and the Caribbean as subregions of North America, I suggest we adopt that scheme as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: if there are no further objections or suggestions, it looks like the North America for Caribbean region option has the support of the group. Is there anything else that we need to work on or with, or set up, to get this officially up and running, or has it all been addressed? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy with that. I still don't think that the categories are populating, though. I added this a while ago (as a test) and the categories still seem empty. [1] [2] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure it would be the cause of the issue AR identifies above, I assume we will need to update the template documentation at Template:WikiProject Military history at some point. Is this something anyone can do? Anotherclown (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I added this today (as a further test), but it doesn't seem to recognise the code (i.e. the article wasn't placed into any categories as a result): [3] Not sure if the template has been updated...or how to do this. Can anyone help with this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Rollout Hiccup[edit]

@Kirill Lokshin: Based on the above comments it seems that this isn't working correctly, did we miss something or is it something out of our hand? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I made an administrative mistake for which I will be taking a voluntary 24-hour time out from Wikipedia to atone for, however I wanted to ask before I leave if anyone has figured this out yet so we can start populating the categories. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@TomStar81: I'll take a look at it tonight. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Okay, I think I've fixed it; I ran a few manual tests, and the template seems to render as expected. I'll leave it overnight and see if the categories populate correctly before calling the all-clear, however.

For everyone's reference, here is how the cascading tags should work:

  • African → No automatic tagging
  • Asian→ Automatically tagged if any of the following are present: Chinese; Japanese; Korean; South Asian, Southeast Asian
  • Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific → No automatic tagging
  • European→ Automatically tagged if any of the following are present: Balkan; Baltic states; British; Dutch; French; German; Italian; Nordic; Polish; Spanish
  • North American→ Automatically tagged if any of the following are present: Canadian; United States
  • South American → No automatic tagging

A few additional notes:

  • The following national/regional task forces do not automatically generate any of the continental tags: Middle Eastern; Ottoman; Russian, Soviet and CIS.
  • With the new tags, all Latin American articles will now show up as South American. Depending on how we want to resolve the discussion above, we may need to manually de-tag the Central American and Caribbean articles and re-tag them as North American instead.

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Milhist Academy Audit[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've taken a lap through the milhist Academy, tweaking and trimming the material for updating and standardization/uniformity. A few things to look at though:

  • @Anotherclown: No, I didn't check any of the dates for when the articles were created, just the general content of the page, hence the question. Some of our pages go back almost 6 years, others were created much more recently, and in any event since things change all the time I thought the easiest solution would be to just ask if the page was still up to date. Since it is, I don't think we need to worry about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries, thanks for confirming that. I agree the Academy pages do need updating so thanks for taking the lead on this. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • All three are no longer active - I've removed them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, should we redirect the talk pages for the academy articles to the primary milhist talk page? There not a widely watched bunch, so if someone edits to add a question there it may go unanswered if it isn't in a highly visible place. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Is anyone with a decent understanding of the Eastern Front (World War II) able to please have a look at the discussion on the talk page? There has been a concern raised by a newish editor about it being biased but I'm not really in a position to assess these claims. I reverted one of their recent changes due to it changing the meaning of referenced text (whilst the username also concerns me as being a possible POV editor). Perhaps my concerns are completely unfounded though as some of their edits look useful to me. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

November contest[edit]

G'day all, I've verified most of the entries for the November contest, but I need someone to verify my own (single entry). Once that is done, we can hand out the awards and finalise the blurb in the Bugle. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've tallied the points, handed out the awards and written up the Bugle entry. Regards AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rupert. Nice to have a break. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Oct-Dec 15 review tallies[edit]

Username GAN PR ACR FAC Total Awarded
Anotherclown 6 1 12 0 19 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 6 4 15 1 26 Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Cinderella157 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Cuprum17 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Dank 0 8 14 16 38 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Harrias 2 0 2 0 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 2 0 2 0 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hchc2009 2 2 4 1 9 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Ian Rose 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Keith-264 0 1 1 0 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Lineagegeek 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz 0 0 3 1 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
MONGO 0 0 1 0 1 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Nick-D 0 1 2 1 4 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 0 6 8 17 31 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Nortonius 0 0 1 1 2 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Parsecboy 4 0 1 2 7 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 11 1 6 3 21 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 11 0 2 5 18 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Tim Riley 0 1 1 3 5 AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

G'day all, I've tallied the A-class reviews for Oct-Dec 15. Can someone else take a run through the GANs, PRs, and FACs? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Did PRs and FACs. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Added GANs. Are there any repechages? If not, I will look to hand out the awards tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Awarded all except mine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ping failures[edit]

I'm guessing this isn't happening to just me (unless I pissed off the devs without knowing it), but I haven't been notified 3 times in the last month when people pinged me, even though it looks like they did everything right: one paragraph, done in one edit, signed, containing my username. Just tonite I saw AR tried to ping me at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nike-X. So: if someone pings me and I don't answer, please come knocking on my userpage. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I take that back ... AR did everything right, except his edit has multiple paragraphs. The paragraph that tried to ping me was the last one, and it was signed, so you'd think that would work ... but it often doesn't. Still, the other two non-pings, I have no explanation for. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I've had the same thing happen recently. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

WWII Navy VC-33[edit]

My father, LT. Max Plunkett was a Navy Pilot, in aircraft squadron VC-33 in WWII and he flew off a carrier in the Pacific. He flew a Wild Cat, Grumman F4F. I can supply a picture of their insignia / patch, which is different from the ones shown and a picture of him flying a Wild Cat over Leyte Gulf during the war. PattJP (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do. I suspect the patch is the modern one and it would be good to get the proper one uploaded onto Commons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 contest[edit]

G'day, I've tallied the January 2016 contest results, started the new scoreboard for the 2016 Writers' Contest Cup, and handed out the first placed award. Can someone else please verify the totals, and award the second place award? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. BTW, congrats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback for an idea I suddenly had[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Over the last few months we've had a string of what could be rightly classified as iffy page moves within our project, beginning with certain military ranks and then on to the German army units. Given that we have consensus on where these pages should be kept I've been wondering how we could prevent consensus-established pages from being moved or renamed without first establishing new consensus for the move. I admit that I hadn't really come up with any kind of solution to the problem until I happened to notice a recent change line that lit up a light bulb: would it be possible for us to create an edit filter to prevent consensus-named pages form being moved until new consensus was established? I am largely unfamiliar with the edit filters, but I do know from my limited experience that they are supposed to track and report edits that could be problematic - such as adding youtube links to articles - and in some cases they do appear to prevent actions from being taken. Would this be worth looking into as a possible solution to the problem of page moves made without community consensus? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This happens to be something that I've (briefly) looked into, albeit in the context of enforcing arbitration restrictions rather than preventing page moves. The main limitation of edit filters is that, generally speaking, they operate based on fairly literal examination of the contents of the page being edited and/or the edit being made. In other words, the filter would be able to check whether the title of an article matches a specific string and disallow moves based on the result; but it has no way of making more general inferences about the article.
The upshot for this particular idea is that one could, in principle, have an edit filter that prevents a specific set of articles from being moved—but the set would need to be explicitly defined by putting the article titles in the edit filter; there is no way for the filter to identify "consensus-named" pages in general. Note, also, that complex filters have non-trivial impact on the performance of the site (i.e. how long pages take to load, edits take to save, etc.); it might be feasible to do this for ten articles, but it's not really a viable solution for large categories of articles. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course, move protection in this situation isn't explicitly endorsed by WP:MOVP, but we could still do it under IAR. If a new consensus was established either informally or via a RM, any admin could move them. Were there specific pages you had in mind, Tom? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Off the top of my head the highest ranking general/admiral pages (for example, General of the Armies) because these end up moved all the time. Below that certain problematic articles where consensus has been established to name as x as opposed to y (ie Ottoman Army as opposed to Turkish Army) would be good candidates for such a filter. The main problem would be consensus as to where the page goes - and we only discuss those matters at length on problematic pages where the naming conventions could be any number of things due to the history of the nation or group in question - so that would mean that only pages where community consensus had to be explicitly worked out (like General of the Armies) would be eligible for the filter based protection specifically due to the long history of move and move back noted in the given article's log. Done in this manner we can preserve the open for everyone to edit creed while protecting articles known to be frequent thorns in our side (ideally, anyway). TomStar81 (Talk) 05:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting a previous idea[edit]

I floated this idea a little while back, while some action was taken on moving forward with it nothing really came of it, so I'm resurrecting it again. I'm looking at the idea of creating a GA, A, and FA edit notice - except that this time I've fiddled with it some more, and I would like to try something really bold: creating a collapsble section that includes the nominator(s), the ref tool bar we have for A and FA class articles for easy access to external references checkers, and a box for editors to make notes on any issues they find in the article. Its bold I know, but I would like to try again - we do have a reputation for leading by example, so hopefully if this gets going in our project it'll jump to the rest of Wikipedia and we can see what they think about adopting it. The retooled prototype is sitting here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. Some thoughts:
  1. I'm not sure it makes sense to use this on GAs - because they only have a single reviewer, they tend to be far more variable in quality.
  2. While <ref> tags are the most common, they aren't required - are we sure all affected articles use them? Similarly, some of them will certainly be using LDR, and not all reference types will include all of the details you suggest.
  3. I would tend to be concerned about image copyright as well as (or more than) the effect of images on layout
  4. IPC guidance should reflect the results of this RFC
  5. Why include nominator in the edit notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. In answer to your points above:

  1. GA-Class articles wouldn't need all the information in the notice, however there are a few things that all the articles at or above GA share, including higher referencing standards. If nothing else an edit notice for those page ought to make the general public aware of the fact that adding information to the article without a reference is likely going to get the added information removed or refactored. It a judgement call, but I think AGF applies here - we have a duty to inform those people editing that articles at or above GA class need references - even if they are improperly added, a reference lets us check the information. Editors can adjust the information as needed if there is a link to the reference in the article.
  2. You are right about the ref tags. That is an oversight on this particular draft version, however I had to start somewhere right? :) I think it may be better to either create a custom template to adopt for a given citation style in the article in question, or to generally have a link to an WP:X article explaining the citation styles. In another light bulb moment, I suppose we could build a custom academy course addressing this issues vis-a-vis an article's citation style.
  3. Image copyright is a major issues, your right, however I should think that the copyright image checking protocols would catch most of this. I would be supportive of adding this as an optional tab if it becomes apparent that the article is going to attract copyright problems. Again, the solution may be to create independent templates for the fields so we can address each field that to be a variable quickly.
  4. Your right about IPC guidance, however our own pop culture template lays out specific marks that need to be hit in order for a military history article to have a popular culture section. In most cases the mentions are trivial at best, so we usually trim out all the fat such as it were to keep the article in question from being bogged down. As an example, the article USS Missouri (BB-63) has seen mentions of both Metal Gear Solid 4 and World in Conflict in the pop culture section, both of which have been removed before because the battleship was featured only briefly. By comparison, Missouri was essentially a main character in the movie under siege (although it was technically USS Alabama since Missouri was unavailable) so the pop culture section reflects the latter but neither of the former two.
  5. The nominator part shows in the example because its beyond my ability to build a collapsible box to the section. The idea there was to a have a collapsed box that would note the nominator, have the utility box that the ACR and FAC process have, and a note section so that experienced editors could quickly check the article's important stats (like the status of the external links in an article) and place something in the edit notice drop down section to draw the nominator's attention to a potentially downgrading issues like dead links. In fairness that does seem a little ostentatious, but since its all in the planning stages at the moment I figured what the heck and went for it. Along those same lines, since I am reply and thinking about it now, we would need a line concerning editing restrictions for community sanctions and arbcom related issues. to make sure that editors are aware of the matter.
I hoping with more feedback on the idea we may be able to build a prototype and get it out in the article space before the end of the year. I can speak for anyone else, but I would like to know if the presence of the template helps or hurts our FA, A< and possibly GA articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 16 review tallies[edit]

Username GAN PR ACR FAC Total Awarded
Anotherclown 4 0 13 0 17 Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 4 1 16 2 23 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Dank 0 0 15 12 27 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 2 0 3 1 6 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Ian Rose 7 0 5 1 13 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz 0 0 2 1 3 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Nick-D 3 0 5 3 9 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 0 0 5 10 15 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Parsecboy 7 0 1 2 10 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 2 0 4 0 6 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 14 0 3 3 20 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Zawed 9 0 7 0 16 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Ed 0 0 2 0 2 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Constantine 0 0 1 0 1 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 5 1 1 0 7 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Errant 3 0 1 0 4 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Buckshot06 0 0 1 0 1 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Srnec 0 0 1 0 1 Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

G'day all, I have tallied the Jan to Mar 16 ACR reviews. Is anyone free to do the PR, GAN or FAC tallies? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've done PR and FAC, but I only found 1 Milhist PR with anyone from this list (2 total) - can that be right? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
First thought is ... probably not, let me check. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I see my name in the first 4 PRs that are up currently at Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, and I've generally been covering them all. (I just started a break from covering PR and A-class though.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait ... I see what you mean, Nikki. I just covered snapshots of that page in 3-week intervals, and all but one that have gone up this quarter haven't disappeared from the annoucements page yet, so there's an argument that they don't count for this quarter. I have no problem with that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Right - to avoid double-counting, we've usually done only the ones that closed in the quarter in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone free to do the GANs? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Done now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I've awarded these now (except for my own of cse). Thank you to the others who tallied these up. Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Task Force Reorganization Phase II[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Since I ended up shanghi-ing auntiruth55's original task force proposal I feel like I have an ethical responsibility to bring it up here again, but she did have a point when she said we needed another task force to help cover the gaps in our coverage - although in truth, its not one, but three. From where I sit, we are short a designated task force for the following 3 general topics:

  • Military Culture - this includes general military topics such as ceremonial functions (such as Honours of war, traditional military songs, military families, etc). Presently these have no specific task force to call their own, they instead huddle with certain task forces that are not necessarily suited to cover the topic at hand in all respects. Honors of war, for example, is covered by the national miltiaries task force, but that wouldn't include the ancient Roman legions for whom a triumph or ovation may have been awarded for military service. These are presently covered by the classical military task force, but while this is appropriate for the time period there really isn't a general place for such a article within the project, one where ceremonies and other facets of military culture throughout the ages could be properly categorized and handled.
  • Military Medicine - this includes non-combatant and forces in the field and those installations on friendly territory that work within the realm of military medicine to treat active, reserve, and retired members of the military (that includes the U.S. Veteran's Affair medical services as well). This is a specific discipline in the armed forces of most nations and it has a unique corps that really does require an independent task force to cover all aspects of battle field medicine, rest and recovery, life after injury on the battlefield (as certain cases may qualify for coverage), and those advents of medicine brought about on the battlefield due to the demands of combat.
  • Military Logistics - this should have been a task force unto itself right from the get go, however it got past us somehow (I suppose due to the apparent ability to cover this through designated national militaries task forces) but in all honesty logistics is a such a broad discipline that it should have its own task force. Logistical situations throughout history have been major factors for combat operations, and I think a specific task force to cover all aspects of logistics would benefit the project as a whole.

As always I am open to feedback here, if anyone thinks this to be a bad idea or thinks that may may need one or greater (or possibly fewer) such task forces then feel free to bring it up here. As before, if any change of this nature is to move forward then we need to establish consensus among ourselves first, then get community feedback on the matter. I'm open to hearing what everyone thinks about the idea(s) presented above. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

G'day. A couple of cmt's/suggestions/random thoughts that I'm not strongly attached to:
  1. Do we need separate TFs for all of these (the above) or would it be more efficient to group a few themes together? For instance I see Logistics and Medicine as being related and therefore potentially being able to be covered in a single entity.
  2. There are potentially some other gaps too, both thematic and by period. For instance Military Theory and Strategy or Post-Cold War? Or some such variation of these to cover the topics that would naturally fall in to such areas. No doubt there are others too. Does anyone see any value in also adding TFs for these?
  3. Regardless, I wonder how necessary any of them are though. Ultimately what purpose do TFs serve other than to categorise our articles as part of our back-room administrative processes that few readers may even notice?
  4. Although, given that we obviously have this system in place (i.e. TFs) I can see the attraction of trying to ensure that it is as logical as it can be (without reaching the tipping point where any administrative overheads become more burdensome than any advantage that it might otherwise provide). Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
G'day, interesting suggestions. In principle I'm supportive. I have a couple of thoughts also. Like Anotherclown, though, I would go with Military logistics and medicine. I believe theory and strategy are currently covered by the Science and technology task force, but perhaps we could tweak its name: Science, technology and military thought? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I've always put anything related to military art, including strategy and tactics, into the SciTech TF, as they are all about the same thing, the ideas part of the military. Seems to me that could be better explained in that TF though. I agree with lumping military medicine with logistics, they are usually grouped together as combat support services these days, and to some extent always have been. I can see a Customs and Traditions TF as being useful, and have often wondered where to put articles of that ilk. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
G'day, what about "Military logistics and medicine", "Customs, traditions, culture, and heraldry" and "Military science, technology and art"? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, although people might be confused about the distinction between "art" and "culture". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, "Military logistics and medicine", "Military customs, traditions, culture, and heraldry" (would include decorations, music, slang, iconography etc) and "Military science, technology and thought" (as above)? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps "Military science, technology, and theory"? The second name could probably also be shortened by omitting either "customs" or "traditions"; e.g. "Military culture, traditions, and heraldry". Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd support those. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Same. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Me too. When should we move forward with this? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd say there is enough of a consensus to get on with it now. Certainly there could be no substantive argument against the expansion/rewording of SciTech into Military science, technology, and theory to make the inclusion explicit. There is a clear need for Military culture, traditions, and heraldry as it covers quite a few articles that have no TF "home" at present, and to a lesser degree that also applies to Military logistics and medicine. We're going to need a backlog drive to clean up/sort the TF=no parameter, as quite a lot of those articles will now fit into one of these. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity I'm happy to support this. Anotherclown (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military logistics and medicine task force. It was harder than I thought, and I'm bound to have got something wrong, so please take a look. @Kirill Lokshin: I gather that there is some back room programing you have to do the Milhist template to get this to work. Would you mind doing this? Does anyone else want to create, or adjust, the other two T/Fs? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are some template changes, as well as a bunch of categories that will need to be created. I can get started on that, but it would be more efficient if we did all three new task forces at one time rather than adding them piecemeal. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I've created the two new ones and moved/renamed the third. I was able to work out how to edit the Milhist template to fix the renamed task force (I think), but haven't been able to get the Logistics and medicine, or the Culture, traditions and heraldry task forces to display in it, or fill their categories. Anyway, that took me about over four hours, so it's bed time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Adding a new task force requires a few extra bits of code to the banner that might not be apparent from looking at the existing task force markup. I'll go through and add the two new ones this evening. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kirill Lokshin: Cheers, Kirill, I hope I didn't break anything too badly. Can I please ask that other co-ords add these new task force codes to relevant articles as they come across them, please? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the new task forces to the banner and created the missing assessment categories for each; everything should now be working for all three task forces as far as the assessment system is concerned. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirill. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kirill Lokshin: G'day Kirill, sorry to bother you with this one again. JL Bot just removed all of the recognized content from the Science, technology and theory task force with this edit: [4]. I assume this is because I did something wrong with the change. Would you mind taking a look? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I think it was the missing "task force" in the category name. We'll see if that fixed it the next time the bot runs. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirill. I seem to have muffed this up quite a bit. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Automated Archiving?[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I am curious to know if there is tool that either exists on Wikipedia or could be created on Wikipedia that would look at the external links used in an article and save the version found at web archive so that when an external link dies we can recall it and replace it automatically with the correct version in use at the time. Is that something we can do, or would it be impractical? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

CyberBot II does something like this. It looks at broken links in the pages, and attempts to resolve them from the Internet Archive (Wayback machine). It has limitations; the Wayback machine does not (and cannot) always archive every link we use at the time we use it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Apparently GreenC bot (talk · contribs) does something like this too. I found this one when it edited the article we have on the carrier Bush, which is on my watch-list. Funny how that works, huh? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the GreenC bot's job is cleaning up after the CyberBot. That's always a bad sign. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Retiring[edit]

I am out of this place. Enjoy and thanks for the support in the past. Cheers and good luck to all MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Until we meet again, goodbye, farewell, and amen. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Lots of good memories, MrB, I hope to see you again soon. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Best wishes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I wish I knew why you were retiring as I'd regret not having you here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Similarly - you'll be missed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
G'day, MB, I hope you will reconsider as you are most certainly an asset to Milhist and Wikipedia in general. I have certainly enjoyed working with you over the years and if you do choose not to come back, I wish you all the best. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Very sorry to see you go, MB. I wish some editors would take a more balanced and nuanced view of what really constitutes propaganda (on all sides) in respect of WWII. The sort of blinkered, simplistic view you have been dealing with in the recent past is not a net positive for the project. Good luck out there, it is clear from the above that you'll always be among friends here should you choose to return. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@MisterBee1966: Did not like coming across this today. :-( Best wishes for the future, friend. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A few things to go over[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Hi all, hope your summer (or winter as the case may be) is going well. A few points I wanted to go over here, just to get us up focused as we round third for the trip home for this tranche:

  • We have a hand full of remaining academy pages that need a look see in order to ensure that they are up to snuff, I am willing to help, but extra eyes to clear that out would be helpful.
  • Our task force realignment phase II is cleared for lift off, I think that we are agreed on that point. Is there any reason why it hasn't moved forward yet? If so, we should get on that.
  • Our bugle edition was set to go out this coming week, as I understand it. Is there anything we have to add to it to help get it in a position for publication?
  • With Mr. B's departure I have recommended him for a Chevron with Oakleaves award, the nomination is here, if anyone would like to support it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Other than these points does anyone have anything we need to look at, consider, or act on at the moment? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I've looked over a few of these remaining red linked Academy pages and for the main I think many of the topics are already covered largely in other articles. I've been bold and removed those that I think don't need a rehash. I've also reworked a few etc. Happy to discuss if others disagree. I'd also suggest that maybe the two requested articles for writing B-class and GA-class articles could just be covered off by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Improving articles. I also cobbled this together, if anyone wants to tweak a few things: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Battles: understanding the terrain. Thoughts? PS: re Phase II of the Task Force Reorg, I think we are good to go. I was just hoping someone else would do the donkey work... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think many of these were double ups so that all makes sense to me (including using "Improving articles" to cover off on writing B-class and GA-class articles). Also I had a look at "Battles: understanding the terrain" and couldn't see any obvious errors. Looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Establishing context regarding awards[edit]

G'day all, I think it might be worth expanding our Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide with a bit of information on establishing context in the lead where notability is partly or wholly dependent on receipt of an award. For example, where someone has received the Victoria Cross, we don't expect readers to follow the link to find out about the award, we make a general observation about the award itself such as, "the highest decoration for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" that can be awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth armed forces" (which I have lifted from Edgar Towner which is Featured). There has been a recent spate of removing the equivalent phrase from articles on recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its higher grades, and I think it would be worthwhile expanding our guideline to incorporate the Milhist community consensus on this issue. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, PM, this seems like a good idea to me. I think it would potentially also be a good idea to clarify the German system of awards somewhere also. From what I can tell the grades of the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross are culmulative, which is different to the Anglo-American systems, and in some regards doing this may help clarify the notability. (My interpretation here, might of course be incorrect, though, so I really encourage those with a better working knowledge of this topic to get involved). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day Rupert, I agree regarding the cumulative nature of the Knight's Cross and how it applies to SOLDIER and ANYBIO. FWIW, the Knight's Cross itself was handed out in a similar way to the MC, DCM and DFC, the higher grades were more like the DSO, and the Diamonds was more like the VC. That certainly isn't an exact correlation, but it is similar in some ways. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I've thought about this a bit more, and think some clarification regarding the Knight's Cross is necessary, at least so far as SOLDIER is concerned. The Knight's Cross was awarded for valour as well as military leadership, and in some cases for reaching particular milestones such as fighter pilot and submarine captain kills. In the latter respects, it was a bit like the DFC/DFMs awarded to Bomber Command pilots/crew that did 25 missions, or DSOs or CBEs awarded for leadership. However, SOLDIER is about awards for valour, nothing else, and maps across to the VC or MoH well. However, at the time any person was awarded the Knight's Cross for valour, it was the highest award they could receive for valour at that time. No-one could receive the higher levels without first being awarded all of the lower levels for separate actions. It was not possible to be awarded the Knight's Cross with Diamonds without first being awarded all the lower levels in turn. Therefore, it seems to me that the award of the Knight's Cross for valour (not other things) is automatically the highest award for valour available to that person at the time, and therefore meets SOLDIER. Further awards (for valour), would be roughly equivalent to a bar to the VC or similar. Despite the numbers of Knight's Crosses awarded, not anywhere near as many were awarded for valour only, and even fewer awarded for multiple acts of valour. Food for thought, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, PM, yes, agreed, that's my take, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, all, I have had a look over the Notability guide today, and made a few changes. Overall, I don't believe them to be controversial, but if anyone disagrees, please let me know. I'd be happy to revert and discuss. These are my edits: [5] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I've made some copyedits, but the added material looks good to me overall. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 16 review tallies[edit]

Username GAN PR ACR FAC Total Awarded
Anotherclown 7 0 12 0 19 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
AustralianRupert 2 5 16 5 28 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Dank 0 4 4 9 17 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 0 0 3 0 3 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ian Rose 3 0 9 3 15 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz 0 0 9 0 9 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Nick-D 0 1 5 2 8 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 0 4 13 11 28 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 0 0 2 0 2 Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Zawed 3 0 4 0 7 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Dudley Miles 0 1 1 0 2 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hchc2009 2 0 2 0 4 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Keith-264 0 0 3 0 3 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Tomandjerry211 (alt) 1 0 1 0 2 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Auntieruth 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
EnigmaMcMxc 0 0 4 0 4 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron 0 0 3 0 3 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
23 editor 0 0 1 2 3 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
TomStar81 0 0 2 0 2 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
K.e.coffman 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 0 0 1 0 1 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day ladies and gentlemen, it is that time again. I've tallied up the Milhist ACR reviews. Hoping that others will help with tallying the PRs, GANs and FACs. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
PRs and FACs done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
GANs done, and totalled. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
All awarded (albeit with a typo), if someone could award mine, we're done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
<clears throat>Umm, I'm fairly certain that I did a bunch of GA reviews this last quarter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
You did plenty, Sturm. But no ACRs were listed, and that is the bright line for awards. Did you do any ACRs that weren't picked up? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
No, just GANs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm swinging the lead as usual. Hopefully, next time will be better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: As unbelievable as it may be, we are nearing the end of the current coordinator tranche. With August bearing down on us I thought I'd put this up now so you can all opine about the number of coordinators we currently have and the tentative dates for the forthcoming election in September. This tranche we reduced the overall number to ten coordinators (9 regular and 1 lead) and kept our two coordinators emerti. Does the 10 still work for everyone, or could we stand to lose/gain a few? Also, is everyone still ok with the 10 day nomination and 10 voting scheme? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been carrying my weight, but my observation has been that we don't need more coords. So far as the rest is concerned, I think that's also fine. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I think the current number is workable and am happy with the number of days proposed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I've no issue with this as proposed; however, given the low voter turnout last year (which I'd assume will continue) I wonder if we might need more than 10 days? Also a longer nomination period might encourage more prospective new co-ords to nominate. Just a thought anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I might return to the fray (if people will have me!) this election -- I'm already listing ACRs ready for closure above so I think that's telling me something... ;-) I have no prob with the total number remaining at 10, but there might indeed be something in keeping the process open a bit longer, perhaps two weeks nom and two weeks vote? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That'll work for me, as I'm definitely having a break this time. But on reflection, a bit longer for noms and the election might help to get wider engagement. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I'm fine with two weeks for each phase. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree, two weeks each seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy with two weeks for each too (seems a nice round number to be a month in total and hopefully the longer period will yield more participation). Anotherclown (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Delisting A-class articles?[edit]

What's the usual process for this? A listing on WP:MHR? See User talk:The ed17#Wolfgang Lüth. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was to use the "A-class=current" field on the banner as if you were nominating it for ACR, but note the reasons for the reappraisal in the nomination statement? After appraisal, if the consensus is to demote, that is what gets added to the field, then I assume the bot does the rest? Hawkeye7? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

removal of information which is explicitly supported by the source[edit]

May I ask the coordinators to have a look at Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm). The removal to this list is against the recommendations in the main source by Veit Scherzer. I would think that the removal would have to he supported by an independent third source. Thoughts?MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)