Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 49

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

Citation needed tags

I've been thinking about the article that ran a while back concerning the false info on the ameila bedila page. The material was never tagged as being in need of citations, but given that our project generally tighter editorial guidelines and is usually noted for blazing the trail to which the rest of the projects follow I wonder if you should considered adding a note to the MilMos that states explicitly that any information tagged as citation needed should be removed from an article after 3 three months to help cut down on the likelihood that funny information will remain in articles we oversee for a prolong period of time, and in the same vein, be published and distributed with incorrect or blatantly false information. Would this be worth looking into, or I am going overboard on paranoia? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any data on how commonplace such long-lasting tags are? Are we talking about hundreds of articles, or tens of thousands? Kirill [talk] 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Lots where I edit. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Last time I checked we had something like 800,000 articles in our project's purview. If we assume for a moment that half of those have at least one citation needed tag then we could be looking at 400,000 easily, however that number has to be taken with a grain of salt for two reasons: first, its based on years old data, so the number of articles has inevitably increased while the quality of the articles has gotten better over the years do to the slow down in editing, which means that the gap between the two has more than likely closed rather than expanded. Second, If we adopt the standard here and others follow our lead then its likely in time that the more electronically gifted among us will wrote or add two an existing bot to do the work automatically. In our case, when you look at the milestone bars we are aiming for, the numbers suggest that the high quality material for our project likely accounts for 10-15% of all articles, and when you look at the material that ends up with a CN tag its usually something trivial that may or may not be needed in the article. Moving the material to the talk page until a citation is provided, or deleting the material from the article if it is questionable, could help tighten up the number of quality articles we generate. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Only a quick comment, but would this not be (in most cases) like throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I agree to the concerns expressed here. But the topic you are raising is a question of how to maintain the quality of an article over time. Generally speaking we have good procedures in place to bring an article up the quality scale but we a lacking procedures and processes to keep an article at that level, the citation needed tag is only one indication that the article rating is at risk. Maybe it is worth thinking about expiration date or expiration criteria for the higher class ratings, mandating a simplified recheck of the class rating? Comments? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@The ed17:: perhaps, but there is some benefit to kicking out questionable material (or moving it to the talk page or whatever we elect to do with it if we move forward with this) in that it helps ensure that any information added is sourced. In a sense then, its an extreme interpretation of WP:V in that any material that can not be verified independently via citations after a period of time (say three months from the addition of a cn tag) is removed to ensure the article's integrity. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@MisterBee1966:: Its not just about article quality, its about information management. Wikipedia as a whole already has checking procedures for out of a date GA and FA class articles, while B-class articles have their own checklists and thus can be matched for what they have and what they lack, which then leaves only the A-class articles, which are largely supervised by committed editors who consistently check the material to ensure everything that should be cited is cited, and to the mandated reliable sources. What I'm proposing goes beyond checking quality articles by requiring any article regardless of its rating to show citations for material tagged with a cn tag within a designated time period, after which if there is no citation on the material is it removed from the article. Whether that would mean deleting it outright, or simply moving the uncited material to the talk page until it can be cited, would be a matter for the community to decided if and when we move forward with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I get your point. Moving or deleting information which is classified as needing a citation can be a first step in the right direction. But in the greater scheme of things and quality control, I see no fundamental difference between information not cited at all and information tagged as requiring a citation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
We all do. Like I said, its an idea right now, nothing more, and its a result of this incident that I bring this up now. If we decide to leave this be I doubt there will be any noticeable impact on the articles here or the information they contain, but if we implement this it could help catch and remove questionable material before it makes headlines. I'll see what the rest of the group has to say before moving on with the idea or letting it go. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I ran across a FA that I patrol that has several (13 at last count) citation tags in it now. Look at United States Military Academy and you will notice several places where there are sentences that have no citation and tags have been added. I may have added some of the tags a while back but was not paying attention to the class of the article at the time. I'm sure that some well meaning editor has added material after the FA assessment was done, but the article now looks something like Swiss cheese with all of the tags. This risks a FA being knocked back to C-class article unless the material is cited or removed. If the material is removed to the talk page in hopes of finding sources later, how do we ensure that it gets put back where it came from? Another concern would be if the talk page on an article that has lots of discussion were to have non cited material on the talk page and that talk page were archived, what happens then. Is the material gone down a black hole? Some of the material is probably valid, just doesn't have a cite. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the editor that added the material had bother to cite it when it was added. Another reason I believe that only registered users should edit. What should I do about the article in question? Cuprum17 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I concede that this part is something still to be worked on. I would expect that if no citations were provided within the acceptable time frame we would move the citations to a special section on the talk page, but as to the version that they are from that would take some additional working out. If a bot was written to do the task then we could have the bot save a version of the page then remove the edits from the page, then place the version within an external link and the removed content on the article's talk page automatically, but as it remains to be seen whether or not this idea will move forward I think that any attempt to address that issue would be moot at the moment. As far as handling the removal of the information without citations, there would also be the issue of determining what information is covered in per-paragraph citations. I suppose another approach to this proposal would be to see if a template could be created to cover the removal of the information not cited so that such information could be hidden in the article until a source is found. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Jul to Sep 14 review tallies

Username GAN Jul–Sep 14 ACR Jul–Sep 14 PR Jul–Sep 14 FAC Jul–Sep 14 Total Jul–Sep 14 Awarded
User:ÄDA - DÄP 0 1 0 1 2 Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Anotherclown 9 12 0 0 21 Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:AustralianRupert 5 10 1 1 17 Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Dank 4 17 4 20 45 Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Dudley Miles 0 2 0 3 5 Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009 0 3 0 1 4 Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:HJ Mitchell 0 1 0 0 1 Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose 2 5 0 7 14 Dumelow (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Ktr101 0 1 0 0 1 Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:MisterBee1966 1 3 0 0 4 Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Nick-D 1 2 1 2 6 Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria 0 2 1 23 26 Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Parsecboy 5 5 0 3 13 Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Peacemaker67 9 3 2 4 18 Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Sturmvogel 66 9 5 0 4 18 Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Tim riley 0 1 2 5 8 Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, I've started the review tally for this quarter - could someone please count GA reviews and distribute review awards? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, Nikki. I'll tally the GAs. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done, except for @Dank: did you note those you c/e'd? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, there were four: Talk:Chlemoutsi/GA1, Talk:Edward Porter Alexander/GA1, Talk:Hemmema/GA1, Talk:Udema/GA1. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've had at least a few. Should I be noting these? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Adam, did you do any ACRs? That is the threshold for inclusion in the review tallies, only those that did at least one ACR are listed above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea. I think I did mostly PR/FACs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Our current criteria is that you must have done one of our project-specific reviews (ie ACR) to qualify for the awards. If you meet the minimum qualification of at least one ACR, then we add in PRs, FACs and GANs. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Also fixed my PR total: Wikipedia:Peer review/Death of Osama bin Laden/archive1, Wikipedia:Peer review/William H. Seward/archive1, Wikipedia:Peer review/Matthias Corvinus/archive1, Wikipedia:Peer review/Franklin Pierce/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries, cheers. I've done the totals now (well done once again, Dan), but I'm a bit busy with GA Cup to hand out the gongs this time round. Anyone? Just a reminder that the awards are now based on the chevrons for 15+ reviews, CRM for 8-14, two stripes for 4-7 and one stripe for 1-3. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Tks Nikki and PM for totalling those, and to everyone listed for their reviews. I too am busy the rest of the day so I hope someone can make a start on distributing the awards...! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
All awarded except mine, and tks again guys for the tallying, which is the more time-consuming part of this operation! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Awarded yours Ian, nice work - Dumelow (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • does this mean we keep track of the amount of reviews we do? Oi. I just plug away, leave comments and move on. auntieruth (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ruth, no, the coord team tally them manually at the end. Dan is a special case, because he does full (and partial) prose c/e's of some GANs, but isn't the formal reviewer. We credit him for that. Nikki often does the FACs, PRs and ACRs, I usually do the GANs. Did I miss some of yours? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
nope, didn't miss mine. I've not done any GANS since I've been reinvolved in the project. I've focused on relearning the code, some As and some features. auntieruth (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Army Dental Corps


I was looking through your page containing the list of Regiments and Corps of the British Army and noticed that the above has not been attributed with a March. Having spent 24 years in the army as a musician in the Royal Tank Regiment and Corps of Army Music and played at Officers Mess dinner nights more times than I care to remember, the name of the their March is "Green Facings".

Hope this information is of use in adding one small piece to your large jigshaw.

K J Hale

Ex WO2(BSM)CAM email — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BSM! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


Do we still do in house peer reviews? I thought we did, and was going to run the Iowa class battleship article through a PR to keep it current with the GA standards, but I do not see a section for milhist PRs. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Tom, we just use the regular WP-wide PR system. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course don't forget to list it on the MilHist Open Tasks page to catch the eyes of project members... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That was another thing I was thinking of doing: having the Bot keep the announcements page up to date. Any opinions on this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
God yes. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That is a great idea, Hawk. It takes some doing currently, and the article alerts bot widget is slow. GANs have to be checked manually, and the WP:GAN#Warfare list is always incomplete because it doesn't pick up MILHIST articles that are nominated in categories other than Warfare. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I have the code that does it already. I will make another painful trip to WP:BRFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The future: open idea thread

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Strangely, I seem to be making more Milhist edits now that I'm not a coordinator. ;-) The TL;DR version of this post is "where are we going?" We've been running principally on autopilot for the last several years. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. As a rough measure of participation, our voting levels have held steady since 2010, even as the number of active editors has dropped. Our featured and A-class article counts are steadily growing.

But where are the new editors? Most of us have been around for since the Stone Age, with Peacemaker being a very notable exception. Looking through the voters in the last election, a couple registered in 2012. None (that I saw) registered in 2013 or 2014.

Can we do better? What is the best way to do outreach? Where can we expand our outreach efforts to get more military history enthusiasts to contribute their knowledge? Should we form a thematic organization or user group to get funding for in-person training? Do we just need to do more social media? We shouldn't have to settle for the status quo. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have talked about forming a thematic organization on an ad-hoc basis to other Wikipedians, similiar to WikiProject Medicine, since there is already a big user base that could be utilized. Plus, since there is already a strong amount of support for this project already when compared to other projects, it wouldn't be all that hard to find people who could sign up to support a thematic organization, assuming that's where people wanted to go. Either way though, a stronger social media presence wouldn't be a bad idea, especially since the Operation Majestic Titan Facebook page could easily expand its reach and start posting more articles that are promoted, and featured on the Main Page either through did you know or the featured article process.
I think that is a great idea. I have also got the sense that we welcome new members, but they sink or swim on their own, and there is really no system for checking back with new members that have made a bit of a start (x number of edits), to see if they want to team up with an experienced editor to work on an article together. You learn a huge amount that way. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Peacemaker67 for bringing what I discussed with you to this thread...and Thank you Ed17 for starting this thread. In my opinion, people come to the Milhist Project because they are interested in military history. We welcome them, but because some of those new editors are new to the editing business, we may revert edits without explanation or run an edit over their material obliterating everything that they have done. There is very little mentoring done as a project, although some individual editors may help unnoticed by others. Little or no recognition is made for a new editors contributions to the project because little value is placed by project members on a article being brought to C class or even B class level. The awards given out by the project tend to recognize GA and better work. Each potential editor for Milhist would bring a different skillset and time involvement to the project and sometimes I think that we are so wrapped up in our own articles that we don't take the time to RECOGNIZE the potential and the actual contributions of newer members of the project. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, but a pairing of an old editor with a new editor with the idea of mentoring the fledgling editor past the rocks and shoals of Wiki-mistakes might just help with editor retention. The downside would be that it might cut into personal projects of the more experienced editors while the newer editor was brought up to speed. How much time and effort is going to vary with how experienced the new editor is with Wikipedia edit and policy protocols. I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes by posting here but I feel that it important to the future of the Project. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this isn't a problem that's unique to our project, so I would suggest leveraging what other people are doing to address it if we can. There's a new WMF-funded mentoring project (Wikipedia:Co-op) that's supposed to start later this year; perhaps we could do something in collaboration with them? Kirill [talk] 00:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
If there was a "Milhist project explained for beginners" introductory page, perhaps new editors to Wikipedia who might be possible fellow travellers (having checked the members list - I appear to be one, rather than a "paid-up" member), could be given the link as part of a welcome, or if in discussions on talk pages the link could be mentioned in passing? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
A "Milhist project explained for beginners" sounds like a good idea. Although only a newbie, in this particular thread I think that makes me totally qualified to comment. In theory, WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but in practise I would suggest that most people probably could not. My interest started by sorting out some old photos and wondering if they might be of any use to WP. So far, I've had to create 3 missing articles. I would estimate that about 90% of my time has been spent trying to figure out how to do this rather than in actually writing the articles. I've frequently asked myself "why bother?" - and I've still not really answered this for myself. Some experienced types have given me some clues - and for that I am grateful. But I feel that some more-specific pointers, advice would really help me out. So here's an idea . . . . could the template include an option for something like "started by=novice" which would generate something on the template like "this article was started by a new editor and specific comments/advice for improvement would be more than welcome on this talk page (specifically when making an assessment of this article)." --Bye for now (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
A bit late to this thread but I quite like the idea of the highlight of the new user's article. Alternatively there could be a "request for assistance" page something along the lines of our C/B-class request for assessment page, where the new editors could place their articles for comment by more experienced users. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should do all we can to retain new editors rather than templating their articles and moving on. I like Ian's suggestion of a requests page for new editors to ask for assistance on specific articles. I am sure there are many around here who would be more than happy to help out reviewing such articles and providing pointers to the editors - Dumelow (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a 'request for assistance' page, particularly if it was linked from our welcome template. I'm thinking that if we did set up something like this, we could publicise its existence on the main talk page, and request that experienced users, as well as coords, watchlist it to keep an eye out for requests. I'd see it as kind of a mini-PR, advising on improvements rather than assessing. Interaction between new and more experienced users there could also lead to mentorship, and/or collaboration on getting the articles to the next step, i.e. assessment for C/B-Class, and then perhaps higher levels. Other thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea, Ian. @Bye for now: have you tried the VisualEditor? I suspect that it will make your life much easier. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
One of the issues is that we get so many new articles being created, many of which are created by newish editors. Just assessing them is a fairly big job, so I think that a simple template that explains the B-class checklist with links to relevant MOS guidance etc would be really useful. The welcome template does this to some extent, but that is user-focussed rather than article-focussed, and I think it is in article space that we will have most success. Editors that can succeed quickly with getting one article up to a reasonable standard are more likely to go on, IMO. Something that could be placed on the talk page of the article that has just been created, I mean. I've been thinking about this for a while, as I've been doing initial assessments. I like the idea of a specific requests for assistance page too, there won't be a one-size-fits-all approach, perhaps we could do a few things? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I was just having a discussion on my talk page about a B-Class guide and pointed out the FAQs that offer some guidance re. the B-Class criteria. If we feel that further detail on satisfying the B-Class criteria would be useful then I'd suggest expanding that page rather than starting something new... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Higher up this page is "Missing Academy Articles", which includes "Performing a Stub- to B-Class review". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor retention has been an ongoing issue, and our projects shunts that somewhat by virtue of the fact that military history is always active - i recall hearing somewhere that in the entire written history of humanity there is only something like 100 total years of world peace. As long as we fight, we write, so in that sense we're alright (that rhymed, although I wasn;t really trying to make it :) As far as appealing to the newbies, we have already made some effort to do so through the academy, and we are have assistance needed templates, but perhaps something more personal should be encouraged - something like adopting a new user on a project member to project member basis. Tools like visual editor help, bit I'm not sure what else can be done since the Wikipedia as a whole has seemed to loose steam over the last few years. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re VisualEditor mentioned above. It doesn't work for me on my desktop machine (OS/Browser probably too old?) and it freezes my iPad. From its spec, I can see how it would help some people get into WP-editing. However, as someone who was using a text editor in the 80s to program micro-controllers in assembler, I don't find this too off-putting. Rather than take up space here on specifics, perhaps these notes might give some idea of a newbie's difficulties. --Bye for now (PTT) 10:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the issue might also be that it's hard to sign up if you don't no where to look. I just went to go add my name to the OMT contributors section, and I couldn't find a link to edit it. Granted, I really am not putting much effort into finding it, but we may want to fix issues like that if we want to get more hard numbers on people who want to join the project, especially since it's an obvious deterrent towards getting people here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get more from the editors who are not newbies. There should be a couple of hundred of them. It would be nice to have someone help out with the last dozen Manhattan Project articles, as my reactor is running out of steam. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been talking to Eddie about maybe mailing the mailing list or putting something in the Signpost to drum up support, if you think that would be a good idea. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a fair idea, Kevin. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Is it time to put any of these other ideas into practice? The 'requests for assistance' page (linked from the welcome template among other things?) might be a first step and I'd be happy to progress it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the Milhist mailing list would be a good start, plus I think it would be good if we identified experienced editors who are willing to do some mentoring. I have enjoyed the recent work I've done in that area. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of a "request for assistance" page. Another thought that occurred to me recently was that it would be nice to have a dedicated page for informal feedback on articles—say if a relatively new editor has written an article or an experienced editor has ventured outside of their comfort zone, it would be nice for them to be able to get a little bit of feedback on whether something is missing, or what they could do to improve it, or whether it would be worth putting it through one of the formal processes. Just a few words of encouragement from colleagues can be really helpful, and can contribute to editor retention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot update

The MilHistBot is now updating the Template:WPMILHIST Announcements page. Note that it does not update the "News and announcements", "Featured picture candidates " or "Current discussions" items; these are preserved as they are. The other sections are automatically generated. For technical reasons, the MilHistBot orders the entries in alphabetical order. Any problems should be sent to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hawk, that is brilliant. Hate to be the turd in the waterpipe, but is it possible to put them by the date they were nominated? That is a useful bit of protocol we've maintained so we can easily see which ones are the oldest and therefore most likely to need attention. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Yes, I can do that. The Bot will have to look up the history of each nomination to get the date of its creation, then sort them on it. The difficult case is the Good Articles, because the review page does not get created until the review begins. The date will have to be extracted from the talk page. I'll have a look at it tonight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That would be great. Historically, the GANs have been in the opposite order to the ACRs and FACs (ie oldest first), which has always bugged me... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 Done Have a look now and see if it is okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, I personally prefer them oldest first, new ones get added at the end. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: thoughts? I think Hawk has done yet another awesome job. We should call it Hawkeyebot. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I also prefer oldest first ... But I am also a fan of uniformity, I would prefer that all sections are done in the same chronological order. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Strike my last comment MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

setting up a project page for Waterloo campaign bicentennial

Would someone please direct me to the instructions on how to do this? There are probably enough of us interested to get this off the ground, and it would be a cool thing to have ready for Featured Articles in spring. auntieruth (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You're probably looking for WP:MHINC? Kirill [talk] 19:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks Kirill! auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've done it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Waterloo Bicentennial auntieruth (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Great guys -- actually if current plans work out I'll be in Europe in spring next year, but unfortunately Belgium isn't in the itinerary. Berlin is, though, and I'm sure I'd at least find a monument to Blücher there... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Check my maths? It's usually crap...

G'day all, I've checked the last of the Sep contest, and this is my tally (I preface this by saying my maths is crap, I've never been paid for being good at numbers, and I'm not likely to start now): AustralianRupert 114 from 22 articles, Parsecboy 92 from 11, Zawed 62 from 11, me 43 from 8, Tomobe03 26 from 4, Djmaschek 17 from 3, Catlemur 14 from 3, Lineagegeek 13 from 4, auntieruth 9 from 2, Ian Rose 5 from 1. Can someone check and confirm? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Many tks PM -- I'll go through it when I add the results to the Bugle in the next couple of days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me know if they're right, and I'll do the awards? Peacemaker67 ([::[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 01:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Figures look good, mate -- award away! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Awards distributed. Added number of articles as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

ACW/WWI medals

As the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War is coming to a close next year, perhaps we should consider some specific WikiProject medals for work in it during the anniversary? Likewise, we should do some WWI medals as well. I'd like them to have the option open for non-article work, but then, with the number of featured pictures I do, I would, wouldn't I? ;) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Always happy to support more bling for good work, regardless. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed; more variety in our awards is a good thing. Kirill [talk] 23:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so how should we do this? As I see it, there's two ways:
  1. Several awards, each for a different type of content. E.g. ACW FA medal, ACW A-level, ACW GA, ACW FL, ACW FPs.
  2. Point system. Featured content = 3, A level=2, GA=1. [The FAs are probably a little undervalued in that system, but if A-level and GA points are cumulative with the FA points for the article, it should balance out. Awards for various milestones, special awards for each type of content.
How far retroactive should this be? I'd suggest to the start of their relevant operations. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
From a logistical standpoint, a single set of awards with some sort of point-based system for awarding them seems more manageable than a large pool of more specific award types. I'm not sure how we'd track this either way, though; we keep track of nominators for ACRs, but not for anything else, and I'm assuming we'd need to do that systematically in order to award these? Kirill [talk] 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, we have a categories for GAs, A-level, and FAs, and FL by taskforce, e.g. Category:FA-Class American Civil War articles. If we use featured pictures as documented in the showcase for FPs, that's only 300 images, and a lot can be skipped over without looking further, so that's fairly practical. According to Category:American_Civil_War_articles_by_quality, there are 33 FA-class ACW articles; 2 FLs, 13 A, and 92 GA.
If we ignore GA for the moment, that's 33 FAs to check for nominators, and 46 (A-class + any previous A-class reviews in the FAs) A-class reviews, plus 2 FLs, and a check of the FP showcase. That's not that impractical. If we add GAs, that's another 138 checks (33 FA + 13 A-class + 92 GAs) - which is not an undoable amount of catchup; but the more I think about it, this is probably going to be far easier to maintain and keep up if we stick to A-class and Featured content. GAs are the worst documented. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need a massive bureaucracy to go along with these—couldn't we just have the awards there for people to give out to editors they feel are deserving? Or perhaps a nomination process for them to be awarded in the name of the project as a whole? I'm not sure awards based on strict criteria have quite as much meaning as those based on somebody's feeling that the recipient deserves recognition for their work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think there's advantages to criteria-based and general awards. It's very easy to leave people out from awards by mistake, and people are usually a lot more comfortable pointing out their work for a criteria-based one than to demand recognition for a field that's being overlooked. Awards given spontaneously are very nice, but if you have to ask for one, then they lose all value. Criteria-based awards do not have this problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Double Checking the B-Class Articles

Before we reach the milestone of having 10% of MILHIST articles being B-Class or better, it might be worth a look to see if the articles are actually Bs. After Adam found this old gem from Wild Wolf's checklist per minute extravaganza, I am feeling slightly paranoid about the status of the assessments. Any thoughts on the current assessments less than GA? --Molestash (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are probably articles there that were rated B-class years ago (as well as WW's lot). It would be good if we could check WW's ones. Not sure if it is worth the effort. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Toolbox problems

I keep getting 404 results when I try and access the toolbox at GAN and ACR. What's up with that? Is it a result of the shutdown of the toolserver at 66 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel, I had the same problem with the FAC-toolbox a few days ago and Dispenser (creator of most of those tools) has replaced most of them here: Template:Featured article tools/sandbox (see latest diff). However the template isn't activated by a "template editor" user yet (or ACR would work) and the GAN toolbox is a separate template and needs to be edited too (the links for disambig and external links can just be copied from FAC, i think) Only someone with "template editor" rights can do those changes. Hope, that helps (and yes, most of those problems are directly or indirectly related to the server change).GermanJoe (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't even know that there was a separate category of rights for template editors. But I suppose it makes sense if you don't want extremely heavily used ones breaking as people try to do things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have updated disambig and external links in the GAN-toolbox (it was actually only semi-protected), please let me know if it works on newly created GAN-subpages. Can't help with the fully protected ACR toolbox though. GermanJoe (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:WW2InfoBox

Can a coordinator or three take a look/make a decision/finally implement the consensus at Template talk:WW2InfoBox? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no consesnus, 9 to 8 is not consensus.XavierGreen (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
While I disagree with XavierGreen, I've opened an RfC at Talk:World War II. Please give your opinions there! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Please someone have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1. Two antagonists are slugging it out. Since I was involved in a minor dispute with one of the two, I might be perceived as being biased in this issue. Be aware that this could become dirty and personal. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Had a look, Mr B, and I was about to post something here as well. I'm concerned that this did not go through proper project channels. First, I'd have raised questions about the heavy reliance on the Hart (1944) publication. I've not read it. I'm just wondering how unbiased a book about Hitler's generals published in 1944 would be? It looks like the GA was done with little or no discussion, too. Second, the quality of writing is vague. There are entire sections that imply something happened in 1933, but when the section ends, suddenly it's 1939. It's written more like an apologia than an encyclopedia article. What would happen if we ignore it? auntieruth (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think a GA review might be appropriate. The fact that it is a Milhist article at FAC without going through ACR (where this type of thing would be sorted out) rings alarm bells for me. There seems to be undue weight given to a wartime source, and little weight to a recent academic work on the man. The approach taken by the nominator so some comments isn't indicative of an interest in constructive criticism. Several editors with native German language skills have questioned some of the content, and that is also of significant concern. And that's just from a quick once-over. I'll have a look myself, I know bit about the man's work on the Yugoslav and Greek campaigns. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • There's no rule that MilHist articles have to go through ACR before FAC. I suggest taking comments to the FAC review; that's what it is for. It's easy enough to read Hart, because it is available online. Hart wasn't his real name. He was a pre-war German officer who joined the British Army on the outbreak of war. (That he was thinking in German comes across at some points.) It is used by only for background on von Brauchitsch's career before the Second World War. Wartime sources tend to be good on this, but the understanding of how the German high command worked and its relationship with Hitler was lacking. The wartime notion that Hitler was totally subordinate to his generals was replaced by one in the 1960s and 1970s of the reverse, based mainly on the post-war testimony of the generals themselves. More recently, this has been superseded by a more nuanced approach, recognising that it changed a great deal over time. The article does incorporate some recent scholarship. Unfortunately, von Brauchitsch is not the most popular of Hitler's field marshals, and good sources are hard to come by. There is one recent biography, one that I haven't read: Walther von Brauchitsch (1881 - 1948): Eine politische Biographie (2001) by Jürgen Löffler. It's available only in German, unfortunately. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know, Hawk. However, ACR does tend to result in substantial improvements, bringing an article much closer to FA before it is nominated. In this case, ACR was suggested but not pursued. The article doesn't even reference the German Dictionary of Biography article on the man. It is far from comprehensive, and I feel it is likely to fail FAC if suggested improvements are not embraced a lot more willingly. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
MilHist A-Class review was recommended at the Peer review in early October but declined in the belief it meets the FAC criteria already. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so he withdrew it. (Whew! I was not looking forward to having to do an indepth review of that article.) Fortunately. I left a note on his page, and want to suggest to him that he accept some mentorship. Clearly we have here an enthusiastic person, even if he's inexperienced at writing historical material, and using sources. Did we get that list of mentors together? I also think it's GA status should be, hmmm, qualified..... but I don't want to kill his enthusiasm. Anyone know anything about this editor? auntieruth (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Jonas did a couple of very prompt GA reviews for me recently; he made some useful suggestions. I was thinking the other day that there's no need to delay implementing at least some of the things we've discussed earlier, e.g. a request for assistance page (probably to be linked from the welcome tag, among other places), as well as a list of potential mentors. I should be able to get the first up and running by this weekend. We can start calling for volunteers for a list of potential mentors (perhaps to be linked from the request for assistance page) on the main MilHist talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Same as Ian, and I agree with getting on with some of the actions. I have been providing some advice, but I'm not sure I have the right temperament to mentor some editors. I have been informally advising a couple of other new editors recently, so I would be willing to do some mentoring, I'll just need to do it on a trial basis with each until I can confirm it is a good fit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The fit will always be important. Some mentors/mentees are not meant for a match.  :) We'll see how he responds. auntieruth (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding his GA reviews, you may want to read here. I am unsure what to make of this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnson Beharry

Hi guys. I was wondering if someone would mind having a look at Johnson Beharry (preferably an admin)? An IP has repeatedly inserted a claim Beharry was awarded the Victoria Cross on the basis of his race. The claim has been challenged, reverted and a discussion started on the talk page. The IP refuses to engage in discussion, and instead reinserts the information on the basis of "vandalism" by established editors. The IP did eventually provide a reference to The Telegraph, but the group who made the original claim is apparently extreme right-wing and the view is definitely not widely held. To be honest, as someone who has just completed a thesis on the VC (admittedly on a different era for the award), I think the claim is absolute rubbish. As it is verging on an edit war with an unresponsive IP, any imput would be much appreciated! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection would fix the current issue, and could be requested at WP:RFPP. Although I imagine it will get that quite soon anyway; bringing it here was a sensible idea. In the meantime, I've watchlisted it and will join in as necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article - this is a violation of WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nick! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

End of the Year Awards

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We are little ways off from this at the moment, however I'd like to bring this up here now so you can all start thinking about it: As we wind down the years we've two once a year awards that will need to be handed out. The first is for Military historian of the year, and the second is for Military history newcomer of the year. While the awards are not up for voting and awarding until next month at the earliest now would be the time to start thinking about the people you've bumped into over the course of 2014 and who among them may have earned a shot at one of these awards on the basis of their achievements. Additionally, it may be worth putting something in the upcoming Bugle to help get the word out. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Timely reminder, thanks Tom! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

contest page causes computer crash

I've checked Peacemaker's entries on the contest for October, but when I try to fill in the checked column, my computer crashes every time. It did this yesterday as well. Typically, it wants to do that if I try to edit a large set of text. (1) Peacmakers entries were accurate (can someone else check this off for me) and (2) does anyone else have this problem? It's frustrating because it takes a few minutes to shut computer down, restart, and get back to the page, and then it starts all over again. auntieruth (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, never seen that and can't think off the top of my head why that would be, but anyway tks for letting us know. I'll note that PM's entries have been verified, on your behalf, tks Ruth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction to History of Ist East Anglian Regiment (Royal Norfolk & Suffolk)

The current version of the history of the Ist East Anglian Regiment (Royal Norfolk & Suffolk)states that the amalgamation of 1st Bn Royal Norfolks and 1st Bn Suffolks took place in Berlin.

THat is not so. The amalgamation parade took pace at Aldeshot Barracks in Iserlohn where the Royal Norfolk Regt was stationed until the winter of 1959 when we noved to Berlin. I know, because I was on parade that day with the Royasl Norfolks.

John Ling86.154.41.195 (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)