Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 20

Task forces
[moved table to /Handbook section above]  Roger Davies  talk 06:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments
One of the first jobs is allocating task forces. Normally, the incumbent has first refusal and anyone interested puts their name in the "interested" column. For there on, it's negotiation :)  Roger Davies  talk 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put myself in the interested column for several, I don't really care whether or not I get them - only one I really care about is WWII. – Joe   N  01:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll have to see if you can prise Tom or Nick out of their slots, and fight off the opposition. This is a jungle, man :)  Roger Davies  talk 01:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...so the co-opted coords don't start with the ones they had, or...? Not sure here. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, everyone (inc. co-opted coords) keeps what they had (unless they want to relinquish some).  Roger Davies  talk 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'm kicking Tom out of Canada and WWII then. I've got a "Canadian history and culture" class next semester, otherwise I wouldn't care about that...and WWII is basically my reason for being in the project. :/
 * Also: if anyone wants the Taiwanese TF, feel free to kick me out. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think everyone wants WWII - for me, at least, it's the only one I've ever felt competent enough in to actually put my name on the member list for, and I did manage to persuade my AP US History teacher to let me teach his class for a while when we got to WWII. I was disappointed because we only had two days for the whole thing, so I had to cut Leyte Gulf down to ten minutes and D-Day to fifteen. – Joe   N  02:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From memory, I've been looking after World War II since the task force coordinator role was introduced (or at least for the last six months!) and am happy to give someone else a go. I'd like to hang onto the Australian TF though. Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also be happy to consider moving on from the NZ one (which is suprisingly inactive anyway; the only highly active NZ member of the project I'm aware of is mainly interested in Eastern Europe and Africa and is currently living in England!). Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite know what's going on here, but people are signing up slots meant to list current taskforce coords. Please list yourself under interested unless you actually are one of the current coordinators for the taskforce. Maralia (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that was partly me. Apologies all. :/ — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the table quite a bit, properly listing the current taskforce coordinators and moving all interested parties to the last column. Please don't add yourself in a 'current' slot at this stage—just list yourself in 'interested' and give other folks a bit of time to list their interests too. Nick's idea is a good one: if you're willing to give up a slot you're currently in, please strike through your name to show this. Maralia (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind so much what task forces I am allocated, but I would like the Australian and Biography TFs, as these two are where my primary contributions and interest lies. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added my name as interested on some of the Task Forces, I understand Seniority so if I do not get all of the Task Forces that I would like then it is fine. Have A Great Day! ~ Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the above I've stood down from Australia, so there's now one space available there ;) I'll also relinquish NZ if there's lots of interest (It's a very quiet TF anyway), but I'd like to hang on to Napoleonic if poss. Other than that, I'm not too fussy. EyeSerene talk 09:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tally ho! I've added myself as interested to various taskforces; if I can help out with any of them, please let me know. Oh, and one thing on the side - does anyone know how I'd go about making a Barnstar or ask someone to make one for me? Skinny87 (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can just copy the markup of an existing one and adapt it - if you're not sure though, I'd be happy to help (let me know what you want on my talk page) ;) EyeSerene talk 10:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Skinny, I've decided to withdraw from the British TF, so feel free to add your name there! (I believe you are the most suitable for it) --Eurocopter (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers Eurocopter - I do indeed have a fair few books on the subject! Erm, you did mean I should put my name next to yours as the current Coordinator, and not just in the interested box, right? If I've screwed up, someone please remove me!
 * Yes, I meant that you replace me as task force coordinator. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(←)I've listed myself for several, mostly those unclaimed or with little interest. My top three choices, however, would be Maritime, WWI, and German, with all of the others as take-'em-or-leave-'em. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My Top 3 are American Civil War, Biography, and American Revolution, with the top 2 being the very top. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My top two would be WWII and WWI, with ACW being third. I'd willing to withdraw myself from consideration for a maritime (seemingly most desired) spot in exchange for one in WWII. – Joe   N  16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with any of the other Taskforces, although Early Modern would be a great choice. Skinny87 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give up my spots in aviation and Ottoman History if I would be able to have one of the WWI spots. Cam (Chat) 18:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've thrown in my preferences, but frankly I'm happy to take anything on if its left over.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the good old military tradition of noble sacrifice, could we all start signing up for task forces that don't interest us please?  Roger Davies  talk 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should view some of the task forces and their prospective coordinators from a different perspective. What I mean is that we should look at what coordinator would probably be better suited to some TFs, as they are more knowledgable in the area and/or are active contributors to articles in the scope of the TF. And, as our good leader has commanded, ;-) we should fill the less popular gaps. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've shunted people into uncontroversial slots where there is no competition. The next step is probably for people to withdraw gracefully from the popular ones until the requisite number is arrived at. TF coordinatorship really is no big deal and even if you're not the TF coordinator you can (and hopefully will) still actively participate. Incidentally, with sixteen coordinators, each only needs to adopt six or seven TFs to provide ample coverage. Roger Davies talk 02:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought: Tom, which ones do you really want? You are signed up for/interested in 15! :-) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take whichever ones no one ends up with. I make an honest effort to put myself in those TFs that have little to no activity so that I can spend time away from the wiki and not feel guilty about it. My personal favorites (by which I mean the ones I really want) are WWII and Maritime, but then to be fair I think everyone should get a shot at WWII since that is probably the most popular TF, and maritime is where almost all of my FAs be. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with being shunted into any taskforces, Roger, that need supervising! Skinny87 (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good! In that case, you've just acquired: Chinese, Spanish and Romanian :)  Roger Davies  talk 08:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hooray! I know nothing about any of them! Right, time to find the Atlas...Romania, that's latin for the Roman period, right? Skinny87 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As Ed and Malaria have both withdrawn from fortifications, I have taken the liberty of adding Tom and Skinny into there as they were the only ones showing interest. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well I certainly know more about that! Skinny87 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that I've been fired from the Weaponry TF. I'll assume negligent discharge; I'm tempted to give a rocket to our list compiler, but there's no point in going off half-cocked. EyeSerene talk 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you shooting your mouth off again, EyeSerene? I expect better from someone of your caliber… ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, no need to snipe at me. EyeSerene talk 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you still want it, you are allowed to keep it (as one of the incumbent coords). I booted Tom out of Canada :P
 * My thoughts on a couple of the remaining task forces:
 * Jackyd should probably get maritime warfare, as he is the only one up there who deals with ships outside of the 20th century.
 * Skinny should get land vehicles, as he has a couple articles on tanks.
 * Bryce and Ian should go out to the woodshed and fight to the death over the Aussie TF. ;)
 * Now ewe keep your smartass comments to yourself, Ed...! On a more serious note... Bryce, if you want to withdraw from the Australian Military History list, I'll happily withdraw from the Military Biography list, or vice versa, to narrow those fields a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't make us take you out to the woodshed, Ed! ;-) Ian, I was thinking the same thing. Which would you prefer of the two, bio or Aus? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I insist - after you...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Age before... well, not beauty. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I can see this implacable politeness won't cease unless something is done, so all right, I'll take Aus and you take Bio...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After kicking him out, I've rethought a bit and have decided that Tom should probably get WWII, as he is training to be a historian and I'm assuming he will be focusing on that war, putting him in a unique position to help (with the research materials he has).
 * I'm not trying to out anyone here, especially Tom (who I keep going against :/); I'm just trying to give my honest opinion on these. Joe, if you really want WWII and Tom or Ian gets that open spot over you, you can have my spot. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not fussed really - Eurocopter and Lordoliver look quite cosy there, and six is enough for me. I don't think we need to be too concerned about whether or not we know anything about the TF's subject areas though - coordinating is mainly a facilitating and janitorial role. EyeSerene talk 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since WWII is, as far as I know, the most active TF, we could consider having three coords for it. Alternately, I'd give it up in exchange for WWI and US. Also, I'm striking myself for maritime, others would be better at it anyway. – Joe   N  21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tom, I'd be willing to give up my German MilHist spot if I can have one of the Japanese spots. Cam (Chat) 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sold. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've lowered my numbers down to my absolute seven. Although I'd rather have Maritime than Indian, I'm happy. I've relenquished spots in Russian and ARW so those who are interested now get to decide for another spot. -MBK004 01:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skinny&mdash;land vehicles for Dutch? (I get Dutch, you and Tom get land vehicles?) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright ed, that's a deal!

On a review of the table, Roger, Nick, Cam, Bellhalla, Lordoliver, Eurocopter, MBK004 and EyeSerene all have been allocated at least six task forces each, so if any of these are listed as interested in additional task forces I think they can be removed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd hold off on removing people, let them do it on their own since they may use their current slots as collateral for barter to get slots they really want. I've made sure that I'm done, although I'll entertain propositions if someone wants something. -MBK004 05:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on bartering, but my main thought was that a few coords (namely Ian, Joe and Jacky) are desperately lacking in TFs and the removal of those with enough TFs will allow the slotting of other coords. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

←Current counts (excluding those interested but not in a slot). It looks as though those of us with 7 slots should give up one and not take up others without relinquishing a slot to someone else. -MBK004 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TomStar81: 11
 * Skinny87: 10
 * Cam: 9
 * Bellhalla: 8
 * Lordoliver: 7
 * Nick-D: 7
 * Eurocopter: 7
 * Roger Davies: 7
 * MBK004: 6
 * EyeSerene: 6
 * The_ed17: 6
 * Ian Rose: 6
 * Abraham, B.S.: 6
 * Jackyd101: 4
 * JoeN: 5
 * Maralia: 3
 * Kirill: 1

Joe, if I take myself out of the running for WWII (which I agree could use three coords), would you take yourself out of the running for military aviation (or vice versa)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like a bad idea Joe raised and Ian seconded; why not increase the WWII TF to 3 coords? It is easily the most active TF, and could use a few good eyes. Thoughts? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, my removing myself from the list for WWII would benefit you too, how do you feel about taking yourself out of Aus Mil...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. Then if everyone else agrees Tom and I can both have WWII. I've moved you into Aviation and updated your count. – Joe   N  20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, removed myself from the running for WWII... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed myself from early modern warfare Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the most benevolent way of looking at all this is as an exercise in team-building :)) I wonder if it's occurred to anyone yet that they're probably spending more time discussing which TFs to coordinate than they will actually coodinating them? Roger Davies talk 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only been three days, Roger. As an Arbcom member I'd have thought you'd be well aware how unlikely it is that two W'pedians will agree on something, let alone fifteen. This is on-the-job training in negotiation, dispute resolution and, as you say, team-building. Let us have our fun :D EyeSerene talk 09:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, 'tis the Way of the Wiki :D
 * Anyhow, if we can get this sorted, we can move onto other fun things  Roger Davies  talk 09:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of fun things, when are our new cars set to arrive, Roger? ;-)) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yours is here, awaiting collection :)  Roger Davies  talk 09:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I can simultaneously visit the Somme battlefields while picking up my new car! Now, just to stow aboard an aeroplane bound for France... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the stowing away on the way back that might prove difficult ;-)  Roger Davies  talk 10:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are other battlefields I can visit across Europe before the petrol runs out. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you can always stowaway on a cargo ship...they're large enough to hide a car in. – Joe   N  20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have gone quiet on who goes where - I don't know that Roger's admonishment above was suggesting we stop working it out, more that we just get it over with sharpish. As no-one seems to be challenging Skinny for Early Warfare, nor has anyone voiced concerns with three coords for WWII, I've taken the liberty of moving them in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the time has come to have up to three coords on all TFs. I was thinking of suggesting this yesterday but hoped it might sort itself out. For even coverage, this mean everyone takes about ten. I'm sorry if this means that anyone's previous noble sacrifices have been in vain.  Roger Davies  talk 09:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm re-adding myself to those interested in the Aus TF and I've taken the liberty of re-adding Ian to those interested in Bio; hope you don't mind, Ian! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And if everyone does that ... ?  Roger Davies  talk 09:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we will have three coords for each. The introduction of a third coordinator to each task force will likely have the same repercussions of what I have just done; coords re-adding themselves to additional TFs. If we didn't, then only a few TFs would have three and several others would not. However, if you don't approve of my methods, then I will revert the edit. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, not quite. For Australia, it went from three coords for two slots to four coords for three slots, so the over-subscription problem stayed the same :) Leave it be for now and let's see how this plays out but if everyone just adds themselves to waiting lists instead of filling empty slots, the extra column might just make matters worse. Still it's all good natured enough :)  Roger Davies  talk 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's why Bryce is an historian, not a mathematician...! ;-) Seriously, while I appreciate the thought, I might still drop out of Bio to make things easier, and meanwhile fill up more of the undisputed slots... Then if we can take out Tom in a pincer move, we'll both get Aus TF! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uff... can we make the third slot optional? Most task-forces won't keep one coordinator occupied, never mind three. I suppose another alternative would be to divide up the overall workload by having some coords focus on task-forces while others focus on other areas of the project (closing reviews, making awards, welcoming members etc). EyeSerene talk 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of agreed here...honestly, I didn't do a single thing for the task forces I had last term... the_ed17 :  Chat 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that it should be more optional. Only a few of the task forces (if any) will require three coords, and there will be a few that are a litle more quiet or people are unwilling to do. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, to be honest, I'm more than happy to be in any taskforce, and any number of them. So put me wherever I'm needed. Oh, and is there a list of Coordinator tasks that need to be done (ie, one updated every day or so, like closing review X or assessing article Y?). Skinny87 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an updating one with details on it (that I'm aware of anyway). The handbook at the top of this talkpage lists the areas you should probably watchlist, but if there's something that requires specific attention someone will usually post here. EyeSerene talk 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am willing to give up the United States military history Task force so that someone else can have it. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also willing to give up the Military memorials and cemeteries Task force. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, since you already have 11, I'm going to put Ian & Bryce in the Aussie TF. Cam (Chat) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, I was actually just about to go over and see if I could coax Tom out of that spot. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added myself to the new Napoleonic spot - probably don't need me, but noone else wanted it and I do have some interest/knowledge of it. I didn't see any other TFs that really would want someone else, but if there are feel free to add me to them. – Joe   N  23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've done some shuffling around, entirely based how many TFs each coord has, and brought everyone who was on the "Interested" list up to 6 each. Tom as has been noted already has loads so more, at the expense of others, is probably inappropriate, no matter how talented or omnipotent Tom is :) This now only leaves Bryce and Lordoliver (do you mind if I call you Oliver? My republican streak etc etc) in contention for Bio. Once that's decided, perhaps someone could go and update all the TF headers? We used to have a table of task forces by coordinator but that seems to have gone in the re-organisation.  Roger Davies  talk 10:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, way ahead o' ya, Rog, did most of the country TFs today, should get the rest done fairly soon... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you'd come back to do the rest. Thanks!  Roger Davies  talk 14:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will give up the Military biography Task Force. (Roger You can call me Oliver :) ) Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 12:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Will do.)  Roger Davies  talk 14:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for giving up your position in the Bio TF for me, Oliver, I really do appreciate it given your interest in the area. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, hopefully all TF headers are updated now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. i hope it wasn't too horrible for you :)  Roger Davies  talk 14:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (@ Roger re table) - *Cough*. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've been looking everywhere for that. It used to be on the coords page (perhaps it could go back there?). Now that you've found it, do you fancy updating it? :))))  Roger Davies  talk 19:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Krill took it off, but I don't remember why. I'll have a go at updating it later tonight&mdash;I have a web site construction project to finish, and then I am going to play tennis (first time this year! :D) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The listing of task forces by coordinator isn't really of interest to anyone except ourselves, I think; everyone else will be looking for the coordinator of a particular task force, not vice versa. Given that (and the fact that the table is pretty big), I thought it would be better placed in the handbook; but I won't object too strenuously if people would prefer to put it back on the page itself. ;-) Kirill [pf] 00:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right, Kirill. Let's leave it where it is. Also, to save work, we could just use the working table above. It's got all the information in it, albeit presented slightly differently. I'll copy it across now.  Roger Davies  talk 06:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Important Notice
Some months back my desktop got a hold of a file that set off my anti-virus programs. Because of its characteristics at the time I was and remain of the opinion that the bug could be the conflicker worm we have all been hearing so much about recently. Since no one seems to know exactly what the bug will do come April 1 I am leaving this here to notify everyone that if you see anything suspicious from my Wikipedia accounts (TomStar81 or TomStar810), block them asap and we will work the details out later. I wholeheartedly hope it does not come to that, but I am taking no chances, hence the disclosure. If the accounts are compromised MBK has the decrypted version of my committed ID, and should be able to tell the real me from an impostor if it comes to that. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem Tom, and thanks for the timely reminder. I doubt it'll come to that though; as long as your OS is fully patched and updated and you've scanned recently with a decent AV program, you should be fine. If not, perhaps we should just block you now... EyeSerene talk 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, I remember what it says, but the university's e-mail system went down a few months ago and we all lost most of our saved emails. This just reminded me of this. If you could send it again just so we can be completely accurate. -MBK004 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not on my home computer at the moment, but I will send that two you this evening. I'll leave a ping message on your talk page once its been sent. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of changing the passwords to both of my wikipedia accounts and my email account on Yahoo! from my uninfected laptop computer. If nothing else, that should buy some time for the tech people to develop a countermeasure for the conflicker worm. In the interest of playing this safe though I do not intended to log onto wikipedia through my desktop until the full extent of the conflicker worm's abilities are known. That may mean even more sporadic editing since I do not usually use the laptop if I am int he house. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
Eyes are needed on the peer reviews, the latter half of which date back to February and January. At this point, they should be closed, archived, and moved off the milhist templates and the article alerts box. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a permanent link to peer reviews? I always have difficulty finding the page. Skinny87 (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They're listed at WP:MHR, if that's what you mean? Otherwise, I tried to archive Battle of Triangle Hill and USS New Jersey - not 100% sure I did them right though, since they're my first, so if someone could check and make sure I didn't screw something up I'd appreciate it. – Joe   N  21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I peeked at your archiving Joe and it appears you did everything correctly. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I'll try to do a couple more. – Joe   N  23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter proposal (redux)
With the elections out of the way and a fine new (and old!) crop of coordinators raring to go, what do we think about the idea of producing a regular newsletter column between us? The idea was first mentioned here and had some support, but with the recent more important business has perhaps been forgotten. To recap, I suggested that it might be a useful and informative extension of our newsletter to include a monthly column on various aspects of milhist and related areas. We could cover subjects such as reviewing guides, image uploading/editing tips, writing engaging prose, the available awards for members and how to award them, taking an article through the GA/FA process, the origins of the project, the work of individual task-forces and so on. There's enough to keep going for years ;)

If there's interest in doing this, I would suggest the column should probably be kept fairly brief - 500 words or so; enough to give an overview of larger subjects or go into reasonable detail on smaller ones. Because most subjects are likely to be covered in detail elsewhere (or will be as the Academy develops), it would hopefully also attract more attention to some areas and pages that don't get visited too often, and with sixteen coordinators and six newsletter issues before the next round of elections, in collaboration/rotation it wouldn't be much work at all. It would be nice to get something sorted for the upcoming issue, though obviously time is now a factor. However, I'd be happy to throw something together if no-one else has any better suggestions. The only downside I can see is that it would increase the size of the newsletter. Thoughts? EyeSerene talk 08:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support this. It would be good to have a short feature running across the base of the newsletter (ie across the two columns). If we put it there, we can also add it or remove it without affecting the overall look.  Roger Davies  talk 08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. The only downside, as mentioned, is that it will increase the size of the already large newsletter. Although, I suppose we could adopt a collapsible format like the Wikiproject Novels and WikiCup newsletters utilise. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I confess I hadn't really thought of how the layout would be affected, but either or both of the above would fit the bill. Any suggestions for a first topic? EyeSerene talk 11:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) I was wondering incidentally whether a capped transclusion link might be a better way of dealing with the newsletter. (I believe the transclusion only activates when the cap is "shown".)   Roger Davies  talk 11:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting, I didn't know we could do that. Is there a help reference? (couldn't see anything on WP:TRANSCLUDE) EyeSerene talk 14:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC template problem
As reported in the Signpost this week, FAC pages underwent a change in their naming. The problem with this is that our template pointed to Featured article candidates/Article. As a temporary fix, I changed this to have /archive1 at the end, but what about articles with multiple FACs that will be at /archive2, /archive3 etc.? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maralia was involved in the implementation of this; perhaps she could advise?  Roger Davies  talk 23:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, will get on this. Incidentally, all these templates should probably be in a subcat of Category:WikiProject Military history templates. Maralia (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

March writing contest

 * I've taken the liberty of scoring all the March contest entries (except for my own, of course) at my work page, User:Bellhalla/Work page. I've verified the initial ratings, figured scores based on the current rating, and tallied the results at the bottom of the page.
 * One question: Is Keith Johnson (cricket administrator) in-scope for the project? (Right now the initial and current ratings are both "Start-Class" so whether or not it is isn't currently affecting the scoring.)
 * Apart from any late assessments or reassessments (one of mine is pending on the requests page, for example) or corrections to my addition, the results should be ready to go after my entries are scored. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure at the scope question, but go ahead and score your own, assuming that someone else has assessed them. We trust you :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, Belhalla! As long as they have been assessed by someone else, go ahead and score your's. Personally, I don't think Keith Johnson (cricket administrator) does come under the Milhist scope, and have stated as such on the article's A-Class Review page. He did serve in both World Wars, but he is not notable for his military service which is what I think was decreed a person in the Milhist scope must posess. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All but SMU UB-10 (awaiting a reassessment) have been assessed by others, so I'll finish up tomorrow morning. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Assessing as B-Class now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The log and the scoreboard have now been updated. I would feel more comfortable if someone else could (1) hand out the awards and (2) update the newsletter. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In progress... Done EyeSerene talk 18:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Thanks everyone. I'll finish off the March newsletter this evening/tomorrow morning and get it off for despatch. Roger Davies talk 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Closable ACR
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Târgu Frumos is closable by an uninvolved coordinator. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Couldn't figure out the article history though, so if someone could handle that I would be grateful. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, you could have pinged me on my talk page. Plus, be sure to visit the awards talk page, there are some open nominations. -MBK004 05:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Declining number of comments in reviews
This may be due to the disruption caused by the coordinator elections, but the number of comments in A-class reviews and peer reviews seems to be declining at the moment. The small number of comments in PRs is particularly concerning to me, as this is the best opportunity for editors to receive constructive criticism of their work. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think part of that may be because of the coordinator elections, but my take is that this is largely the result of a perception that the PR system here is not as good as it once was. Whatever the reason, we do need to move on this. It is my plan to spend the day going through the reviews to leave comments and questions in hopes that it will encourage others to do so as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to offer some sort of incentive for reviewers (E.g. review ten articles and get a barnstar, or we could create a "reviewers medal"). It might have an effect.-- Patton t / c 11:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's already a Content Review Medal; I've even been awarded one in the dim dark past but confess I've never been able find out what the criteria is for handing them out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They're awarded to the ten editors who review or comment on the most articles each three (six?) months. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the citation of my CRM, they are awarded quarterly, so every three months. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) This needs constantly staying on top of, I'm afraid, as we lose editors through natural wastage. Woody and Catalan for instance were both active reviewers. Last time, we had a crisis, I invited a dozen or so editors to participate, which kick started it. Best is if everyone invites one or two editors to start reviewing, and then keeps an eye on them for a while.

High profile barnstars work too. So maybe issuing the review barnstar monthly to deserving editors for a couple or three months? I'd avoid issuing it to top scoring, as this will encourage people to go for quantity not quality. Roger Davies talk 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we are at a "crisis", but we are desperately short of reviewers. I think all you coords should commit to doing one review per week ;)
 * I've been making a concerted effort to comment on MOS and reference issues at every A-class review not nominated by YM (because his are almost always very good reference-wise), so yeah...a quantity-related medal would probably not work out so well. My reviews take about 20 minutes normally; I can't image that, say, Bryce's reviews are as short. I rarely comment at PR's though, because as a general rule I dislike doing prose reviews (and I normally don't know enough about the subjects to do factchecking).— Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is partly my fault: I used to do nearly every ACR, and now that I'm a coord I'm spending some of my limited time doing coord stuff and have less to spend on ACRs, leaving more of a backlog. I just have a few more weeks of school left till exams though, and since I never study I'll be able to do more then, which will help at least in the short term. – Joe   N  00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've just posted a message asking for A-class reviews on the main project talk page. I hope that the emphasis on the articles which have attracted at least one support vote is OK - completing these reviews seems to be the best way to reduce the current backlog. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Wolfgang Luth can be closed by someone not involved. – Joe   N  20:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest make that ACR and PR for Herr Luth... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both done, which leads to a nomination for the ACM for MisterBee. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture
I noticed at StarCraft II and on several aviation pages that there are templates that generate hidden messages concerning the inclusion of external links for fan purposes (NoMoreLinks) and what fictional appearances do not qualify for a mention in a wiki article (NoMoreCruft), respectively. I wonder if we should consider creating such a template for our articles that outline what can go in and when. Standardizing this element of our project would likely be a good idea since articles such as Iowa class battleship and Strategic Defense Initiative already have hidden messages concerning what can and can not go in a pop culture section, but the two offer radically different approaches to the problem. I think it better to have a single hidden message with guidelines than several with varying degrees of interpretation on the guidelines. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Aircraft seems to have a version of this which I've seen used in the General Dynamics F-111 and F-35 Lightning II articles. It reads:
 * Please READ WikiProject Aircraft/page content and WikiProject Military history/Style guide before adding any "Popular culture" items.
 * Please READ WikiProject Aircraft/page content and WikiProject Military history/Style guide before adding any "Popular culture" items.


 * Please do not add the many minor appearances of the aircraft. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, including ALL Ace Combat, Battlefield 2, and Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed.


 * If your item has been removed, please discuss it on the talk page FIRST. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. If a consensus is reached to include your item, a regular editor of this page will add it back. Thank you for your cooperation.-->

Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And that is why I bring this up here. I think that our project would benfit from such a template, but before moving forward with it I wanted to get some input here about the idea and see what others thought about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd like to see pop culture sections removed with extreme prejudice from all articles... I can't say I've noticed cruft being a problem in our articles (or at least the ones I've worked on), but I don't see why we shouldn't use such a notice if it'd be useful on articles that do suffer. I'm slightly uncomfortable with the tone of the example, but we needn't copy that ;) EyeSerene talk 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur entirely (especially with the extreme prejudice bit). However, the notice with some polishing should be able to dispel the notion that pop. cult. cruft is welcome and widely acceptable. What do you suggest tweaks-wise?  Roger Davies  talk 08:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To me it comes across as slightly imperious and unwelcoming, bearing in mind that such content is often added by less-experienced editors (esp "If a consensus is reached to include your item, a regular editor of this page will add it back.") The gist is good, but it could perhaps be expressed in a more friendly way. Suggestion below. EyeSerene talk 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the imperious and unwelcoming tone of the previous one exactly becuase of its percieved rudeness to the new comers. Since its our new people that add this type of cruft to articles most often I think leaving the strong wording in would serve to hinder their adding anything to the section period, which would allow the more seasoned editors to keep pop culture sections lean and thin. In the sentence "Additions that appears to be insignificant...may be removed" I would strongly recommend that the word "may" be replaced with "will" since we all frown on pop culture sections, and tightening the wording there severely hinders any attempt to add trivial or otherwise unneeded information to such a section. The other thing I might recommend is creating a framework for those who will inevitably insist on fighting to add such cruft to an article. Something like:




 * Given that this message is intended for newer users, I think adopting an imperious tone is a mistake. I also think that suggesting a relatively complicated "vote" based system to them as part of an initial warning is far too complicated. I much prefer EyeSerene's suggestion above, but think that we could back it up with a link to a page somewhere (perhaps in the Academy) clearly explaining why pop culture references are avoided and giving advice and good examples of how a "cultural representation" section might be included and developed as opposed to a basic "Pop Culture" section - Inevitably there are some non-contemporary representations that are relevant and these should be encouraged (e.g. Michelangelo's David in regards to King David).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. There is definitely a place for straight-talking, but it always saddens me when I see a new editor who's made a good-faith - albeit entirely inappropriate - contribution being treated like they've come to rape our goods and loot our women. A bit of friendly advice and education can go a long way. EyeSerene talk 17:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that wording, but we shouldn't be encouraging voting as the first response - it's better to discuss things and only vote if absolutely necessary. The term 'cruft' should also be avoided as its a neologism. How about:
 * Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Like that wording, Nick, but unsure of the very last word - I did have a late night but what does 'resorted' mean in this context? Do you just mean 'reinstated' or some such? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant 'restored', but put the t in the wrong place ;) Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, should've guessed that one - told you I had a late night... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(←) Looks good to me. EyeSerene talk 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some minor tweaks, mostly for acessibility
 * Roger Davies talk 08:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 08:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears at this point that we have our basic template layout. Before creating it though I have a question: how do you subst a template? And should that be pursued here? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the boilerplate text (as a cut and paste) to the styleguide at WP:MILPOP. If we need a template, I'll knock one up, probably here Template:MILPOP, but it doesn't seem necessary at the moment.  Roger Davies  talk 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Content Review Medal
It is time for the quarterly awarding of the Content Review Medal. If someone would like to take this task since I will be unable to do so for at least 12-24 hours. The task consists of going through the ACR and PR archives for 2009 and counting the number of reviews each editor performed in the 1st Quarter of 2009. Then report your findings here: User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST and notifying the others here and a small discussion occurs, the actual awards are presented. -MBK004 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If no one else is willing, I'll do it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just completed all of the peer reviews, and should get to the A-Class Reviews soon. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and that's failed and demoted ACRs done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoo, go Bryce! :-) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're just excited, Ed, 'cause you're highly likely to get an award. ;-) Well, following that break, I'm off to do the promoted log. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The tallies are as follows:


 * 1) user talk:Joe N: 55 reviews
 * 2) user talk:The_ed17: 49 reviews
 * 3) user talk:Cla68: 38 reviews
 * 4) user talk:TomStar81: 37 reviews
 * 5) user talk:Nick-D: 34 reviews
 * 6) user talk:Abraham, B.S.: 24 reviews
 * 7) user talk:Wandalstouring: 23 reviews
 * 8) user talk:YellowMonkey: 17 reviews
 * 9) user talk:Cam: 13 reviews
 * 10) user talk:Ian Rose: 13 reviews
 * 11) user talk:Woody: 13 reviews
 * 12) user talk:Catalan: 10 reviews
 * 13) user talk:Skinny87: 9 reviews
 * 14) user talk:Bellhalla: 8 reviews
 * 15) user talk:Jim Sweeney: 7 reviews
 * 16) user talk:Jackyd101: 6 reviews
 * 17) user talk:Patar knight: 6 reviews
 * 18) user talk:Hawkeye7: 6 reviews
 * 19) user talk:EyeSerene: 4 reviews
 * 20) user talk:Harlsbottom: 4 reviews
 * 21) user talk:MBK004: 4 reviews
 * 22) user talk:The Land: 4 reviews
 * 23) user talk:Piotrus: 3 reviews
 * 24) user talk:Binksternet: 3 reviews
 * 25) user talk:GraemeLeggett: 3 reviews
 * 26) user talk:IceUnshattered: 3 reviews
 * 27) user talk:Lazulilasher: 3 reviews
 * 28) user talk:Parsecboy: 3 reviews
 * 29) user talk:Eurocopter: 2 reviews
 * 30) user talk:Hlj: 2 reviews
 * 31) user talk:Lawrencema: 2 reviews
 * 32) user talk:MisterBee1966: 2 reviews
 * 33) user talk:Nudve: 2 reviews
 * 34) user talk:Patton123: 2 reviews
 * 35) user talk:Tpbradbury: 2 reviews
 * 36) user talk:AdjustShift: 1 review
 * 37) user talk:Amore Mio: 1 review
 * 38) user talk:AshLin: 1 review
 * 39) user talk:Bachcell: 1 review
 * 40) user talk:Buckshot06: 1 review
 * 41) user talk:Ceedjee: 1 review
 * 42) user talk:Cool3: 1 review
 * 43) user talk:Dapi89: 1 review
 * 44) user talk:EnigmaMcmxc: 1 review
 * 45) user talk:Fnlayson: 1 review
 * 46) user talk:Giordaano: 1 review
 * 47) user talk:John Smith's: 1 review
 * 48) user talk:Kevin Myers: 1 review
 * 49) user talk:Kyriakos: 1 review
 * 50) user talk:LinguistAtLarge: 1 review
 * 51) user talk:Maralia: 1 review
 * 52) user talk:Mjroots: 1 review
 * 53) user talk:Nigel Ish: 1 review
 * 54) user talk:NuclearWarfare: 1 review
 * 55) user talk:Perseus71: 1 review
 * 56) user talk:Piotr Mikołajski: 1 review
 * 57) user talk:Randomran: 1 review
 * 58) user talk:Redmarkviolinist: 1 review
 * 59) user talk:Saberwyn: 1 review
 * 60) user talk:Stepshep: 1 review
 * 61) user talk:Shimgray: 1 review
 * 62) user talk:Sniperz11: 1 review
 * 63) user talk:Tartarus: 1 review
 * 64) user talk:Una Smith: 1 review

I believe tradition holds that the top 10 reviewers receive the CRM, but as there is a tie for the final place I advocate that top 11 receive the award. Thoughts? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done Bryce! I'm sure that Roger or any one of us could write up something for the upcoming newsletter about the increase in review output since we saw a gain of 11 reviewers this past quarter compared to the 4th quarter of 2008, although that was partially expected due to the sheer increase in the number of ACRs that we have seen. On a personal note, I am rather surprised at the sharp decline in the number of reviews (I was expecting a more gradual curve), especially since I am in the top half when I don't put forth much of an effort if at all to review articles. Getting back to business, you are correct about the tradition. Any other thoughts, also, since I handed out the last batch, could someone who is not about to receive a CRM make the awards based upon the citation I used in January/February (I think Bryce, Cam, and JonCatalan have them on their userpage or awards subpage) ? -MBK004 05:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank very much for that, Bryce. Let's change tradition in order to kickstart the process. Best, I think, to encourage participation is to give the Chevrons to the top twelve (10+ reviews) and the Content Review Medal to everyone (sixteen editors) who has done more than two. This will encourage those at the bottom to keep doing them, and hopefully do more. The awards also get seen by others, which enourages them to join in. If no one objects, I'll do this later.

I also suggest we award something next month too. We can create a special "thank you" award as well if needs be. This is just to keep the profile up. I'll write something up for the next newsletter once the whole strategy is sorted out. Roger Davies talk 06:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, perhaps we should track GA and FA reviews too? Though to do that is serious amounts of work ....  Roger Davies  talk 07:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your ideas in the first and second paragraphs sound good, Roger, but keeping track of GA (especially) and FA reviews would take a massive amount of work and I'm not sure if there would be many takers to do such a thing. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Roger's suggestion on awards for peer and A-class reviews, but I think that FA and GA reviews are a bit out of scope for 'our' awards. Handing out barnstars for these could lead to silly accusations of vote stacking, canvassing and the like. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely.  Roger Davies  talk 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) We do by the way have the service awards, which with minimal work could be turned into "the Military History reviewer's stripes", for people doing one ot two ever so often. Roger Davies talk 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think if we just add a nice looking banner stating "Military History reviewer's stripes" to the service stripes it would do. It also makes use of these awards for something other than the tag and assess drives that don't take place very often. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, absolutely. We'd do it neatly, with an award box and so forth. I was planning to sort this Friday (I'm away in France most of today, back very late tonight). We could give them one stripe in month one, two in month two etc. Any one object?  Roger Davies  talk 05:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My only query is how many stripes is the limit, basicly? Are we going to hand out ten stripes for 10 months reviewing, etc? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought we'd throw awards around like confetti for a couple of months. This month give out Chevrons for the top eleven; Content Review medals for next sixteen editors; and everyone else one-stripe. Next month, give out Content Review medals to the top ten; plus two-stripes to those who got one this month; and one-stripe to those starting afresh. It needs a bit of explaining but that's not difficult. After three or four months, we ease back on the awards. Basically it's about radically upping the review profile for a while, which always gets more editors involved and old ones re-invigorated. After they've done it for a month or two, it becomes habit and the reviews start flowing again (well, for a year or so).  Roger Davies  talk 05:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps alternately we could just give the Chevrons after a certain number of stripes. – Joe   N  20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that gets difficult to track. Cam (Chat) 15:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've distributed all the awards and I've got the announcements ready to post. Roger Davies talk 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by the content of the responses on your talk page, Roger, the thinking behind "throwing awards around like confetti" appears pretty sound... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Effective, innit :)  Roger Davies  talk 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Urgent question
At Talk:Medal of Honor there is a icon in the upper right hand corner of the page similar to what you find on an FA-rated page that displays a Medal of Honor and the provides a link to the MoH article. Problem is, I can not find the discussion that supposedly took place conerning the use of the code, and it appears to have caught on in that our A-class review on the U-boat captian displaces a similar Icon with an award on its talk page. I recall no consesnus on this, and if this is a no-no then I would prefer to move on it now rather than wait and let it become a problem of epic proportions. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the MoH, the page code says "this is a sample; please do not delete until 30 October 2007; see discussion below". There's a related discussion on the page [edit: maybe this isn't related on a second look]. It looks like it was a trial that was never adopted, and this one has just been overlooked in the cleanup. I'd say it's safe to remove. Not sure about the U-boat one though. EyeSerene talk 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any discussion in the archives either, and I don't know which U-Boat article you're talking about, Tom. – Joe   N  20:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, bad sp&g: The issue came up at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wolfgang Lüth; during the course of my read through for the A-class review I noticed on the talk page of the article Wolfgang Luth that a medal of some sort had been placed there. An inquiry brought the icon on the MoH page to my attention, and thats why the issue is raised here. I was unable to find any discussion related to the icon specifically, and was unaware of any decision to have such icons on bio pages since people can not even agree as to whether having the FA star out on the main page is a good idea. Thats why I raised it here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, that makes more sense. I didn't notice it when reviewing the article and agree that I've never seen it and it might be wise to remove it. – Joe   N  20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that on all talk pages I have seen of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients, included in the top right hand corner is a small image of the Knight's Cross. I have no idea how it caught on, but they have been around for quite a long time now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These seem totally redundant to the various categories which cover these medal winners. I think that the templates should be sent to WP:MFD as they're not needed and inconsistent with a bunch of policies. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur. We should also award a barnstar to MisterBee1966; if it was not for his descion to move on A-class this would have gone unnoticed for an even longer amount of time. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

 * Copied from main talk page

Hi. I'm very sorry to bear the bad news that a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia has impacted articles of interest to your project. Previously, I had thought it only impacted articles related to gastropods and mollusks. The short story version: User:GrahamBould, now blocked, copied text from books and non-free internet sources into literally thousands of articles over a span of perhaps three years. In its early days, the matter was addressed at the administrators' noticeboards, twice: here and here. Conversation about it is now taking place primarily at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. I do not yet know to what extent your articles are affected, but I have verified that at least one article still contains text copied directly from a book which I can only access in snippet: Pillbox affair. If you have interest in contributing to the evaluation or clean-up of these, or helping devise a constructive approach to the problem, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're joking. I stumbled upon this in a random link-clicking spree I had a few weeks ago, and read a little bit about it...not good. We'll need a list of articles to work with, but we should probably help out as much as we can. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The full list appears to be at User:Sadalmelik/Others. Assuming it's complete, there only look to be a few articles within the scope of our project which need to be checked/fixed/deleted. I feel sorry for the poor WikiProject Gastropods people though. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If its over three years though we should be prepared for the possiblility that more are out there somewhere. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) The obvious thing to do is for someone to run through the list, extracting any articles within our scope. Once we've got a short list (may be a dozen or so?), we can check them individually, preferably not at a snail's pace. Roger Davies talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got this list to check:
 * Auto-Saharan Company
 * Battle of Kufra - very likely copyvio, might be, but doesn't seem to be from Sting of the Scorpion, might be Kelly, Saul. The Hunt for Zerzura, the Lost Oasis and the Desert War 2002 John Murray (Publishers) Ltd, London, England, UK ISBN 0-7195-6162-0
 * British Marine Air Navigation Co Ltd
 * Canadian Power Boat Company: possible source: Adrian Rance, Fast Boats and Flying Boats, (Ensign Publications, Southampton, England 1989) ISBN 1-85455-026-8
 * Glauco class submarine - Possible copyvio: source: Erminio Bagnasco, Submarines of World War Two, Cassell & Co, London. 1977 ISBN 1-85409-532-3
 * Italian submarine Cappellini - Possible copyvio: source: Erminio Bagnasco
 * Marcello class submarine - Possible copyvio: source: Erminio Bagnasco
 * Marconi class submarine - Possible copyvio: source: Erminio Bagnasco
 * Pillbox affair - clear copyvio; have created temp stub - copyvio template removed and replaced with a stub Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ronald Moore (Trooper) - clear word-for-word copyvio pp 8-10, Sting of the Scorpion ; Roger stubbed this
 * Supermarine Air Yacht Possible copyvio: source: A.J.Jackson, British Civil Aircraft since 1919 Volume 3, Putnam & Company, London, 1974, ISBN 370 10014 X
 * Supermarine Baby - seems ok
 * Supermarine Commercial Amphibian - seems ok
 * Supermarine Nanok - seems ok
 * Supermarine Scylla
 * Supermarine Sea Eagle
 * Supermarine Sea King - seems ok
 * Supermarine Sea Urchin
 * Supermarine Seal
 * Supermarine Seal


 * I might have missed one or two. BusterD (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had the exact same list. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both! I've cross-checked and added a couple (sort of within our scope). Are you guys volunteering to go through them to check the content? It could mean fame and glory :)  Roger Davies  talk 00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't because I have access to zero sources on these...(assuming Google Books doesn't have them.) However, as long as he's able and wants to, Bellhalla should be able to take a look at the Italian subs, as he has done a few articles on those ships. Yes, I did just volunteer you. :P — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Buster, I saw you marked Ronald Moore with "very likely copyvio", and I agree. My problem is that Google Books has no preview for the book cited, and nothing came up in a Google search (all mirrors).... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazon had it available to search. BusterD (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the basic sort. This is way out of my field of reference knowledge, however. I wish someone would verify my sort. I've struck through pages which are so stubby they couldn't really be copied. BusterD (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As we know there's a high chance there are copy vio's, easiest is probably to stub the lot on the WP:Eventualist theory, that eventually someone will come along and rebuild them. Thoughts?  Roger Davies  talk 01:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. It doesn't look like any of those are extraordinarily popular topics, so they won't be getting a lot of views. As long as no new ones pop up, it should be all right until someone with more time and references comes along. – Joe   N  01:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(od)Saw this last night; rather annoying, isn't it? Still, fortunately none of them seem to be particularly popular topics. I don't know anything about subs, but if someone wants to outline what the Pillbox Affair was, I might be able to at least stub it out, as it spunds vaguely familiar. Skinny87 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the cases mentioned above shouldn't be so alarming, as all of those articles are of low-importance. What is quite worrying is that we might have several unknown editors like User:GrahamBould within our project, which could have been created serious copyright violations. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too worried about that. Any copyvios are likely to be in low traffic articles which can easily be stubbed back as they're detected or won't be a great loss if they're deleted. High traffic articles generally get too much traffic for copyvios to escape either undetected or unmodified for long. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stubified Marcello-class submarine and ITALIAN SUBMARINE Comandante Cappellini (after moving it to its correct title), and also did the same for ITALIAN SUBMARINE Barbarigo (not listed here previously). Will work on the other two sub class articles next.
 * Oh, and since we can volunteer other editors for tasks, I'm sure Ed can do all the rest, right? ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And the other two sub classes are done. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems as if not just an enormous amount of our articles have been affected but I am prepared for the worst. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 18:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Supermarine Sea King Looks alright should we mark it Out? Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * yep. Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more have been identified:
 * 1) John Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort - this is a bit worrisome and may have been taken from Heathcote, Tony (1999). The British Field Marshals 1736-1997 (the current source)
 * If Gort needs re-writing, then I have access to Churchill's Generals and Warwick Library has some books on Gort, I believe. Let me know if it needs doing. Skinny87 (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also having a bash at the Pillbox affair, to try and expand it a little. Skinny87 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Paul von Hindenburg - checked, no problems (thankfully!)
 * 2) Jack Churchill - this edit looks suspicious Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Henry Maitland Wilson, 1st Baron Wilson - checked all edits minor
 * 4) T-6 Texan - checked, edits were all minor

Upcoming TFAs
Two articles which fall under our scope will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article within ten days. Ironclad warship will appear on 12 April and USS Iowa turret explosion will appear on 19 April. Any help to keep these articles clear of the vandalism that we all know accompanies these main page appearances would be appreciated. -MBK004 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, I've been watching Ironclad warship for some time, and I'm at home in front of the computer all day Sunday, so I can help. BusterD (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can help with both, since they both appear to be up over the weekend. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just watchlisted both. Thanks a lot for the notification MBK. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm keeping an eye on both. Should be home for most of both days, wearing out my mouse hitting the refresh button on my watchlist. – Joe   N  01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now got both of them watchlisted, and will be on the computer on sunday at the very least. Skinny87 (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it may be just the one: Raul654 left a message on Cla68's talk page noting that a competeing April 19 request had been filed, and he was giving serious thought to switching out the turret explosion for the other article. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well poo. On the brighter side, there is a request at WP:TFAR for an 22 April appearance of William IV of the United Kingdom which is also under our scope. -MBK004 21:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Raul said this:

"Earlier today, I scheduled the USS Iowa Turret Explosion article for April 19 as you requested. However, a few hours later an OTRSer emailed me asking me to reconsider, as there is an open OTRS ticket on a closely related (BLP) article, and featuring the turret explosion would very likely inflame the issue. I don't know yet what I'm going to do, but unscheduling it is a very real possibility. I'm giving you a heads-up in case that happens."


 * Apparently those issues have not been resolved? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the BLP article in question (Fred Moosally) is an FA, that's very disappointing. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember this came up a little while ago. An editor claimed that one of the book sources widely used in the Moosally article is reputed by Moosally (and possibly others) to be bias and inaccurate, so Cla68 was working to remedy this and prevent the article from going to FAR. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

←Update on the turret explosion TFA: Per User_talk:Cla68, the article will not appear, but will appear at a date in the future TBD by Raul. As I mentioned above, it looks like William IV of the United Kingdom will appear in the next few days though. -MBK004 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is official, in starting in a few hours, William IV of the United Kingdom will appear as Today's Featured Article. -MBK004 19:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And on 26 April Operation Passage to Freedom will be the TFA. -MBK004 19:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Watching both. Any word on rescheduling the Iowa explosion? – Joe   N  21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving out-of-date A-Class, FAC or RfA announcements


Roger, there are many such out-of-date announcements on both the main project talk page and on task force pages, which I'm about to start removing. However when I double-checked the Coordinator task page, it declared we should "Manually archive any out-of-date A-Class, FAC or RfA announcements". Obviously discussion threads need to be archived but have you found there's great benefit in archiving simple announcements of reviews being opened, rather than simply removing them? Just want to get clarification before I start anything - and if announcements can simply be removed rather than archived we should change the wording on the Coordinator page (unless I've completely misinterpreted). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, we've archived them along with real talk but I agree it's a pointless exercise and would be happy if they were just deleted after a month or so.  Roger Davies  talk 13:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment

Shall we amend the handbook accordingly? Or is there benefit in keeping them? Roger Davies talk 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I support just removing such notices, presuming the announced event is just something from the /Review page, the event is over, and there was no subsequent discussion in the thread. Our archives are hard enough to find stuff in :) Maralia (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They don't really say much. – Joe   N  16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no need for them to be in the archives; they just clutter up the section titles and make it harder when you are looking through the TOC for a specific section. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no real need to archive/keep these notices, so, yeah, delete them once they grow old. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; there's no need to keep boilerplate notices like these. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Maralia about retaining if there was any subsequent discussion, but otherwise it's OK to see them go. Such notices can always be found in the page history should the need arise. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started deleting outdated announcements. Have done all the 'general topic' taskforce talkpages; the nation/region & period/conflict talkpages could use the same treatment. Unfortunately, the main talkpage won't really benefit from this change, since it's on 7 day archiving. Maralia (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But an enterprising new coordinator with lots of time could take it upon himself to clean-up the archives. We might even be able to condense a few of them after cleaning-out all the notices. -MBK004 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I set it to seven-day archiving a while back because the talk page was at something like 220,000 bytes. Should it be switched again? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of cleaning out the old ACRs. Going through these archives, it's daunting just how much work Kirill did in the project's early days. Cam (Chat) 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this or should this include boilerplate peer review notices, too? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say so, as long as there was no associated discussion. – Joe   N  22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Contest scoring glitch
When I was scoring the contest results for March, I looked back at the previous month and misinterpreted what I saw so, as a result, the total articles, total points, and average points for twelve contestants were incorrect. I have now updated the scoreboard to reflect the accurate values for total articles, total points, and average points. The scores for March contest entries themselves are unaffected and have not been changed. (What I had done was to take the February totals and add in the February results, instead of the March results. For the corrections, I started over with the February totals and added in the March results.)

Also, after having to sort through the page history to find the errors of my ways, I have made the contest entries section its own subpage at WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries. So if any of y'all watch the contest page, you might consider adding the entries subpage to your watchlist, too. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Closable ACRs
The ACRs on Operation Deny Flight and Minas Gerais are ready to be closed by an uninvolved coordinator, I believe. I've supported both so can't. – Joe   N  23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Which leads to an ACM nom for Ed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Closable PRs
The last five or so PRs, beginning with Kentucky and working backwards, all date back to January or February, and need to be archived badly. Anyone care to take up the challenge? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've archived Kentucky, Victory Monument and Soldiers and Sailors. Whoever decides to archive more, please keep Battle of Hampton Roads open, I intend to leave a review within 36 hours. -MBK004 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to vote on A class medals?
Given that all editors who play a lead role in getting three articles to A-class standard are automatically eligible for this medal I don't think that we need to vote on it. I'd suggest that the procedures for closing ACRs be expanded to include updating the records of the number of editors who have developed an article to A-class standard and that the closing coordinator should award the medal each time its someone's third successful nomination, adding a note to the records page to allow for awards to be tracked. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree - in fact, when we were discussing awards a while back, I though these were done automatically (i.e. without voting) and it was just the more obviously subjective awards like Chevrons with Oak Leaves that needed it. I sort of assumed we had to vote for A-Class Awards to peer check that the nominee was in fact significantly responsible for each article but even that seems a bit far-fetched... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's the reason, but I fully trust all the coordinators to award the medals correctly and/or discuss any complicated instances here. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But the voting format does allow us to double-check mistakes, as evidenced by the recent mix-up with the awarding of Bryce's first ACM with Oak Leaves. Even if we stop voting on the ACMs, we should at least make out the nom on the talk page along with the diff of the award so others can double-check the award. -MBK004 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll back MBK here, considering the quite many steps to be done when closing ACRs, mistakes are always possible, while the current ACR medal nomination procedure automatically involves multiple-checks by different coordinators. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While it probably isn't necessary to gather the current supports, I agree that there should be some way of checking other's work. – Joe   N  19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Tracking ACRs and awarding medals automatically is going to make a whole load of extra work. My preference is to stay with the current system: many eyes does mean that errors do get picked up and the party atmosphere is good for morale/ésprit de corps. Roger Davies talk 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though it is very doubtful that we will ever have to oppose an award for the ACM, it is most probably easier with our current method as we can track awards and all know what is going on. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then; that makes sense. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I can live with it under the current requirement of three votes only... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)