Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 21

Coordinator removal and work groups
Since I head back to school Monday I thought I would scribble out a few ideas I had over my long week off and see if there was any interest in them.


 * On the issue of removal of coordinators, there seems to be some concern that the system could be gamed, which I pointed out earlier. I got to think that perhaps we may adopt a position wherein those who wish to accuse a coordinator of conduct unbecoming file and rfc and we wait and see what develops. Alternatively, if this catches on, it may be a good idea to raise removal of coordinators at WikiProject Council/Assessment working group and see what other coordinators and project leaders have to say on the matter. In doing so, we could establish a uniform method of recall across Wikipedia, rather than just within our project. Its also possible (albeit unlikely) that coordinators and leader will opt to create a formal review process on the assessment work group and handle such issues there, in which case the process could become something more like the arbitration committee, which oversees serious issues and makes binding rulings on the matter as a whole. I for one would be content with an rfc in which all project members were encouraged to participate since that seems to be the most common way for current admins to establish consensus on allegations of conduct unbecoming.


 * On the issue of work groups, I think it would be a good idea for the project to official embrace workgroups since many users seem to be creating ad-hoc pages for special projects. I have one for the Iowa class, and Cam has a page for Normandy. I'm sure others have similar pages for their writing projects as well. My idea for workgroups is to let users who wish to do so create a user subpage in which the goals of the group are laid out and the articles included in the group are listed, then permit the users to place the work groups on a related task force page (for example, my Iowa class page would be listed on the maritime warfare page). User thus interested in the workgroups listed can join them if they wish to, or alternatively they can create there own work groups and see what comes of them. By listing the workgroups on task force pages we can also inspire more people to get active within the task forces, which may help energize some of the slower ones. In addition, since task forces are divided among various coordinators we would already have the infrastructure in place to allow for executive oversight of the work groups by the current coordinator tranche. Lastly, if a work group covering a larger topic (for example, military of Antarctica) remains active, attracts enough attention, and expands to include a large list of articles, we could consider taking the work group and upgrading it to a task force.

These are merely ideas, but I thought I'd throw them out there and see what everyone thinks. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that we need give any further thought to coordinator removal at this point, since the entire concept is pretty much academic in the absence of anyone actually needing removal (which hasn't happened in three years of coordinator history, and is, in my opinion, unlikely to happen going forwards). If there are significant concerns about the system being gamed, the easiest thing to do would be to simply commit ourselves to consulting with the project on a specific process should the need to construct one arise; but trying to create a Wikipedia-wide process without any practical need for it will simply waste time and draw negative reactions from the community.
 * As far as work[ing?] groups go, creating them on an at-will basis under the associated task forces seems like a suitable approach for the time being, given that they're one-page things and don't require extensive infrastructure to be prepared. We should probably agree on some common terminology before creating lots of pages, though; "work group" is used by many projects as an equivalent to "task force", so I'd suggest "working group" to eliminate needlessly ambiguous wording. Kirill [pf] 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Working group works for me. I do hope the idea catches on here. It would, IMO, generate more interest in the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - it would be better if these work groups were centralised in the Wikiproject's space rather than being 'hidden' away on editors' user pages. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, makes sense. We've had a couple of proposals at the Napoleonic task force recently, and there's one working group set up and linked from the participants section of the task force page. Admittedly it's been inactive following the initial discussion (I suspected that might happen :P), but better to do the minimal amount of work to set up a under-used working group than set up a task-force that never amounts to anything IMO. EyeSerene talk 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Working group draft
I set up a preliminary draft for working groups here. Hope it helps newcomers grasp the concepts. I'm hoping for some input so we can work out the details before I become too encompassed in schoolwork to put in more wiki-work :)


 * I was under the impression that our intent was to create working groups in project space rather than user space; your approach hinges too much on the original creator remaining active, I think. We want, at least potentially, groups that can outlive their founders' activity on Wikipedia. Kirill [pf] 05:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats why i called this a preliminary draft :) Its also why I put it here first, back to back 18 hour school days really sap your brain, you know? Yeah, project space would be infinitely better for this, I think. I believe the reason for my using user space was that I was looking over my Iowa page as an example and forgot to convert to project space. Aside from that foe paw, does anything else need addressed? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strangely, they come across as being, somehow, a bit formalised and slightly elitist, which I'm sure wasn't the intention. Perhaps we should put far more emphasis on how to set it up?  Roger Davies  talk 06:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, not the intention at all. I didn't go into much detail on the set up since we don;t have an exact idea yet of where the working groups rank, and I do not want to lend the impression that these are smaller sized task forces since we already have task force, most of which work more or less as intended. Perhaps I need to sleep on it and then take a look at the whole thing with fresh eyes... That may help overcome this mental sluggishness. I'll take a look at any fresh comments tomorrow and retool the page to address your concerns and any others that arise. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good start. I agree that we should keep it casual and informal, as basically all we're saying is: if you and a few mates want to organise a limited collaboration for a while, one way to keep track of your work within the milhist infrastructure is to set up an ad-hoc page you can all use. I see them as subordinate to the task forces per your draft, so I'd maybe add a suggestion to propose the working group on the appropriate task force talk page first to raise interest and allow other editors and the task force coords to provide advice and assistance. EyeSerene talk 10:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the more I am of the mind that it may be a good idea to create a preload template like what gets used for RFA and FPC and so forth so as to maintain uniformity among the working groups. Also, we should consider a category for the working groups so that the project and us coordinators now and in the future can keep track of those currently running. Thoughts? Suggestions? Anything? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A preload template is a good idea, but we should probably figure out what elements we want working group pages to have before dealing with the technical setup. Here's a very basic page structure:
 * Purpose/scope
 * Worklist
 * Resources
 * Internal
 * External
 * One immediate question is whether or not we want to have a list of participants on the page. On the one hand, it may be useful as a list of contacts, and provides an transition path to a task force; on the other hand, it may wind up suffering from the same problem as task force lists, with non-active or non-contributing users being listed.  Thoughts? Kirill [pf] 06:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that a list of participants would be a good idea since these are a lot smaller in focus and purpose. I think, based on what I've seen from my Iowa page, that those listed will work on the articles within a working group more diligently than those of task force since the ad-hoc nature and very narrow specificity lends itself to attracting only those who are in it for interest's sake. I think such editors will embrace the concept since it brings those of such limited interests together, so the odds of non-activity or non contribution drop somewhat. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in two minds - it wasn't appropriate for the Napoleonic fiction group we set up, as Kirill noted at the time, but it may be for others. I wouldn't be too prescriptive about it to be honest; it could be an optional section. In any case I don't think we should worry about making working-group lists gel with membership lists as they aren't quite the same thing, and it's perfectly possibly a working group will attract editors who for whatever reason don't want to sign up with the project. EyeSerene talk 09:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I lean toward having user names in a participants section because it works for me, but if the absence of a section works as well then I am not going to limit its use. Another thought occurs too: should we encourage those wishing to start there own working group to name them so that they reflect the articles being worked on? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI - I've set up a work group for work on "large cruisers" (right name? :/) here. Comments would be appreciated! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, ed, but I might suggest expanding a little on the intended goal of the group. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Kirill: What would you say to leaving the issue of a participants/membership section to the person setting the group? If they wish to include such a section then so be it, if not, that's good too. For naming, I think the best move would be to require working groups to be named for the major element of their focus, for example "U-boat working group" or "Special Forces working group". How does this sound? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but I'd suggest leaving "working group" off for simplicity; WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/U-boats seems less strained than WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/U-boat working group. Kirill [pf] 00:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. That simplfies the process, and if need be we can create a category to track the working groups that way. That just leaves the design of a preload template and the location of such a section out on the task force pages. For the former, I think your basic preload template covers whats need initially, others can add or subtract from it as they see fit. For the latter, I would suggest placing a list of working groups either before or after the Tagging and Assessing section on the Task force pages so that others can see the working groups without having to visit a task force talk page. How does this sound? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. If this gets off the ground, we may also want to consider listing working groups on WP:MILHIST/TF, under their parent TFs; but that's probably something best done once we have a fair number of them available. Kirill [pf] 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I hope this catches on, I would love to see these become a feature here and elsewhere. One other thought: we will need to gather togather the working groups currently running on userpages and rename them so we can plug them into the current task forces to adhere to these new standards. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to build a preload template for the working group idea but so far have had no success. With the utmost reluctnace, I must admit that the technical experince to create such a template is beyond my current capability. Could I impose upon one of you to help with me with preload template part? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to do this. :/ I think that poking Krill would be your best bet... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  17:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

← Here's a first attempt: I'd like to put in some more useful code for the worklist, at a minimum, before we deploy this. Any other suggestions for what should be included on the preloaded working group page would be appreciated. Kirill [pf] 00:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * Brief description of the Working Group's scope
 * Participating editors
 * Priority articles
 * Relevant Wikiprojects
 * Useful references Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In theory we could create a link to a general working page at the academy, but that would require retooling the basic draft sitting in my sandbox. That may be something to think about. If I think about it long enough I'm sure I could come up with some other code to add if given enough time, but it appears that I will be tied up with school work for the rest of today. It is a good start though, and I thank you all for helping me out with this part; like I said above, my technical expertise just was not quite up to the game. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We could add the code for the GT or FT boxes for user who wish to make that the goal of their working group. Not sure if that would work here though. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some updates to the preload template. The worklist table should be able to double as a useful listing of participants via the involved editor listing for each article. Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Any comments? Should we go forward with the current template, or would people like to see further changes? Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets move forward with the current design and see what happens. A this point, that would be the best option since it will allow us to gauge both the receptiveness of the project to this element of organization and allow us to get feedback from other members as to how the concept can be improved. We should leave messages on the task force talk pages and the main project page as well explaining the new concept, and we should encourage those who already run working groups off user-named spaces to move their working groups to the new scheme so we can standardize the formatting. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can ask the people currently running userspace groups to try out the new format before opening it up more generally? We can catch any latent bugs if we run through some actual cases first. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That all looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Echoing Nick, it all looks excellent. Thanks to Tom and Kirill for setting it up.  Roger Davies  talk 11:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Beta testing
I guiny-pigged my working group for moving so I could offer some feedback in relation to the current template and any changes we may need to make. The first thing I noticed is that it did not copy exactly: WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Iowa class battleship featured topic is where Iowa FT working is now, but the link at the top is out and the page should display that small blue link to return to the task force but doesn't. We may need to devlope moving instructions to address this problem.

The other hting I would suggest is adding to the preload template a section titled open tasks so that those just checking in can see what the editors in the group are doing. My page had one before the change, now that its gone the page looks a little...vacant. One other thing we haven;t discussed either is how the talk pages will function here: should the be marked as milhist talk pages, redirected to the task force page, or just left alone? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Axe part of the first paragraph, I forgot to include "Wikipedia" in the renaming, thats why the blue links back the TF and project didn't show. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like you just copied the formatting rather than actually using the preload form; that won't actually work. To move an existing group over, people need to use the preload form and then copy any needed text from the old group into the new one; simply moving the existing page won't work properly unless you do a history merge onto the new one.
 * I've cleaned up the Iowa group via a history merge; it's now at WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Iowa class battleship. Generally speaking, we should probably leave things like "featured topic" off the names, or we'll have something that's unnecessarily long and not very flexible procedurally.
 * I'll add an open tasks section to the boilerplate.
 * As far as talk pages are concerned, I think we just leave them for the group to use as it feels appropriate; there's no reason not to have dedicated discussion areas for each effort. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've finished adding the new sections. Thinking about moves some more, the best way forward might be to ask the people maintaining the groups if they want to move, and then have us do the moves for them; given how unintuitive the process is, having people try to do it themselves is probably just going to frustrate them. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we go ahead and deploy this publicly, then, or do we want to try and get the existing groups moved over first? Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's deploy this publicly; other known groups can be contacted to see if they want to move over, but there's no reason to delay this IMO. Great work, Krill, and many thanks as always, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with ed, lets take it live and see what happens. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Kirill here. I think we should invite existing groups to trial it before throwing it open to the world. That way we get a chance to iron out any wrinkles.  Roger Davies  talk 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, then. I'm not picky, I'm just anxious to see if it will work. Who are we going to invite to test the idea? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have a list (complete or otherwise) of the groups currently in userspace? Those would be the obvious candidates, I think.
 * Also, any of the coordinators that would like to start a group can probably do so now and report back on how well the format works. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head I know that Ed and Can have userpage working groups running. I had one, but converted it to the current format. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On point two: Yo :) WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/South Dakota class battleship featured topic. The two small tweaks made a big difference, it looks to cover all the important parts. The only other suggestion I have is that we need to either devise a system to automatically plug in the task force name or leave instruction explaining that the task force name must be typed in in place of the capital letters. Otherwise, everything loaded correctly; its easy to navigate and it covers the basics. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, do we want things like "featured topic" in the names? The two battleship groups are inconsistent now. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say to leave the endings off. I mean, would there be a different goal of a working group? If there is, that could be added, but my guess is that ~100% of the working groups will be aimed at FT's.
 * As Tom said above, I have a (sort of) working group up at User:The ed17/Large cruisers. Would you like me to move it over? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Large cruiser classes - how does that look? Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks great! There is actually some context now, not just a FT template with articles on it... :-) Thanks! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry; I added the featured topic bit becuase I was used to seeing that on the Iowa class page. Ya'll can move it if your want, in fact I'd encourage it for uniformaty in naming. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. I've also created WikiProject Military history/Early Modern warfare task force/Italian Wars, which has a larger article set; the format seems to work fairly well in that scenario too.
 * Shall we move forward with exposing this to the project? I suggest adding a section to the task force page with something along the lines of the following:
 * Working groups are informal clusters of editors working on a single topic within the scope of a task force; they are often oriented towards achieving a definite goal, such as the creation of a featured topic. All project members are encouraged to join existing working groups or start new ones to cover their individual interests.
 * There are currently X working groups within the project; a full list may be viewed here.
 * To create a new working group on some topic, please:
 * Choose the task force that will host the group; if you have any questions about the best task force for your topic, please ask the project coordinators.
 * In the box below, enter the task force name in place of "TASK FORCE", and the topic in place of "TOPIC", and click the "Create a working group" button.
 * You will be taken to a page pre-loaded with the basic working group structure; click "Save page" to create the group.
 * Now, edit the working group page and fill in the scope as well as the other sections on the page. Your new working group is ready!


 * How does that sound? Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Lets do it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Tom. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've integrated the material above at WP:MILHIST/TF, and will make an announcement on WT:MILHIST shortly. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak notification
Just letting all of you know that I am now joining Tom in taking a break to prepare for final exams. I will still check my talk page at least once a day and am still reachable via email. I will be back in full force on 15 May. -MBK004 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - and good luck! Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Best of luck. On a similar note, by IB exams are fast approaching, so my time here is going to be limited. Cam (Chat) 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I also may be a little bit less active preparing for my AP Exams, but probably not enough to cause trouble. – Joe   N  00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck, MBK, I'm sure you'll do well. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bon chance. 129.108.69.146 (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck from me too.  Roger Davies  talk 05:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an update, although my notice says that I should be back today, I am going to take a few extra days off since the exams this semester were much more stressful and if any of you have noticed the infobox here, my birthday is coming up within 24 hours. I'll be back once the weekend is done. -MBK004 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All the cool people have that birthdate ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Top Gun
As a quick note, this indefinetly blocked editor continues to attempt to evade their block and add uncited or dubiously cited material on casualties in ongoing wars. They appear to have given up on sock puppet accounts (a list of which is at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Top Gun) and are using IP addresses (I've started a list of addresses at: User:Top Gun). In the last couple of weeks I've blocked two sock puppet accounts and four IP addresses which were being used by this guy. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Third place in monthly contest?
A relatively minor suggestion, but I'm thinking it might be worth instituting a 3rd Place in the monthly article-writing contest, partly because patronage seems large enough to justify it, and partly because the competition for 2nd and 3rd might encourage still more interest, given that 1st place is generally a forgone conclusion...! Even just naming 3rd Place in the monthly newsletter, an Honourable Mention as it were, would probably suffice if we don't want to go the effort of an additional barnstar. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not, entrants into the monthly contest have been picking up quite substantially recently and quite a few times the editor who has placed third is only a point or two behind second. Also, as Ian hints, the race is more for second as Bellhalla won't give up first! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me as well Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mhm. We should just write in the newsletter "the contest department completed its xth month of completion. We think you can probably guess who got first - with n points, with usery in second - with b points, while userz got third - with c points. Other contestants included *insert users names here*. You are encouraged to submit entries in an attempt to get 2nd or 3rd." Cam (Chat) 15:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is slightly discouraging, but at least we'd be telling the truth. ;) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree...discouraging, but better than giving someone false hope. – Joe   N  01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bryce's suggestion that we should award a third-place medal if the gap between second and third is close if a very good one. It hasn't happened though, I see, for the April contest. Perhaps May's will be different? Roger Davies talk 05:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I think the consensus above is 3rd place should be acknowledged in some fashion no matter what, so my recommendation would be that the Chevrons and the Writer's Barnstar go to 1st and 2nd, as usual, and that 3rd is 'called out' in the Newsletter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems with that, at all. I'll tweak the current (April) newsletter a bit.  Roger Davies  talk 10:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-wikibreak notice
Because local school officials in my area have closed schools for an extended period of time in response to several cases of swine flu in the area, I will not be able to edit or contribute as regularly as is usual through mid-May. A coworker of my spouse and her daughter have tested positive for Type A influenza, but they won't know if it's actually the H1N1 variety or not until results come back from the CDC lab. No one in my family (myself included) has any signs of the illness, so all are well for now. I'll try to be around as much as I am able, but wanted to let everyone know why the variability. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice; we'll hold the fort. Best wishes for the continued good health of you and yours ;) EyeSerene talk 14:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for you and your family's health  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Seconded YM's sentiments.  Roger Davies  talk 06:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eep, hope that everything stays OK and that you manage to avoid getting sick. – Joe   N  20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second/third/fourth all the above... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as Ed. Cam (Chat) 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with above. Let's just hope you and your family stay well and the outbreak dies down with no further infected by the virus. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Thank you for all of the kind words and thoughts. Everyone here was healthy and remained so. But, now that the schools are back open, I declare myself back from my semi-break :) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Medal question
I've received the following:


 * Hi Roger, I have a dumb question. I noticed that User:Catalan received one of his A-class medals for his contribution to List of tanks in the Spanish Civil War, which is an A-class list now and initially not promoted to FA-class. I created three featured lists, bypassing the A-class, after 1 August 2008, the eligibility date for the A-class medal. These lists are List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service (October 28, 2008), List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service (November 29, 2008) and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine (February 18, 2009). I wonder now if that makes me eligible for the A-class medal? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on this either way. What do we think? Roger Davies talk 10:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My view in MisterBee's case is a no as he did not take those lists through ACR, while Jon did for List of tanks in the Spanish Civil War (and as did I for List of Australian George Cross recipients before FLC). If we were to grant it, then it would not be limited to A-Class articles but extended to those at Featured level and create a precedent (I believe Woody would also qualify if we were to do this). Just my view, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I thought that one of the goals of this was to get more articles going through A-Class, and giving it out as a Featured medal is not the same as giving it out as an A-class medal. – Joe   N  20:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above; an additinal minor point is that while Featured status implies an article also meets A-Class, there could be complications if (hypothetically) an FA that had not been through ACR were delisted at FAR. We couldn't then really relist it as A-Class. EyeSerene talk 09:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a question: MisterBee has gone and nominated the aformentioned lists for ACR despite the fact that they are already rated as FLs; is this possible/plausable/allowed? It's the same as someone nominating an article for A-Class despite the fact that it is already a Featured Article. Thoughts/comments? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably not the best approach in general (mostly because failing the review won't functionally change the grade of an article already above A-Class); but I suppose we do need some way of normalizing the A-Class status of articles that "skipped" ACR, without requiring that those articles be demoted first and then re-promoted. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To address the core issue here, I have no difficulty with articles that skip the step counting towards an honorary A-class medal. Thoughts?  Roger Davies  talk 12:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could just automatically confer a de facto project A-Class on anything that passes FAC, but to address Roger's point I think part of the 'earning' process for the A-Class medal is actually taking the article through ACR. If MisterBee wants to do this for his articles I have no doubt the A-Classes will be well-earned, though it's a slightly odd way to proceed. However, I think that if we (again hypothetically) get a case where an FA fails ACR, it should mean an automatic FAR. EyeSerene talk 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another alternative might be to have a set of dedicated MilHist featured content medals with all the trappings, though keeping track of nominators across all the processes would be a pain. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This has, incidentally, been brought up at WT:MILHIST, which may be a good opportunity to get feedback from the project as a whole if we need it at this point. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a shame there wasn't sufficient support for decoupling FA and GA from the quality scale - this is another argument for doing so imo. EyeSerene talk 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should we keep track of the nominators? Why not just have people nominate themselves for it, linking the three articles and the three FACs in the nom? (Similar to WP:TRIPLE and WP:FOUR) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. People nominate themselves and then we vet the noms. Easy.  Roger Davies  talk 05:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that'll lead to significantly lower award rates, since many FA nominators won't know about the award. One of the good things about the ACM is that we normally hand it out without anyone having to ask for it; I think that approach has certain benefits in terms of how much people think their work is appreciated. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that we explicitly based the A-class criteria on a watered-down version of the FA criteria, any article which has passed a FAC should be presumed to be automatically capable of meeting the A-class criteria as well. While the A-class medal is meant to encourage new A-class nominations, especially against the relatively new A-class criteria, I personally don't have any problem with awarding it retrospectively if editors ask for it - a nomination should be lodged in the normal way and the medal be awarded if three coordinators agree that the articles in question are of A-class or higher (this might also be a good way of getting eyes on older FAs). Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That would also put us in a position to judge the quality of the article itself, which isn't something we do with routine ACM nominations; I don't think it would be a very good idea for us to deny someone an award because we decide that their FAs aren't up to par. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that could lead to some interesting conversations... The concern as I see it is that a featured article that's bypassed ACR will probably never have had a formal milhist review. This is not a problem under most circumstances, but although I have enormous respect for the FA process and its dedicated reviewers, I believe it's during project ACR that an article is most likely to get a rigorous content review. Thus unless we can at least cast our eyes over retrospective noms per Nick's suggestion, we'll be taking the article quality on faith... and eventually, we will get caught out.  EyeSerene talk 13:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - I'm tending towards a fairly hard line that only articles having successfully undergone the actual ACR process should quality for the ACM, even if they've made FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems the only fair solution to me too. It's likely that a recent FA would get through ACR easily enough, but as a project that's known for the excellence of our top-end articles I think it would be a mistake to take that quality, or the effort required of other nominators to get through ACR, for granted. EyeSerene talk 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggested that the coodinators agree that the articles are A-class is to cover us off against old FAs which never had the kind of referencing, etc, which are required for FA or A-class status today; there'd be no problems with recent FAs. I don't think that editors who haven't put 'their' FA-status articles through an A-class assessment at all or since the new criteria came into place should be encouraged to apply for the A-class medal, but I don't see a reason to deny them it if they want to ask for it. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Going back to my earlier comment, I think a large part of the issue here is that there's no formal project-level award for FAs, so people are looking to the ACR one to compensate; if we were to introduce an FCM set to complement the ACMs, I suspect most FA editors would no longer be bothered by ineligibility for the latter. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an award for Featured Articles, actually. Titled the Featured Article Medal, it is ment to be awarded to anyone that has significantly contributed to at least three FAs. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an official project award, however, with everything that entails (listing in the newsletter, listing on the award page, etc.); nor is it awarded routinely, or for non-article featured content. I think there's something to be said for having our own multi-grade set of awards for featured contributions, regardless of the existence of a generic barnstar for them as well. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(out-dent) Personally, I don't see much of a need for a Featred Article award. We are becoming too award orientated within the project, and I believe our awards and awards systems are adequated at present. If we branch out into an FA award, then people might well just wish to skip A-Class or go for both awards. If we expand out of the project's ratings to FA, then are we going to adopt an award for GA? If anything, I think it might be worth monitoring FA contributions and awarding the Featured Article Medal to those who are eligable for it instead. Just my opinion, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is probably a matter of opinion, then, but I don't see anything wrong with having more awards, and more varied awards; we have, in the past, seen greater distribution of awards lead to increased participation. If people are writing FAs to get new medals, or following a more thorough review process to get more of them, is that really a bad thing for us in practical terms?  We're encouraging more of the sort of contributions we want to see in any case; and the cost to us is merely the time spent tracking and awarding the medals. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that medals/awards do further inspire and motivate editors, but I just don't think we really need to invest into a project Featured Content Medal at the present time. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving out either the normal Featured medal or developing our own project Featured medal would be fine with me. I do not like the idea of requiring self-noms for anything, because for me at least awards have less meaning if I nominate myself for them. It feels better if they nominate an article and then a few days later a message on the talk page just pops up and oh look! They've won an award. – Joe   N  16:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A-class and featured content survey
Following on from the very interesting discussion above, it might help focus thoughts and develop consensus if we see where consensus lies on some of the underlying principles. This is not a vote so brief comments please. Roger Davies talk 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Q.1
Medals and barnstars help motivate editors by providing recognition for their efforts and thus improve our pool of featured content.
 * Broadly agree
 * Definitely - I personally find that barnstars and other medals help motivate me and I've seen other editors be strongly motivated by them, which is a great thing. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much argument about this ;) EyeSerene talk 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I doubt anyone would disagree. – Joe   N  20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would agree with this in principle. Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, a good-looking medal is always a proud for an editor and motivates him to continue. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree; people like to be recognized. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, per Bellhalla & Euro. Cam (Chat) 22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I find the bronze FA star and A/GA status rewards in themselves, certainly the barnstars and medals act as further motivators. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadly disagree
 * Neither agree nor disagree
 * To point they do, but after recieving the same award after I while think people start to ask why and then give up and move on. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To point they do, but after recieving the same award after I while think people start to ask why and then give up and move on. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Q.2
A generic featured article medal exists but does not apply to all featured content.
 * Broadly agree
 * Seems like a true fact, not something to debate about. – Joe   N  20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes users move mountains to make their article's FAC a success. That kind of commitment deserves more than a generic medal. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, seems like a fact not in dispute. Skinny87 (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really in dispute, is it? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Truism much. Cam (Chat) 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the statement above goes, QED. To expand on it, see below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadly disagree
 * Neither agree nor disagree
 * Neither agree nor disagree

Q.3
A Milhist-specific featured content medal will help motivate editors to produce Milhist featured content.
 * Broadly agree
 * Broadly disagree
 * Neither agree nor disagree
 * I'm not sure - given the amount of work required to develop a FA I don't think that a medal would motivate additional editors to do this. It would be a good way to congratulate successful FA editors though. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nick. While it would be nice recognition, I'm not sure if it would actually increase numbers. – Joe   N  20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What Nick said. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per above; no objection to introducing one. EyeSerene talk 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection, but not sure on the motivation part. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, can't say it wouldn't motivate me, can't say it would. Skinny87 (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a FA medal awarded somewhere at every 5 FAs won't be a bad idea, but I don't think it should represent a high prority such as the ACM. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand additional tip of the hat might help, but I think the major limiting factor in the numbers of FAs is the time lag between nomination and resolution. (Would a MILHIST featured content review medal—since reviews seem to be the bottleneck—be worth considering?) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too difficult to track, but a nice idea. Cam (Chat) 22:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have considered putting forward the notion of an 'ace' medal for five FA-Class MILHIST articles (even thought of suggesting it be retrospective, but obviously I'm biased there...!) We seem to go in threes in other areas, such as the MILHIST ACM and the WP Triple Crown, but I like the military numeric connection of an award for five FAC 'victories' - wonder what others think. The idea of five was before I noticed Eurocoptor's comment above, but clearly great minds...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too difficult to track, but a nice idea. Cam (Chat) 22:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have considered putting forward the notion of an 'ace' medal for five FA-Class MILHIST articles (even thought of suggesting it be retrospective, but obviously I'm biased there...!) We seem to go in threes in other areas, such as the MILHIST ACM and the WP Triple Crown, but I like the military numeric connection of an award for five FAC 'victories' - wonder what others think. The idea of five was before I noticed Eurocoptor's comment above, but clearly great minds...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Q.4
Milhist A-class criteria are a less stringent version of the featured content criteria and therefore featured content automatically meets A-class requirements.
 * Broadly agree
 * Yes, the criteria were developed based on the FA criteria and the progression of Start -> B -> A -> FA seems to be generally accepted, even if it isn't official. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, throughout the existence of our project the quality of our A-class articles has been under the quality of FAs, even if there are at the moment several FAs promoted 3-4 years ago which are worse than some lately promoted ACAs (this doesn't really matter as at the moment of their promotion they were perhaps better than our ACAs). --Eurocopter (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadly disagree
 * ...mainly with the word "automatically"; recent featured articles almost certainly will meet A-Class, but I don't think we should take that fro granted. EyeSerene talk 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per ES above and a recent comment from that basically said old FAs raised to GA standards during a FAR will normally pass. —  Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the automatically, older FAs need revisiting, probably all pre-mid-08. Skinny87 (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wot EyeSerene says above, and Bellhalla below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The older FAs are - let's be honest - usually in woeful condition compared to today's standards. They would need a lot of work on both prose and references to get them up to A-Class standards. Cam (Chat) 16:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither agree nor disagree
 * While featured content should meet the A-Class requirements, I consider it something like with GA: while all FAs should meet the GA requirements, they aren't all listed as GAs. – Joe   N  20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a minor point: FA and GA are mutually exclusive ratings. If a Good Article is promoted to FA status, it is no longer listed as a GA. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They should, but some (like our three to four year old FAs) do not. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the premise of the statement, but disagree with the automatically in the conclusion. MILHIST A-Class reviews provide a valuable (IMO) content-review that may be lacking in FA/FL reviews. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Q.5
It is practical to set up a tracking mechanism to enable automatic awarding of featured content medals.
 * Broadly agree
 * Awards should be automatically given out as people will feel more valued that way. As for Nick's problem, I don't see why we can't do it how they used to do airplane kills: give credit for half an article if two people worked equally hard on getting it to FA. – Joe   N  20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that three FAs is the minimum threshold for the featured content medal, and that many in our project meet that threshold but lack the ribbon, I would say yes. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick raises a valid point, but I think the FAC threshold of "significant contributor" (whatever their definition of it) would be an appropriate threshold. As a point of comparison for Joe's comment above, if two or more editors collaborate on an article featured in DYK, the credit is the same for each (i.e. no 'half' credits). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, and while I like Joe's tie-in to air ace scoring methodology, WP practice seems to be that collaborators each receive full credit, as Bellhalla says. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadly disagree
 * Neither agree nor disagree
 * Many FAs involve substantial contributions from editors other than the nominating editor, so it would be necessary to track 'assistants' (for want of a better word) as well. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nick as above. Skinny87 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nick as above. Skinny87 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment
A pertinent case-in-point: I've just assessed Enigma machine, which is a delisted FA. With no record of a milhist ACR I had to give it a B-Class. EyeSerene talk 11:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Visual Aid
Would it be possible to modify the article alert box to visually announce when an ACR or PR can be closed? Like have the text in the box bold or italic or change color or something of that nature? It would reduce the amount of closable PR and ACR messages here and on the milhist pages if we coordinators could see at a glance which reviews could be closed. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not really possible; the only way we know that a PR or ACR needs to be closed is when a coordinator examines it, at which point it would take as much work to flag the review as needing closure as it would to actually close the review. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Too bad. I grant that humans would always need to exercise judgment about when such things could be closed, but I was hoping that the box could somewhat simplify matters for us by showing us just the ones that by time stamping could be eligible for closing. 70.254.23.75 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One other question as it relates to the article alert box: would it be worth adding bounty-tagged articles to the box? Obviously they are not coordinator-closable, but by adding them to the alert box we could get other contributors attention to them, better than by having such articles listed only in the logistics department. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan Military History task force
We appear to have acquired a new task force overnight. I'm one of the coordinators; anyone like to volunteer to be the other? Roger Davies talk 11:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As consensus seems to be that we try to make this work regardless of the creator(s), I'll take t'other slot if you like. I've had a little experience with articles in this area. EyeSerene talk 07:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and ditto. A membership drive might be the first priority :)  Roger Davies  talk 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just doubled ;) EyeSerene talk 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a little mailing this morning and now we have six.  Roger Davies  talk 19:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now up to eleven.  Roger Davies  talk 10:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting a project-wide Triple Crown...
How about this FP for the icon/logo/whatever we needed for it? We aren't going to get something that involves all parts of Milhist, and this photo is as iconic as a photo can get. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Holly crap! That is an awesome image to use; nice suggestion, Ed! I suppose the only problem would be trying to work out how to make a triple crown out of it! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that photo is at all suitable for an award as it in essence depicts the deaths of 40-75,000 people. It's a great photo and is iconic, but it's not suitable to be used to congratulate people. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I never took into consideration that aspect of the photo. I suppose it will be hard to steer away from photos depicting death of instruments of such, but we could find one a little more appealing to the general community and potentially one that could not be considered offensive by some through use on an award. I guess one of the best ways to go would be to utilise a stereotypical image of military/warfare, such as an artillery piece, etc. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't either (obviously)... I agree with Bryce that it will be rather hard to find an iconic image for MILHIST that is (a) cartoon-ish/not serious and (b) iconic of the subject without it being some sort of harbinger of death. Perhaps an image with a crossed sword and rifle in the center, some sort of warship entering from the left background, and a tank/castle/something in the right background (too much?), would work better? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought for a while we could use the image of an atomic bomb test blast rather than one used in anger, but then how many of those test detonations have led to contamination and resultant deaths? Not easy, is it? I think Ed's suggestion immediately above is getting closer, my take would be a warship 'entering' from one side, tank from the other, and aircraft above - a triangular formation representing the three main fighting arms. If something is needed to fill in the centre, that could be a crown. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your idea doesn't sound too bad, Ian. Perhaps we can get Durova to weight in her opinion on this matter once again? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ian, that is a really good idea. The only potential problem I can see is the size of the award&mdash;if it is rather small, neither mine nor your idea will work. :-) If it was big enough, we could go for an armored knight/spearman in the center, a dreadnought/ship of the line entering from the left, a Sherman/cavalryman entering from the right, and an Typhoon/F-4/Spitfire/Mustang above. But yes, contacting would probably be a good idea. ;) I'll do that now. —  Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mottoes
Some time back there was a suggestion to implement a project motto, and we ultimately concluded that at the project level we would be unable to gather consensus for a motto that did not seem to give undo weight to a particular country or service branch. Although this idea failed at the project level, I think it may work at the task force level. If members of a task force can agree to a implementing a motto and if no one raises any reasonable objections, I would suggest allowing mottoes to be introduced at the task force for those task forces wishing to implement them; however, since the original idea failed, I thought I would suggest this here first and see what the rest of you think about the idea.


 * Implementing mottoes could be difficult especially in Nations TFs, where mottoes would come from other languages and might not sound so good in english. However, it is generally a good idea and in my opinion any TF member should have the opportunity to propose mottoes. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a nice thought. Maybe something in Latin might be neutral enough to cover the whole project. EyeSerene talk 10:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some thought was given to a latin name for the project last time around, If I recall correctly. I'll see if I can dig up the previous discussions later today, but I need to be leaving soon for a dental appointment and don;t want to get to attached to the wiki at the moment as a result. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should give up the bit?
I have to admit, I've been feeling guilty about this for a few weeks, but RL has constantly been getting into the way. I've not been hugely active on wiki for the past...well, at least a month, and I've also found it difficult to do any Coordinator jobs, as y'all seem to get there first or do a better job. I'm feeling kinda extraneous at the moment, and therefore I'm wondering whether I should give up being a Coordinator; I'd say resign, but that's rather dramatic, and it's not like I'm an Admin or anything. What does anyone else think? Skinny87 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ...in other words, you're feeling rather like I felt for most of the last tranche ;) Personally I'd say that you were voted into the job fair and square, so as long as you want it you should keep it (and admin status has no relevance at all!) You're a damn fine contributor and we all go through quiet periods, so you have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about because some editors are able to be more active than others. Simply being there and contributing what and when you can is hugely valuable, and much appreciated. EyeSerene talk 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons for the number of coordinators we have is so that if some of us are temporarily indisposed, there are others who can keep project tasks running smoothly. If RL is in the way at the moment, that's OK, we have some built-in redundancy. Take care of what you need to and contribute here when you can. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stay the course. We have a multitude of coordinators for this exact reason, and you will note that me and MBK have been here on an 'on again, off again' basis for the last six weeks or so without any real complaints. As to the coordinator jobs, take a look at my contributions: I have not been terribly active in any major coordinator tasks, but I am still here and available in the event that I need to exercise coordinator functions. Remember that coordinators do spend a vast amount of time doing nothing official here; just because we are like fire men on duty doesn't mean we are out fighting fires or rescuing injured 24/7, it just means we are here to help in the event that someone dials 911 looking for us :) That you have not yet had a chance to anything official doesn't speak badly of you, it just means that we have a healthy and active coordinator department. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wot they all said - I also occasionally suffer from the "shucks, someone beat me to it" syndrome - nothing to feel guilty about, that's why we have a lot of us (it's called risk mitigation)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, what everyone said. We're hopefully well past the phase when being a coordinator was a full-time job; given the number of active people we have now, there's no problem with coordinators taking time off. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know there have been plenty of times when I haven't done any coord functions for several weeks in a row, so don't feel bad about it. It's not like you're hurting anything by staying here. – Joe   N  01:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Skinny, you are an excellent editor, contributor and coordinator. There is nothing to feel guilty about if you have RL commitments and have or are unable to contribute much to WP; as everyone else has stated, that is one of the reasons why there are so many of us. As long as you still wish to remain a coord, then I for one would really like to see you stay. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same boat as Tom & MBK, I've had continual Physics work and IB Exams keeping me busy. Fortunately, because there are 20 of us, we have a lot more leeway than we used to for this sort of thing. In the end, everything still gets done (mostly). Cam (Chat) 05:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As everyone else has said, I hope that you stay on. I'm going through a very busy period at work and have been relatively inactive on Wikipedia as a result (after a day spent hammering away at a computer I'm not really in the mood to keep at it when I get home!), but this should change sooner rather than later. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended break notice
First off, in response to Skinny above, stay ... just because you haven't done much means that you should resign. Listen to everyone that has chimed in. Now, as most of you know, I have just finished the school semester (I did extremely well for those who wonder) and took some extra time off to decompress as well as celebrate my 21st birthday. Now that I am ready to return to my work, my computer decided to stop working. I have been advised by the experts that my laptop has suffered a severe failure and I must completely re-install Windows. Since doing so would mean I would loose all of my data (including two articles that I have been working on for over a year including one for the Iowa class FT, all of my music in iTunes and most of the assignments I have completed throughout three years of university). Accordingly, I am sending my computer off to these people: DriveSavers since they were recommended by the manufacturer. I have no clue when I will be back since I will still have to deal with the issue at hand with my laptop once I recover the data. I am still reachable via email and I have this alternate account but won't be able to do much for the foreseeable future. Also, would someone with admin rights please change the wikibreak notice on my userpage and talk page accordingly since I cannot do so with this alternate account (I do not want to log in with my admin account on a public computer or my iPhone). Thanks, and I'll be in touch... -MBK004 on the iPhone 02:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my. My literal reaction to that possible loss of data: O_O . Goodness...I hope that DriveSavers can get the information off. If they can't, email me and I'll help you rebuild the article (if you would like). Good luck; I will change your wikibreak notice now as the pages are only semi-pp'd. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Good luck getting your machine back in working order. We will hold down the fort in your absence. And congrats on 21! I remember 21, it was a good year. Here's to many more to come! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Let this be a reminder to all to back up their data regularly (my back-up was extremely out of date). I'm looking at US$1500 to restore, and on a budget of a university student without a significant income, this is quite an unexpected expense (even more than my automobile insurance for a year). -MBK004 on the iPhone 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, as in $1500 to get the info back or to fix the laptop? You can't get the info then reinstall Windows? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was the quote for data recovery. I am still unsure if it is a physical problem with my hard drive as well as Windows. I also do not have the OS on CD so I have to send it off for the reinstall also. -MBK004 on the iPhone 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

←It has positively been determined that I suffered a hard drive failure. Since my laptop is still under warranty, I am getting a new one free of charge, but I am still out of pocket for the data recovery. The timeline for this is about two weeks for me to send off my computer for data recovery and then time for the new hard drive to be installed as well as the re-installation of the OS. Then I will have a few weeks of getting everything back to normal, since I've had this computer for three years I have customized so many settings it is almost like I just got a new computer and will have to do it all over again. I really did not want a involuntary two week vacation after I took a voluntary six week one... -MBK004 on the iPhone 16:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that's awful. I just reinstalled Windows today - I'd been having some troubles with starting and other things and figured I'd try to repair it, when I stuck the CD in it completely died, but luckily I had another CD I could boot from and use to copy my data on to another computer before formatting the hard drive and starting over, so now I just need to figure out how to get this to connect to wifi. If I were in your place I'd be really mad, both with the time, the money, and the data. – Joe   N  23:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

←Time for an update. Just heard back from DriveSavers, they think they have successfully recovered everything from the drive. Of course, that is for me to discern or not once I receive the data back, but I am optimistic. I should receive my computer back early next week, and then it will take me a few days to complete the replacement of the drive as well as the reinstall of the OS and re-integration of my data. Look for my return in about seven days from now if everything happens according to schedule (I should not be away for longer than a week and a half at the most) -MBK004 on the iPhone 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 95% success, I have only lost my bookmarks, but I was planning on thinning those out this summer anyways. I'll be back up to speed in two to three days once everything is back to normal, and it looks like my return is just in time since it seems from reading below that more people than ever are taking breaks. -MBK004 on the iPhone 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fortunate, your karma must be good - and welcome back...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've got two months of a watchlist to go through and over 9000 pages on it, so while I am back using my primary account, I will still be "under the weather" for a bit to get back up to date on everything that has happened during my absence from April to the present. -MBK004 22:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of limited availibility
I will be here on an on again off again basis for the next ten or so days; I'm trying to get back into summer school but in this case that requires a few placement exams, and those are long and difficult (and boring, honestly) and unfortunately necessary. In addition, I'm trying to dig up info on Able Archer 83 and that has been time consuming as well. Just so you all know. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Tom - and good luck with your exams! Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Important announcement for all coordinators
The North Korean nuclear weapons test just got more disturbing: news reports are claiming that the North Korean leader has renounced the 1953 cease fire, and with this move I fear that we end up with some level of combat before the whole thing sorts itself out. I post this here because the renounces cease fire will undoubtedly prompt people to look into the North and South Korean military articles, and as we all know from our main page experiences higher traffic almost always equals higher vandalism. Therefore, I would ask that those who have the time and the inclination please keep tabs on the North Korean and South Korean armed forces articles, as well as the Korean War articles, so we can monitor the information there and move to protect the pages if things seem to be getting out of hand. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've watchlisted several pages related to the test, the war, and relations. – Joe   N  00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reports confirmed (I don't trust CNN and FOX, I wait for Al Jazeera & The Independent to say it to believe it;). I've already got a few watchlisted from earlier projects (mostly copyediting), but I'll add a few more. Cam (Chat) 01:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on the war, not the articles: oh boy. Things could get rather interesting rather quickly... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mhm. Tomorrow was to be biking day; it is now likely to be bunker day ;) Cam (Chat) 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had several of the high-level North Korean military articles watch listed for months and haven't noticed any upsurge in traffic. I'd rate the chance of war as about nil incidently - the North Koreans have renounced the cease fire previously. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but without Chinese assistance they could be overrun by western forces if the west were of the mind to go to war (though I doubt they will). Its just that in this case the one-two punch of doing this right after a nuclear attack makes me wonder. At any rate, this is all OR; we should assume good faith and WP:NOT blow this thing out of proportion ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Nick here and don't see any particular need to move to red alert (if you'll excuse the pun).  Roger Davies  talk 12:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing dispute at Second Sino-Japanese War
A concerned editor has just bought to my attention an editing dispute occuring at Second Sino-Japanese War, which has led to User:Nihonjoe protecting the page for seven days begining on 27 May. It appears to have come about by the removal of the Communist Chinese forces from the infobox. As I have little knowledge in the area, I felt it best to announce here. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it requires that much knowledge. Just ask them a question as to whether the CCP forces were directly under teh control of CKS's ROC army; if not then they can't be together and I suspect perhaps a few of them might be deliberately acting illogical about it (maybe for their POV).  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely wikibreak
Hi all. I just wanted to note that I am getting extremely stressed and annoyed with Wikipedia at the moment, so I feel a wikibreak is likely to be imminent. I don't think I have ever felt this shitty in regards to Wikipedia, nor this distressed since I was suffering from severe anxiety and depression a few years ago. I will probably be cutting down my editing over the next few days, but may still be on a bit to monitor my current FAC. Just thought I should let you all know. Sorry guys. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks for the heads up. Stay safe, and we will look for you on the flip side, amigo. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Echoing Tom... From what I've seen, you're a great person, so I am definitely hoping you decide to come back when you have worked things out. Cheers friend, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  15:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, all the above. Take care, and if you decide to take a break, come back refreshed and revitalised. All the best, EyeSerene talk 07:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to announce you that it seems I'll be in tone with the current inactivity period (which is BTW, the project's worst since I'm around) and it is likely that I will not be contributing until tuesday. However, I have closed today few ACRs and created the monthly newsletter so I hope that my absence would not be even noticed. All the best, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While we're on that subject, I'm going to be gone from July 7 to July 19 (in Germany for two weeks), just to let everyone know well in advance. Cam (Chat) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming vacation
To go along with the two break announcements above, I will be going sailing from tomorrow to sometime around Monday the 15th. After that, I'll return for a few days before going away for another week, after which I'll return for a few days and go away for two weeks. Sorry for all this time away. I'll try to check in periodically for some of the time, if I can steal someone's wifi. – Joe   N  14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoo for vacations...! I'll be gone Friday through Saturday; I'm going camping by Copper Harbor and will not be on Wikipedia at all (please yell at me if I am). — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be leaving again tomorrow for one week, and will return next Saturday. – Joe   N  01:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the same note, I'll let everyone know well in advance that from 7–20 July, I'm going to be in Germany and thus away from my computer. Cam (Chat) 04:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you have a great time in Germany, Cam! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Back again, but leaving on Tuesday for London for two weeks. After that I should be back though, sorry for all this time away. – Joe   N  22:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

May Newsletter - previous contest data
Guys, not available to sort this myself due RL commitments but the May contest results in the latest Bugle are in fact April's - doesn't look like anyone's added up the May contest entries following Bryce and I allocating the points a few days ago - any volunteers to fix? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just updated the contest table with the May stats and incorporated it into The Bugle.  Roger Davies  talk 07:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Y'all might also want to actually award the medals, etc. for May as well. I think that I've resigned myself to Belhalla's winning every month. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah. May was my last month in the contest. I hit my goal of 1,000 points... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellhalla (talk • contribs)


 * O_O Someone likes writing articles too much! :P — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, awards awarded - well done to Bellhalla and Sturmvogel... Congrats on your milestone, Mister Anonymous ;-) (as if we didn't all have enough to aim at already)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Idea
I was researching the matter of article maintaining such as would be the case through the maintained template, and happened to find User:Richard001/Maintenance. Half way down the page Richard proposed an interesting idea for article maintenance: It is very important that such maintainers be identifiable, otherwise nobody knows whether a page is even being maintained. I think the best place for this is the talk page. At the moment we have the imperfect maintained, which boxes the maintainer into a specific role that they may not want (and hence they'll avoid using the template). Multiple versions are needed so that the template can accurately describe the role of the maintainer(s). The message could also be conveyed via WikiProject banners, e.g. |maintainer = [User name] to produce 'This article is maintained by User:XYZ' or 'This article is being maintained [show details]'.

Maintainers may not want to 'advertise' so boldly, though I can't think of any simple way to avoid this. Other arrangements can be imagined, and as long as there is a way for people to tell whether an article is maintained (and if so by who) they can achieve the same purpose as a talk page notice, though people who are not 'in the know' may find this information more difficult to find. The part about adding such coding to a project banner strikes me as something worth proposing, if we could do for this maintained idea what we did for the portal idea then we could subtly advertise that an article is being maintained and to what capacity it is being maintained without using the big maintained template, for example:

Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the whole point of the maintained template is to immediately identify someone to contact, burying that information under three levels of show/hide blocks (as it will be on pages using the banner shells) strikes me as rather counterproductive. Integrating the maintenance information n the project banner will also cause problems when not all of the maintainers are members of the project, as is common for articles only part of which is of interest to us. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kirill - I don't particularly like the maintained template, but burying the information away would be worse. As a total aside, a tool to see which editors are watchlisting articles would be neat, though almost certainly unimplementable on privacy grounds. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably more on WP:BEANS grounds than privacy ones, actually; if one can see who's watching an article, then vandals can make sure to pick unwatched articles for their antics. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but I can think of a lot of articles which people might be embarrassed to have on their watch list! Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I remember the chuckles we had over 'chicks in chainmail' a few years back; an article like that appearing on someones watchlist for all to see would definitely make someones face red ;) At any rate, it was just something I thought I'd through out there. &mdash;Sorry, forgot to sign this earlier... TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Working group question
If two or more working groups are operating together toward a greater goal could we create a template to facilitate easier movement between them? In time I am hoping to create the single largest FT covering the entirety of US Navy battleships, but at the moment my similarly run Iowa and South Dakota class battleship working groups are not linked on any common template, and I wanted to ask about matter like this before moving to address the issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here. If it's just linking between multiple working groups, I would expect that a simple link in either the resources section or the scope section would be sufficient; I don't see the need for a special template to accomplish that.  Or do you have something else in mind? Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment a simple link between the two will work, but in time (if this actually works the way I want to) I will have working groups for all US battleship classes, and that means that eventually I will end up with something like 15 or so working groups all operating toward a similar goal. I can see two ways to solve this problem in the long term: create a template linking all these working groups together, or create one monstrous working group with the other working groups listed there. Of these two options I prefer the template idea, but before doing anything about this - before I classify this a problem needing addressed here and now - I wanted a second opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a single working group work best? The editors who are interested in one class of BBs are likely to be interested in many, if not most, of the others and many of the same references would carry across different classes. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The big problem with that idea is logistics, a ball park figure including all the battleships, the classes, the weapons, and other aspects would come out to around 100 articles. My concern there was that people looking at working group with 100 articles or so would be put off by it, and I believe that by breaking this down by classes the work load becomes more manageable. Another concern with one big working group was fairness: I did not want to lend the impression that I was trying to be a glory hog by leading the largest working group, I am and remain hopeful that others will adopt to the idea and branch out to lead working groups by class. Since many share the same interest in battleships I wanted to offer other a fair chance to lead a working group on a battleship class to FT status and share in the achievement of the moment when the star clusters are handed out. In hindsight though I suppose that probably sounds silly coming from me of all people... :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to just create a box with links to all these groups, that doesn't strike me as a problem. I don't think it needs to be anything standard, though, since this is likely a unique case. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright then, thats what I will do. Thanks for the input :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Review requested
has an A-class nomination up, his first ever, that has drawn very few comments. I've helped him with the article prior to the nomination, and he left me a message regarding the few comments, wondering what would happen if the article "fails to draw much comment". I feel kind of bad... :-/ Could someone else (I've already supported) take a swipe at reviewing? The links are Army of the Tennessee and WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Army of the Tennessee. Thanks, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I already commented :) In all seriosness, though, we could use a few more people for this. For that matter, a few more people would be of use for the rest of the open A-class articles as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it and other one's open...I should be coming home on Tuesday and will try to review that and the other backlogged ACRs next week before I go away again. I'm just popping in to check my watchlist and E-mail here, but you can let him know that I would love to review that article, it looks like something that would interest me. Joe N's alt account 02:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Our welcome to the project template
Would it be a good idea to add a link to the academy to the welcome to our project template? From where I sit, as the academy was intended to aid those in the project, and those new to it need the most aid, it would be a good way of providing assistance to the new users within the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that could be useful considering that we should attract to the project as much fresh people as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In principle, yes, the academy should be linked. In practice, though, I'd suggest making sure it's in a more-or-less presentable state before exposing it to new members so widely. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So they sooner we get the academy up to speed the sooner we can add it to the welcome template? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be my view, yes. There's quite a bit of good material there at the moment, but it needs thorough review and copyediting before it'll be in a shape that's useful for a new member. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)