Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators: Difference between revisions
→The way forward: Reply' |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Juno Beach]]: open since 16 May (review period has expired). Should be considered for closing. Disclosure: I am supporting it. It might not have enough explicit support, though. Regards, [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Juno Beach]]: open since 16 May (review period has expired). Should be considered for closing. Disclosure: I am supporting it. It might not have enough explicit support, though. Regards, [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::I know that I'm slightly COI (being the nominator), but Dank's in the middle of an active review (mostly copyediting). Can we postpone closure until that is completed? [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] <sup>([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]])([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|Prof]])</sup> 05:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James B. McCreary]]: open since 25 May. Should be considered for closing soon. [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 11:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James B. McCreary]]: open since 25 May. Should be considered for closing soon. [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 11:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:22, 24 June 2011
Handbook
- Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.
Coordinator tasks
- These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
- Assessment
- Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
- Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
- Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
- Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
- A-Class review
- For each ongoing A-Class review:
- Determine whether the review needs to be closed and archived, per the criteria here.
- If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~
- If an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, follow the procedure below for creating an A-Class review or reappraisal. This will make way for the normal A-Class review initiation process, so advise the nominator to initiate per the instructions.
- Quarterly Reviewing Awards
Quarterly Reviewing Awards - manual process
|
|---|
|
Quarterly reviewing awards are posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards page by the MilHistBot. As with other awards, change the status from "nominated" to "approved" to approve the award.
- Member affairs
- Invite editors to join the project, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:MILHIST/MILHIST Invitation|signed=~~~~}} - Welcome anybody who joins the project, using the following boilerplate:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}}
- Miscellaneous
- Vote on any open proposals to award the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and approve any A-Class medal or A-Class cross nominations.
- Update the monthly newsletter with new developments within the project.
- Verify entries in the monthly article writing contest, hand out prizes, and update the monthly scoreboard and the newsletter accordingly.
- Fix the {{WPMILHIST}} invocation syntax on any articles in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging.
How to...
| Create a new task force |
|---|
Before a task force can be created, it is necessary to decide on a name for it. The process requires both a full name (e.g. "French military history" or "American Civil War") and a one- or two-word or acronym shorthand used for some template parameters (e.g. "French" or "ACW"). The instructions below use the "Fooish military history" task force (shortened to "Fooish") as an example; when creating an actual task force, remember to substitute the correct name, rather than actually creating the example pages.
|
| Creating an A-Class review or reappraisal | ||
|---|---|---|
Creating a new A-Class review or reappraisalIf an article has been put up for A-Class review in the past and you receive a request for assistance per WP:MHR for a fresh review, a new version has to be created manually. Find the archive page
Find the last review
Move the review page
Update the talk page
Update the archive
Create the new review
|
| Establish coordinator election pages | ||
|---|---|---|
Under the current system used by the Military history Wikiproject, coordinators are tasked with handling certain project-specific operations such as closing A-Class reviews. Because coordinators are held accountable to the project an election is held once a year to determine who among the community's members will serve as a coordinator. While the election itself is a simple approval vote, creating the pages needed for the election can be tricky. Therefore, this Academy page will serve as a walk-through on how to correctly set up the election pages. Before the electionBefore any election pages are created, the matter of the coordinator election must be brought up with the current coordinator tranche. Ideally, this should be done sometime between mid-July and early August. The reason that the coordinators must first discuss the matter of the election is to settle on the finer details of the upcoming election. Three key aspects should be decided. The first detail relates to the project's activity level: as the activity level in the project rises or falls, the number of coordinators judged to be needed to effectively run the project increases or decreases. Accordingly, then, the coordinators need to establish how many slots should be opened to the project members. In general, the project currently operates efficiently with roughly 8–11 coordinators, although the exact number settled on for the upcoming tranche must understandably be decided based on the workload and the efficiency of the current coordinator tranche. The coordinators must also decide if the total number should include or exclude the Lead Coordinator, which can cause the total settled on to fluctuate by one. The second factor that needs to be discussed is the election format. Historically, when the system was introduced, the format was 14 days for nominations followed by 14 days of election, which worked well for the community but created an illusion that the process was "slow". As a result of this perception the community approved a change in the process that now sees the election format using a 10-day nomination period followed by a 10-day voting period. This process is marginally faster than the older two week system, which helps speed the process up. While the coordinators have used this option for several years, they also have the option of introducing or implementing a new nomination/voting scheme if one is judged to be needed. Accordingly then, the coordinators will need to settle on which of the three options they feel will work the best for the upcoming election. The final matter that must be discussed is the exact date of the election. Ideally, the entire election should take place in the month of September, but as there are 30 days in September the coordinators will need to officially designate a starting day for the nomination period. Once this day is decided, the format the coordinators have agreed upon can be used to determine when the nomination period will end, and by extension when the voting period will start and end. Collectively, these three points once settled will provide the information needed to establish the election pages. Creating the election pagesWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)replacing the MONTH and YEAR with the month and year in question. Once you have the correct red link the following information should be added to the page verbatim: {{WPMILHIST Navigation|no-banner=yes}} {{/Tally}}
{{TOC limit|3}}
== Overview ==
This election is to appoint the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|project coordinator team]] for one year, from (ADD THE DATE OF THE INCOMING TRANCHE HERE USING DAY MONTH YEAR FORMAT) to (ADD THE ENDING DATE OF THE UPCOMING COORDINATOR TRANCHE HERE, USING DAY MONTH YEAR FORMAT). Coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. All of the coordinators, and especially the lead coordinator (or lead coordinators), serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and focus on specific areas requiring special attention. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.
=== Responsibilities ===
From [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators]]: <blockquote>The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group. <br/><br/> The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.</blockquote>
Practical information on coordinating may be found [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|here]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Being a coordinator|here]].
The current coordinators are:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! Position
! Standing for re-election?
|-
| Add the name of the first current coordinator as shown on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinator's page]]
| The current position the above named editor holds. By virtue of the currently used system, this slot will always be "Coordinator" with the exception of the editor who holds the position of lead coordinator, whose position box should be filled in as "Lead Coordinator"
| This slot MUST be added to for each coordinator and should be left blank since only the listed coordinator can decide if he or she wants to stand for reelection.
|}
=== Election process ===
* '''Nomination period''': (Add the day and month the nomination will begin and the UTC time, day, and month the nomination will end here. For example, "8 September to 23:59 UTC 18 September")
* '''Voting period''': (Add the day and month the election phase will begin and the UTC time, day, and month the election period will end here. For example, "19 September to 23:59 UTC 29 September")
* Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the [[#Candidates|"Candidates" section below]] by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:
<pre>
=== Name ===
{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...
==== Comments and questions for Name ====
*''What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?''
**
*''What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?''
**
==== Votes in support of Name ====
#
</pre>
* The election will be conducted using simple [[approval voting]]. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the lead coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); this position may be shared in the event that multiple candidates receive the highest number of endorsements. The remaining candidates with twenty or more endorsements will be appointed as coordinators to a maximum of eleven appointments (including the lead coordinator). The number of coordinators ''may'' be increased or reduced if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.
* Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.
== Candidates==
{{/Status}}
<!--
As per long standing consensus both new candidates and returning coordinators are listed alphabetically below, so add your user name accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation.
-->
}}
Create the status templateThe second page that will need be created will be the status template. (A completed example can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017/Status). This template uses a set of established parameters to inform editors, readers, and other interested parties when the nominations will open, when the voting will open, and when the elections have concluded. The template itself resides at the top of the Candidates section, and will be present in the page you just created by virtue of the its presence in code copied from the preceding section. To access the template, add/Statusto the current election page so that the election page looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)/StatusIt should give you a red link, click it and then add the following to the status page: ;{{#switch:{{CURRENTYEAR}}
|2015={{#switch:{{CURRENTMONTH}}
|8=<big>The election has not started yet. Please do not edit this page.</big>
|9={{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} < 8|<big>The election has not started yet. Please do not edit this page.</big>|{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} < 19|<big>Please <big style="color: red;">DO NOT VOTE</big> yet; the voting phase of the election will open at 00:01 (UTC) on 19 September.<br>If you wish to run, please sign up by 23:59 (UTC) on 18 September.</big>|{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTDAY}} <= 29|<big>Voting is now open; project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September.</big><br>(This is a [[approval voting|simple approval vote]]; only "support" votes should be made. All other votes will be discounted.)|<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>}}}}}}
|#default=<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>
}}
|#default=<big>Voting is now concluded.</big>
}}
Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, [[{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}]] [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]''' (UTC)
Once the above has been added take care the you change the year and the days to match the current election year and the days for the nomination and voting periods. Once the information has been updated save the page, this will result in the template on the election page being created and if done correctly should automatically switch messages to notify interested parties when the nomination and election phases open and when the election concludes.
Tally Box/Tallyto the current coordinator election page so it looks like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/(MONTH) (YEAR)/Tallytaking care to replace the MONTH and YEAR tabs with the current election month and year. Once you have the red link, add the following to the page verbatim, taking care to not that MONTH and YEAR in the example below will already reflect the current election month and year: {| class="plainlinks sortable" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="2" style="width: 200px; background: whitesmoke; margin-left: 15px; float: right; border: 1px black dotted; "
|-
|+ <big>'''Tally'''</big> <br/> <small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/MONTH YEAR/Tally|action=edit}} edit]</small>
|-
! Candidate !! Votes
|-
|}
After adding the section save the page, this will result in the Tally Box being created and added to the election page proper. With this done all three pages for the coordinator election should be created and no further action should be required on your part. With all three pages now live, the current coordinators and the editors of the Military history Wikiproject will be able to edit the pages to announce their candidacies or their decision not to seek reelection. Notify the project that nominations are openSee Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification for details on how to send a mass message. The relevant list should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active, as this ensures everyone active within the project is alerted. Suggested heading is: Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! Suggested message form is: Nominations for the upcoming [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]] coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator|here]]. If you are interested in running, please sign up '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2024|here]]''' by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|current coord team]]. ~~~~ Notify the project that voting is openTwo weeks later. Suggested heading is: Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! Suggested message form is: Voting for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]] coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|current coord team]]. ~~~~ After the electionClose the voting{{archivetop|The election is now closed. ~~~~ }}
to the top of the election page and {{archivebottom}}
to the bottom of the page. Notify the winnersFor the newly elected coordinators, a suggested form is {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:US-O11 insignia.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} |Coordinator stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! ~~~~
|}
For the lead coordinator, a suggested form is: {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:US-O12 insignia.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} |Lead Coordinator stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your re-election to the position of Lead Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Lead Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! ~~~~
|}
For a coordinator emeritus, a suggested form is: {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}#Nomination for Coordinator Emeritus (<editor>)|Coordinator Emeritus stars]]'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | It is with immense pleasure that I pass on the unanimous decision of the members of the WikiProject Military History that as a mark of the great esteem in which they hold you and your judgement you be appointed a Coordinator Emeritus of the Project for as long as you should choose to remain one. Congratulations and many thanks for all that you have done for the Project. ~~~~
|}
Update the coordinators listEdit the lead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators to reflect the current list. Update the notification templateEdit Template:@MILHIST to reflect the current list. Update the categoryEdit the coordinators' user pages to add Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators and remove it from coordinators who are no longer active. Update the BugleAdd the election results to The Bugle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2024/Project news |
| Establish military historian and newcomer of the year election voting | ||
|---|---|---|
Under the current system used by the Military history Wikiproject, coordinators are tasked with handling certain project-specific operations. This Academy page will serve as a walk-through on how to correctly set up the election pages for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year elections. AboutThese elections are conducted between 1 and 30 December each year. Before the electionCreate the election pagesSubstitute the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history page before 17 November: {{subst:WPMILHIST Nominations for military historian of the year}} ~~~~
{{subst:WPMILHIST Nominations for military history newcomer of the year}} ~~~~
Notify the projectSee Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification for details on how to send a mass message. On 17 November, notify the project that nominations are open. Suggested form is: Nominations now open for the [[WikiProject Military History]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|newcomer of the year]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|military historian of the year]] awards for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military historian of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. {{subst:Currentuser}} via ~~~~
On 1 December, notify the project that nominations are open. Suggested form is: Voting is now open for the [[WikiProject Military History]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|newcomer of the year]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|military historian of the year]] awards for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Nominations for military historian of the year for {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} are open!|here]] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. {{subst:Currentuser}} via ~~~~
After the electionClose the voting{{archivetop|Voting is now closed. ~~~~ }}
to the top of the election page and {{archivebottom}}
to the bottom of the page. Notify the winners on their talk pagesFor the winners of the Military History Newcomer of the Year, a suggested form is: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Goldenwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: #fdffe7;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Golden Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected as the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the coveted '''Golden Wiki'''; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. ~~~~
}}
For runners-up, a suggested form is: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:WikiprojectBarnstar.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: WhiteSmoke;
| text = '''{{font|text=The WikiProject Barnstar|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} You have been selected as a runner-up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHNOTY|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], please accept this token of gratitude and appreciation on behalf of the project; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. ~~~~
}}
For winners of the Military Historian of the New Year: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Goldenwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: #fdffe7;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Golden Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected as the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the coveted '''Golden Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
For second place: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Silverwiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: WhiteSmoke;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Silver Wiki|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected in second place for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the esteemed '''Silver Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
For third place: {{tmbox
| image = [[File:Bronzewiki 2.png|60px]]
| style = background-color: NavajoWhite ;
| text = '''{{font|text=The Bronze Wiki|size=x-large|color=maroon}}''' {{hr}} Congratulations! You have been selected in third place for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/MHOTY|Military Historian of the Year]] by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]], it is my pleasure to present the esteemed '''Bronze Wiki'''. ~~~~
}}
Update the winners listsThese are located at
Update the BugleAdd the election results to The Bugle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2025/Project news The suggested form is: The [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2024_are_open!|Military Historian of the Year]] awards have been distributed, the Golden Wiki going to {{u|gold}} for third year in a row. The Silver Wiki was awarded to {{u|silver}} and the Bronze wiki jointly to {{u|bronze}} and {{u|bronze}}. {{u|runner up}} and {{u|runner up}} were runners-up.
The [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2024_are_open!|Military History Newcomer of the Year]] awards have also been handed out, with {{u|gold}} receiving the Golden Wiki and {{u|runner-up}} and {{u|runner-up}} the WikiProject Barnstar.
Congratulations to all members of the project on your achievements last year, and best wishes for 2025!
|
Boilerplate and templates
| Public boilerplate notices |
|---|
|
| Hidden structural templates & boilerplates |
|---|
|
| Military history awards |
|---|
|
| Coordinator userboxes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ACRs for closure
All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either the promotion or non-promotion of the article under review. Any A-Class review filed on or before 14 October may be closed by an uninvolved coordinator. A guide to closing A-Class reviews is available. Please wait 24 hours after a review is listed here before closing it to allow time for last-minute reviews.
The following ACRs are ready to be closed by any uninvolved coordinator:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Juno Beach: open since 16 May (review period has expired). Should be considered for closing. Disclosure: I am supporting it. It might not have enough explicit support, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know that I'm slightly COI (being the nominator), but Dank's in the middle of an active review (mostly copyediting). Can we postpone closure until that is completed? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James B. McCreary: open since 25 May. Should be considered for closing soon. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Task force article alerts
I've gone through and added article alerts to each of our task forces. Everything seems to be working properly, so far as I can tell; but please let me know if you spot anything broken. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Absence
Hey all. I'm sorry I haven't been around in the past week or two. We're in the process of buying a house so things have been pretty hectic. I don't expect the situation to improve until after the end of the month, by which time we'll have taken possession and made the move. Hopefully by June I'll be back in the swing of things. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- We'll hold the fort. First house? - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, first house. It's pretty exciting. Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats Parsec! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, first house. It's pretty exciting. Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Half-supports
I think if I don't say anything, some of the regulars are going to wonder why I only supported half of their A-class article. It doesn't look like I'm going to be able to continue to copyedit everything at A-class and FAC. I'm going to try to continue to cover everything at FAC, and copyedit the first half of everything that shows up at A-class. (So for anyone who'd like me to copyedit the whole thing ... just take the article to FAC.) I'm trying to put enough information in my edit summaries and in the reviews so that anyone who wants to copyedit the second half will have some suggestions for things to look for. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC) See below. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to state that in the reviews, Dank. We're people too, and we'll understand. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, good idea, I'll add this information to my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I need to tweak my approach based on the discussions just below. I'd appreciate some feedback. It looks like there's no opposition to and solid support from Kirill, Ed, Rupert and me for several changes, including discontinuing our internal peer review process and using the long-standing history peer review process instead. So, we've got a bigger theater of operations now (or maybe a bigger playground). It's also been suggested that we try to involve people outside Milhist in our A-class reviews. I think what's going on at FAC presents a bigger opportunity (because most people outside our project won't be excited about the opportunity to get Milhist's A-class rating, but FAC is a known quantity and an attractive goal across the project), and also a bigger need, because for a project as large and active as ours, we suck at FAC. Despite the recent editorial in the Bugle showing broad-range encouragement for more reviewing at FAC, there's been no improvement, or almost none. Reviewing at FAC is easier in some ways than other reviews, since it's widely accepted at FAC for reviewers to comment only on what they want to comment on, or what they know best. There's a self-interest here; it's much easier for me to find people to help with FAC-level copyediting at FAC than it is at our A-class reviews. I don't think, I've never thought, that this represents a failure of any one reviewer; it's not easy to learn how to copyedit for FAC, we're all volunteers, and there's no reviewer that I'd want to pull away from the outstanding job they're already doing so that they could pay more attention to my edit summaries. Nevertheless, the need exists, and if we could find a way to collaborate a bit more with other history-related projects, then my attempts to get others more involved in what I'm doing, which have been largely unsuccessful over the last year, might start to yield a bigger payoff.
So ... I'm not against soliciting outside reviews for Milhist's A-class process, but if we're going to do that, we should aim first at the history peer review (which it looks like we're going to start) and at FAC (because it's easier to get related projects interested in sharing the review work there). That means we need a steady stream of promotions at A-class, and we need to get more editors interested in moving on from A-class to FAC, and we especially need to encourage more reviews at FAC (which, remember, can be quite limited), for Milhist's articles and (I would suggest) the articles of other history-related wikiprojects that have a good track record at FAC. Apart from projects with obvious connections to Milhist, such as WP:SHIPS and WP:AVIATION, here are some history-related wikiprojects that could teach us a lot about reviewing in general and FAC in particular: WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:COINS, WP:EQUINE, and WP:MA (Middle Ages).
I'm prepared to devote a bit more time than is comfortable for me, for example by copyediting everything at A-class, if there's general support for putting us on some kind of path that will increase collaboration, including at FAC, and hopefully pull in more FAC-savvy copy editors over time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Really sorry: it's not going to be possible to cover PR, A-class and FAC, and I really want the cross-project collaborations to work ... I'm going to have to stop doing A-class reviews. I know this comes at a bad time, since Rupert's just announced he's going to be taking a break too. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
A-class expansion
I had a crazy thought while mowing the lawn today (funny how stepping away from work/a computer/electronics in general can stimulate your imagination). We've seen declining participation in our A-class system lately, and most of the discussion over at the STT focused on getting nominators reviewing. I'd like to take this a step further – what if we opened up our review system to any article as long as they offered one or two review(s) of other articles? WP doesn't have a formal A-class review system, so this has three benefits, as I see it: interested article writers get the benefit of our, if I may say, excellent A-class system; we get more reviewers, albeit for a larger amount of articles; and the last and possibly more important, our A-class system gains more respect and integrity from the rest of the encyclopedia.
What do you all think? We could always start off with a limited trial to see if the basic premise works. Any comments are welcome. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's an interesting idea, but I see a couple of major problems with it:
- We have no real way of enforcing the requirement to review other articles in practice. While we could potentially deny promotion in a case where the nominator failed to do so, that would only affect review requests that had already been through the process and which had presumably consumed reviewer time; it's not really practical to keep a nomination in limbo (i.e. by preventing reviewers from commenting on it) until the nominator completes the other reviews.
- If forced to provide reviews, nominators are likely to do the minimum amount of work necessary. When coupled with their natural lack of familiarity with military history and our writing standards, the likely result is a decline in the quality of reviewing for our own articles.
- It's not clear what the practical result of a such a review could be. We do not, in principle, have the authority to impose a new rating on an article in another WikiProject's assessment system; individual WikiProjects' ratings have traditionally been sacrosanct, and I'm opposed to anything that would establish a precedent to the contrary.
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about something similar, Ed, but there's a lot about WP that doesn't work, as opposed to Milhist, so I'm not optimistic about an open-door policy. The way I would deal with Kirill's objections is to make the invitation to successful history-related wikiprojects rather than to individuals, with the understanding that we'll have regular conversations about what each side is getting from the arrangement, and if either wikiproject feels that the other one isn't holding up their side of the bargain, they can withdraw from the arrangement at any time. Even if other wikiprojects don't know military history, a general knowledge of history is quite helpful for some of our articles, and they can at least help with a variety of things that make the difference between passing FAC or not ... including simply reviewing: not enough Milhist people review at FAC to support all our nominations, and on top of that, Sandy is a lot more impressed by reviewers who learn a particular skill and apply that skill to a range of articles than reviewers who only review occasionally and only for one wikiproject. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose the obvious question is whether there are any successful history-related projects we could approach. Most of the ones I've encountered are inactive or dysfunctional. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- A few other aspects of this that come to mind:
- We have, at the moment, a peer review partnership with the video games project—at least on paper. It's not really clear to me whether the current system is contributing anything to either project, or even if it works at all; it may be worth evaluating this to see if it's worth continuing.
- From a broader perspective (and recalling the recent suggestion to use the central peer review as opposed to hosting a project-specific one), we could potentially move our peer reviews to the central one (or a joint history one), create a joint history ACR process, and thus remove the need for an internal review department altogether.
- We should probably add a section to the assessment department that outlines the sequence of reviews an article should go through as it moves from Stub to FA, so that people have a flowchart of sorts to follow. At the moment, this information is scattered throughout a number of different project pages, which may be rather confusing to newer editors.
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a longer answer about what could go wrong, but I don't want to go negative and jinx it. Sure, I can support Ed's and Kirill's ideas. I can also put in extra work so that others will see collaborating with us as something they want to do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well Kirill, you bring up some great points I hadn't thought about. My starting thought that led to proposing it was we as a project are successful partly because we encompass such a wide area = we have more active editors, so widening the net for reviews could bring in more reviewers.
- As for point 2, I'd say that any reviewing helps, even if every one isn't perfect, but that's me. Most of your second post is proposed below, and I agree with it. If we'd want to base a joint history ACR off our own project, I'd probably support. As it has to be project-based (A-class is not WP-wide assessment), and WP:HISTORY is dead, I'd rather keep it here. Dank, you wouldn't have to put in more work, and this proposal wasn't designed to ask you to do more. :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem. All this stuff is directly related to the section I started just above, and I'll reply there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a longer answer about what could go wrong, but I don't want to go negative and jinx it. Sure, I can support Ed's and Kirill's ideas. I can also put in extra work so that others will see collaborating with us as something they want to do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- A few other aspects of this that come to mind:
Some proposals to simplify our project infrastructure
I'd like to suggest that we simplify our project infrastructure by getting rid of the logistics and review departments; this would involve moving some parts of those pages elsewhere, and deprecating other parts. The details of how this could be done are outlined in the sections below; comments on either proposal would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Closing the logistics department
The logistics department has been essentially inactive for a number of years. While the lists of editors do see occasional updates (although even those are rare and irregular), the processes and request listings are at this point pretty much unmaintained and unused.
The department includes the following areas:
- Administrators
- Copy-editing
- Graphics
- Linguistics
- Personal libraries
- Photography
- Sources
I propose that we make the following changes:
- Merge the administrator listing into the main membership list.
It would not be difficult to flag administrators on the main membership list as part of automatic activity/inactivity updates (which we should be starting up again in any case). This would serve the same purpose as the current listing, and have the advantage of being automated and more complete.
- Merge the copy-editing and linguistics listing into the main membership list.
Editor's ability and/or into interest in translation and/or copyediting can be marked using icons next to the editor's name on the membership list. This would be equally easy to access as the current listing, and potentially allow a wider range of interests and skills to be indicated.
- Deprecate the graphics and photography listings.
Each task force already allows image requests to be specified on its open task listing; these could easily be transcluded into a central list on the main open task page.
- Merge the personal library and source listings into a project-wide reference library.
A number of projects already maintain reference library listings of available sources and associated editors; there's no reason why we couldn't do the same.
Comments would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I've only ever used MHL for the library section anyway. The administrator listing seems a bit redundant; it's pretty easy to find one among the coords or on the main talk page. With graphics, there's still a WP-wide graphics lab. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Having been one of the people who occasionally runs through Logistics and clears out the lists, it is for all intents and purposes, dead. A project wide ref library would be easier to use and be more useful than the current form. Everything else can be merged into the members list pretty easily as Kirill says. Woody (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. These proposals would make the project infrastructure easier to navigate, especially for newbies, which is always a good thing. Dana boomer (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support - simple is good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can't remember the last time I looked at the logistics section -- probably just to check there was something there! All makes sense to me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support agreed. WikiCopter 02:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Closing the review department
The review department currently includes four different categories of reviews:
- Internal peer reviews
- Internal A-Class reviews
- Featured content reviews
- Partner peer reviews
Of these, only the first two categories are actually hosted within the project itself; the latter two are merely transclusions of reviews that are conducted elsewhere.
I propose that we make the following changes:
- Deprecate the internal peer review process and use the history peer review process instead.
The number of internal peer reviews has been dropping steadily over the past months; we have only three reviews open at the moment, for example. The central peer review system appears to be functioning adequately, and some military history articles are already being listed there instead of our project peer review. Peer reviews hosted at the central system can still be linked to and/or transcluded on our own pages, so moving the underlying process will not deprive us of any real capability, and may actually increase outside participation.
- Deprecate the partner peer review process.
Our partnership with the Video games WikiProject was a good idea at the time, but it's become apparent that the anticipated cross-project reviewing doesn't actually happen in practice; we do not receive reviews from VG editors, and they do not receive them from MH editors. I think it's reasonable, at this point, to conclude that the program is not living up to its promise and close it down.
- Move A-Class reviews into the assessment department.
ACRs are already located on subpages of the assessment department (".../Assessment/...") rather than the review department (".../Review/..."). It would be trivial to transclude the ACR subpages onto the assessment department subpage; this would allow the assessment department to serve as a hub for all internal rating and review activities within the project.
- Discontinue transclusion of outside reviews.
Assuming that changes 1-3 are implemented, the only reviews that will actually be conducted within the project will be ACRs, which will be hosted on an assessment department page; the review department will simply be a collection of transclusions from other sources. We can reduce our maintenance overhead by discontinuing the transclusion; outside reviews will be listed (as links) in our task lists and announced on the talk page as before, but the monolithic review department page would no longer be updated to transclude the underlying subpages. I think that most, if not all, reviewers reach the reviews through links in the open task templates or talk page announcements, so the removal of a transcluded version should not significantly impact participation.
Comments would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the four review points, these all make sense to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I fully support closing the peer review process – I was actually going to propose it myself, but I didn't want to raise too many issues at once. Without this, we can't really have a PPR anyway. Moving A-class reviews under the /Assessment will create less confusion (a month or so ago, I think someone asked why we had /Review but all A-class stuff was under /Assessment). The only thing I'm a bit wary on is discontinuing the transclusions, but as long as the announcements are continually updated, I don't think we'll have much of a problem. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in favor. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto. Makes things simpler in terms of naming conventions, page organization, and general project-ness. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Especially on the point of discontinuing the MILHIST PR process in favor of regular PRs. A concern of mine in the past was the lack on outside input on our PRs - this will hopefully help this situation, as well as possibly getting some MILHIST editors to review outside of the project (which would hopefully help to bring more editors to MILHIST articles as they see the editors here pulling their weight on other articles). Dana boomer (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. I rarely ever used PR because of the scarcity of reviewers, so maybe giving our stuff more exposure will lure people into reviewing as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:PRH is now a shortcut for the history peer reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've always thought it looked odd to have a review page and an assessment page and that one subsuming the other made sense, just never got round to suggesting it -- so full agreement from me on that one. I haven't taken an article to PR for ages so that one won't affect me but, even if it did, I think I can see the merits of them joining a general history page. Re. transclusions, I just keep abreast of MilHist FACs via the open tasks page, so again no argument. As for the partner PRs, yes I'm afraid they seem a waste of time. Good suggestions all round Kirill! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:PRH is now a shortcut for the history peer reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. I rarely ever used PR because of the scarcity of reviewers, so maybe giving our stuff more exposure will lure people into reviewing as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Especially on the point of discontinuing the MILHIST PR process in favor of regular PRs. A concern of mine in the past was the lack on outside input on our PRs - this will hopefully help this situation, as well as possibly getting some MILHIST editors to review outside of the project (which would hopefully help to bring more editors to MILHIST articles as they see the editors here pulling their weight on other articles). Dana boomer (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto. Makes things simpler in terms of naming conventions, page organization, and general project-ness. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in favor. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I fully support closing the peer review process – I was actually going to propose it myself, but I didn't want to raise too many issues at once. Without this, we can't really have a PPR anyway. Moving A-class reviews under the /Assessment will create less confusion (a month or so ago, I think someone asked why we had /Review but all A-class stuff was under /Assessment). The only thing I'm a bit wary on is discontinuing the transclusions, but as long as the announcements are continually updated, I don't think we'll have much of a problem. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd support this, so long as peer reviews (and potentially GA) are suitably listed here so they don't go unnoticed. I'm not sure task lists go far enough on that point, but we'll see. We can always cross that bridge when we come to it. This would also stop the unintentional problem that the "back" breadcrumb links (" Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment") would actually go to where you'd been. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I fully support this. We don't really need a review department and an assessment department and I always thought it a bit odd that we do our PRs internally. Hopefully sending our articles to PRH will get them more exposure and perhaps we can work on our reputation of being a rather selfish project when it comes to reviews by offering reviews of other articles there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Popping in because I saw this noted at WP:PR. In regards to the partner project; I still think it's a valuable attempt, even if it doesn't always work, and I see no reason why editors can't still transclude as just one more venue to possibly solicit comments (I think just moving to the main PR page will help with some of the issues the partner project was intended to address, as well.) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with most of this but I have reservations over point 4 regarding the review page. Personally, I do use the review page to have a look at the transcluded reviews regularly. That said, I'm sure I can get used to clicking through all of the links in the open tasks if we do stop transcluding them. Woody (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fully support. WikiCopter 02:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The way forward
So should we begin to implement these changes, or should we present them to the project on the talk page (rather than just a link here) or in The Bugle first? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think they were already mentioned in the Bugle, no? Considering the (reasonably) wide exposure to date and the positive reception, I would suggest that can we start moving forward with implementing things.
- One thing to note is that a lot of the proposed changes require some level of preliminary work (e.g. preparing a new member directory format, etc.) before anything is done to the current infrastructure; this preparatory stage can certainly be started now, as I suspect it will take at least a few weeks to create the new items and revise them to everyone's satisfaction. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Closing the FL-Class and C-Class discussion
I think the proposal discussion has basically run its course at this point. Could someone who hasn't been involved in the debate please close it and determine how we're moving forward? Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are any currently active coordinators uninvolved? ;) There seems to be a very clear consensus for FL class and a weaker, through still clear, consensus for C class so it would probably be OK (though not ideal) for an involved coordinator to close the discussion as an endorsement of both proposals. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm uninvolved. I'm trying to take a bit of a break from co-ord tasks (a bit burnt out from it, to be honest, and busy in RL), but if everyone here feels it should be closed, I will do this. I probably won't have time to follow it up, though - flying out to Adelaide tomorrow morning, though, to start my new posting. Please let me know if anyone objects to closing it. If not, I will probably get to it in about five hours or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I've closed this now. I wasn't exactly sure what was the best way, so if I've mucked it up please just let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Rupert, that looks perfect. Good luck in Adelaide! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Rupert, that looks perfect. Good luck in Adelaide! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I've closed this now. I wasn't exactly sure what was the best way, so if I've mucked it up please just let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm uninvolved. I'm trying to take a bit of a break from co-ord tasks (a bit burnt out from it, to be honest, and busy in RL), but if everyone here feels it should be closed, I will do this. I probably won't have time to follow it up, though - flying out to Adelaide tomorrow morning, though, to start my new posting. Please let me know if anyone objects to closing it. If not, I will probably get to it in about five hours or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I've implemented the template and category changes needed for both classes; the categories should populate automatically over the next few days. If anyone spots anything broken, please let me know! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Featured media
Hey fellow coords, per WP:VPR#A new class for Featured media, there is a new featured class for images and sounds. Do we as a project want to start this as well? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've never seen much point in having assessment classes for items that don't actually go through a progression of ratings as they improve, to be quite honest; other than merely generating a count—which we already have as part of the showcase—the ratings don't really serve any useful purpose.
- In practical terms, tagging every media file that's relevant to our scope seems infeasible; there are probably more files than there are articles. We'd only be able to tag a very small subset, I think. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- For what its worth there are only about 2500 featured pictures and about 300 Sounds and videos and many wouldn't apply to MILHIST. When I looked through the list I am only coming up with about 500 for WPUS. Not trying to sway your decision, just adding my 2 cents.--Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- True, but I was referring not to the number of featured media files (which, as you say, is not very high), but rather to all media (which we'd need to tag if we want to have a distinction between featured media and non-featured media in our assessment scheme). Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well that's partly true I admit that the difference would be more meaningful if both were tagged but I don't think that's a big deal if the non featured content isn't tagged. Although some might say that vanity is the only reason to track them. The main reasons why we are tagging them in WPUS is to:
- (To manage the ones we have) Basically to allow them to show up and be watched easier with the use of Article alert bot. Other wise we have to be mindful of all the different for deletion, promotion, demotion, review, etc boards indipendantly watching for them to surface and know that they fall under our purview with the ambiguous titles that files tend to have.
- (To grow more) To know what the featured media is so that we can focus on the ones that are not yet featured. Once its tagged theres no need to worry so much about it unless or until it is submitted to one of the boards mentioned in 1 above. So then we can start to identify and select other works that meet the criteria.
- It also helps in identifying content to feature on the Portal's
- It allows the related content to be displayed by JL-Bot as recognized content.
- The first 2 are the main ones, the other 2 are nice to have's and there are other reasons that could be argued as well but these are the main ones for WPUS. --Kumioko (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well that's partly true I admit that the difference would be more meaningful if both were tagged but I don't think that's a big deal if the non featured content isn't tagged. Although some might say that vanity is the only reason to track them. The main reasons why we are tagging them in WPUS is to:
- True, but I was referring not to the number of featured media files (which, as you say, is not very high), but rather to all media (which we'd need to tag if we want to have a distinction between featured media and non-featured media in our assessment scheme). Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- For what its worth there are only about 2500 featured pictures and about 300 Sounds and videos and many wouldn't apply to MILHIST. When I looked through the list I am only coming up with about 500 for WPUS. Not trying to sway your decision, just adding my 2 cents.--Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of jobs for coordinators
I don't mean to make work for you, but a couple of things need coordinator involvement:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposal to generate discussion looks to be ready to be closed by an uninvolved coordinator and the A class criteria amended accordingly
- There are two PRs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review which haven't been announced at WP:MILHIST and added to the open tasks template Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nominations for the Oak Leaves
Friendly reminder to the coordinators: I had left a nomination here a while ago. Thanks for your support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for inactivity
Just offering my apologies for my lack of activity since May March - I'm hopeful that I should be able to step up my contributions over the next few weeks now that my workplace audits and H&S policy reviews are over (well, almost, only two more audits to come...) Changes in job role can keep things fun and interesting, but by damn they're a lot of work! EyeSerenetalk 12:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to be the time of year for it, glad to have you back. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, getting back to thinking about Northern France in 1944 is like coming home :) EyeSerenetalk 13:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)