Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators
 | Military history Project‑class | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Welcome to the discussion area of the Military history WikiProject's coordination department! This page is mostly used by the project coordinators, but everyone is welcome to participate! If you have a question, concern, or suggestion for the coordinators, please feel free to leave us a note! |
Handbook[edit]
- Please see the Academy course for coordinators for general information and advice.
Coordinator tasks[edit]
- These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
- Assessment
- Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
- Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-military articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code.
- Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists or the A-Class project review.
- Deal with any new assessment requests and the backlog of unassessed articles.
- 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, move the existing A-Class review page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Article title/archive1 (increasing the number if there has been more than one review) without leaving a redirect. You will also need to adjust the article assessment history to reflect the new target page for the old review. 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...[edit]
| 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.
|
| 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 election[edit]Before 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 pages[edit]Wikipedia: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.
-->
}}
Creating the status template[edit]The 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[edit]/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. |
Boilerplate and templates[edit]
| Public boilerplate notices |
|---|
|
| Hidden structural templates & boilerplates |
|---|
|
| Military history awards |
|---|
|
| Coordinator userboxes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open tasks[edit]
Topics for future discussion[edit]
- Collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, universities, and various other institutions (e.g. Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM)
- Article improvement drives
- Notability guideline for battles
- Naming convention guideline for foreign military ranks
- Using the "Results" field in infoboxes
- How far milhist's scope should include 'military fiction' (possible solution, see scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force)
- Encouraging member participation in the various review processes (peer, GAN, ACR etc)
- Recruiting new members (see User:The ed17/MILHIST, etc.)
- Improving/maintaining popular pages
- Motivating improvement from Stub to B-Class
- Enabling editors to improve articles beyond B-Class (possibly utilising logistics dept, also see WP:FAT for related ideas)
- Helping new members (possibly involving improving/deprecating welcome template; writing Academy course)
- Recruiting copy-editors to help during ACR
- Recruiting editors from external forums/groups/etc.
- Simplifying ACR instructions (old discussion)
Missing academy articles[edit]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using different reference formats (partially written/needs expansion)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Image restoration (partially written)
- Using supporting materials (possibly not needed/covered by other topics)
- Image quality and accuracy (possibly not needed/covered by other topics)
Open award nominations[edit]
Nominations for awards are made and voted on by coordinators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. An A-Class Medal nomination needs at least two coordinators' votes to succeed, and the Chevrons with Oak Leaves a majority of coordinators' votes. All coordinators are requested to review the following:
ACRs for closure[edit]
All A-Class reviews are eligible for closure 28 days after they were opened, or 5 days if there is a clear consensus for either promotion or non-promotion, by any uninvolved coordinator. The closing coordinator should check the review page carefully to ensure that there are three general supports and supports (or passes) for both the image and the source reviews, and that there are no outstanding points to be addressed. A guide to manually closing A-Class reviews is available, but normally the closing coordinator just needs to change A-Class=current in the {{WPMILHIST}} banner to A-Class=pass or A-Class=fail.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort Phantom HillThree supports, source and image review. My nom. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see an actual support from Indy beetle. I have already queried them about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cane Hilllooks good to go (my nom). Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Can someone please close this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germanyshould be ready for closure now. (My nom) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Can someone please close this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: - any objections to closing
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Heuschrecke 10 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer IVas delist? Both have formed a fairly strong consensus they don't meet the criteria IMO. I'm involved with the Heuschrecke one, so closing that one would have to be a job for somebody else. Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)- I have closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Heuschrecke 10. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer IV- has three delist votes (including one from me), and no comments in over a month. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
MILHIST CCI cases[edit]
The following open CCI cases contain MILHIST articles (some usernames are omitted from the case titles because they are real names):
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dawkeye
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Degen Earthfast
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kprtqrf06
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mztourist
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210418
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Bluecountrymutt
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hary1mo- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230508
Assistance with these cases is requested, but the work is tedious. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've been working on #9 above, and it is a very messy ACW one. Hog Farm Talk 20:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Updates[edit]
An eleventh case has opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DaWulf2013. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
And another one: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hary1mo. Involves a bunch of commons images, so any help from those who speak licensing or Commons would be appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
ACR to-do list for July 2023[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort Phantom Hill Needs one more support.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Central America under Mexican rule Has two supports. Needs reviewers.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cane Hill Just needs one further general support.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of military logistics Needs further input and reviews.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909) Needs reviewers.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany Needs reviewers.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
GAN and ACR[edit]
We have an article currently nominated at both GAN and ACR. This seems odd, but I can't find any prohibition. Is there one? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I immediately thought "of course there is!", only to find no mention of such a rule. Featured Article candidacy states "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.", and if ACR doesn't have a similar rule hiding somewhere already I would advocate that we create one. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I went through the same process, and concluded that I was just being blind. I would agree that in the absence of such a rule one should be introduced. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps because we've been through this multiple times before, most recently in 2021. I would favour adding a rule that says:
- I went through the same process, and concluded that I was just being blind. I would agree that in the absence of such a rule one should be introduced. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
An article may not nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing Peer review, or a Good article nomination at the same time.
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Done Changed the instructions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
How to start A-class reappraisal[edit]
I can't seem to find specific instructions to start an A-class reappraisal (I want to open a discussion about demoting a current A-class article.) How is this done? WP:MHR just says to leave a message here. The article in question is Panzer IV. Schierbecker (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Schierbecker: - essentially, you just move the original ACR page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer IV/archive1 or something like that, fix the link in the article history template so that the link to the old A-class review links to the proper old page, and then create a new ACR like if you were creating a regular nomination, just make sure to clearly indicate that it's a reassessment nomination. Hog Farm Talk 19:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- People had trouble with the procedure, so the instructions were commented out and replaced with one to request the coordinators handle it. I've nominated it for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look this weekend. Schierbecker (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- People had trouble with the procedure, so the instructions were commented out and replaced with one to request the coordinators handle it. I've nominated it for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Majestic Titan[edit]
I was wondering whether anyone has any opinions on the current status of OMT. It isn't a project that I've involved myself in, but I've found myself wondering at its progress. Is it stagnating, or are people still churning away in the background? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - at least from my observation, it seems to have stagnated a bit. Several of the earliest articles there have required additional work - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Armament of the Iowa-class battleship/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1, and the still-open Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2. Hog Farm Talk 03:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
ACR to-do list for August 2023[edit]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Central America under Mexican rule Needs one more general support and a source review.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cane Hill Just needs one further general support.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of military logistics Needs further input and reviews.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909) Needs reviewers.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of GermanyNeeds a source review.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Puketutu Needs reviewers.
That's the oldest eight noms, bar one also nom'ed at GAN and one all but finished. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Upcoming Coordinator Elections[edit]
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We need to start putting together our plan for the forthcoming coordinator elections if we want to get them off the ground in a timely manner in September. Do we want to retain the current number, the 14/14 election format for nominations and voting, and have it run entirely in September? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Both 14 and 14 seem a little long to me. But, from memory, when I suggested 10 and 10 last year it didn't get anywhere. In any event, I think ending on 28 September works. Thanks for remembering this Tom. (Oddly I stumbled across something by you earlier today and went to your user page to check how active you were. Question answered.
) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC) - I think what we did last year worked fine. It also wouldn't hurt for us to keep in mind to suggest running for any editors who we think would have potential in a coord role; I for one am undecided about standing for re-election again or not. Hog Farm Talk 00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thought last year's elections format worked fine. I don't plan on standing for re-election, I've been sidetracked by lots of business in RL as well as other interests on WP, and I'm not as much of an asset to the project in a leadership role at this time. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've created the three standard pages for the election; if somebody would look over my work I would appreciate that. Hog Farm Talk 23:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The pages are WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2023, Status and Tally. Do we have a help page for this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, I don't think there's a help page. I've just created the pages the last two or three years by copying and pasting the article code and updating what needs updated. Hog Farm Talk 00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I want to add a nomination for emeritus. Last year there was something about eligibility, but all I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, I don't think there's a help page. I've just created the pages the last two or three years by copying and pasting the article code and updating what needs updated. Hog Farm Talk 00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've created the three standard pages for the election; if somebody would look over my work I would appreciate that. Hog Farm Talk 23:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: - it's probably best if everone starts indicating if they intend to run for re-election or not soon. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The nomination period is meant to start tomorrow, so CPA-5, Iazyges, Indy beetle, and Zawed may want to put down if they're standing or not. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Just a further heads up for those who have put themselves as standing for re-election that the voting period begins in two days. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The nomination period is meant to start tomorrow, so CPA-5, Iazyges, Indy beetle, and Zawed may want to put down if they're standing or not. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Contest results for August Bugle[edit]
Hi guys, could someone pls add the results here at their earliest...? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'll see if I remember how to do the contest closeout this month. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think I did everything right. Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tks HF, looks good except are we not awarding the Writer's Barnstar for second place (even though here were two first places)? I'm sure we've had ties for first place before but I can't recall how we handled it. If anyone can help out here without us ploughing through the archives that'd be great. Given we have a tie for second place as well it'd certainly make for an unusual situation if we could award four gongs at once...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well having trawled Jan-Jul/Dec 2012-2022 I can find one instance of a dual Chevrons award for first place and no Writer's Barnstar, so we're following the same principle this month. I think the usual thing in sport is to drop a medal if there's a tie in the preceding place but knowing our propensity for IAR I thought I'd check... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tks HF, looks good except are we not awarding the Writer's Barnstar for second place (even though here were two first places)? I'm sure we've had ties for first place before but I can't recall how we handled it. If anyone can help out here without us ploughing through the archives that'd be great. Given we have a tie for second place as well it'd certainly make for an unusual situation if we could award four gongs at once...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think I did everything right. Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Heads up[edit]
Vami IV has requested that I mention here that he has moved apartments and does not currently have access to internet or a computer. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Contest Entry Class Ratings[edit]
In reviewing contest entries, I have encountered a few entry class ratings that I think should be higher and have advised as such once or twice recently. In order to be sure that my analysis is correct, I ask for advice on whether my evaluations of these entries is proper for the contest. The first circumstance is where a related, but different, Wikiproject, such as WP Ships, rates an article lower than the current Military History Project class. The MH Project class could even be "none." My opinion is that the rating by the other project is not to be consider for the contest by this project. Another situation is where a B or GA request is made but before the review is completed, the MilHistBot puts a rating on the talk page. My opinion is that the bot rating should be disregarded and the entry class should be the rating (including "none") at the time the higher rating was requested. I have found nothing in the contest rules that specifically addresses these points but I think my interpretations are the reasonable ones. Thanks for your consideration of these points. @Simongraham: I ping simongraham because I have given an opinion that he should have a lower entry class rating for a recent entry and he will be interested in the answer. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've always thought that we should only be using the MILHIST project ratings for the contest. We have a bit of a nonstandard assessment scheme, so what other projects have articles it isn't really relevant for internal MILHIST scorekeeping purposes. As to bot re-ratings - on my entries, I've always gone with what the bot rated it as while the GA nomination was still in process, unless there's a reason why the bot assessment has been or is likely to be challenged. This recently came up with me for Talk:CSS Winslow when the bot assessed it as b-class after I listed it for GAN. At least to me, it makes sense to go with the actual assessment at the end of the month. The GAN for Winslow has been picked up already, but I had no guarantee that it would be before month end, which would have created the awkward situation in the next month of me either claiming it as a creation from scratch for September when it had technically been bot-assessed as B in August, or just not claiming the points from nothing to B class. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- If the editor's work is finished and all the assessments are later made in the same month, it seems to me that the rules/guidelines allow the editor to increase the total points from the number when the request was made to the final total. Reducing the points because a bot or unrequested assessment has been made seems to me to be an overly strict interpretation, perhaps incorrect(?) and in my view not especially fair. The editor has done the work which results in the higher rating. Changes in the number of points due to reassessment are allowed under the rules. The higher assessment in these types of entries are being made based on the original work, not additional work to increase the rating from the intervening assessment. I stand to be corrected, of course. I think this is a scenario where my interpretation could be correct and within the spirit of what the contest is trying to achieve, higher assessments. This is the most likely scenario but your example is different.
- Your example is different because all actions are not in the same month. The interpretation is more ambiguous and a little harder to make because of this difference. I must admit that I have tried to write a sensible interpretation, and a possibly suggested rewritten rule for this and at least one other scenario, but I have deleted them. I need to start over and will post them as soon as I can state them in a clear and concise way. The entry that spurred this post includes both the other project's rating as a start, which I was confident should be disregarded, and the intervening bot entry which I also think should be disregarded because it is like the scenario in the previous paragraph. I think that I should not interpret this and a few other possible scenarios without discussion and advice, however. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- The MilhistBot will not attempt to assess the article until it is tagged with the MilHist template. It will not override an existing assessment. It only operates on unassessed MilHist articles. It uses our project's assessment rules. If an article is rated B it is sent for human reassessment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that covers the entry that raised the question. I have been doing checking for several months. I ask because I don't want to make a mistake if I see an unusual case. I expect to have more entries in the future but my questions arose from my doing checking, not as a contributor. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- The MilhistBot will not attempt to assess the article until it is tagged with the MilHist template. It will not override an existing assessment. It only operates on unassessed MilHist articles. It uses our project's assessment rules. If an article is rated B it is sent for human reassessment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
AutoCheck report for August[edit]
The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:
12th Light Infantry Brigade (Airmobile)B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)2023 Gabonese coup d'étatB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)2023 Nigerien crisisB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Amedeo De CiaStart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Arthur ClowesAssessed as B-Class at Request Assessment page. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Battle of Daman (1694)B3, B4 = no, lead is too brief, use of English is poor. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Battle of FriedauB1 = no, only a single source is used. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Battle of KotorB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Battle of Três LagoasB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Çakmak LineB class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Capture of Muscat (1650)B3 = no, lead is too brief. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)CSS WinslowAssess as B-class. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Death ColumnC. Extensive use of theses as sources (not clear what type). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Diamandi DjuvaraB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Enrique Loynaz del CastilloB1&B2=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Ernesto ForzaB1&B2=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)First Battle of SzolnokB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Fisher A. BlocksomOut of scope. Ordinary service, even in wartime, does not count. It must be a defining characteristic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)François JaupainB1&B2=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Grovestins' Cavalry RaidB3 = no, lead is too brief. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Harald Hilarius-KalkauB2=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)HMS Menace (1915)Assess as B-class. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)HMS Noble (1915)Assess as B-class. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)HMS Nonsuch (1915)Assess as B-class. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)HMS Redpole (1808)Assess as B-class. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Hongkou Park IncidentAssess as B-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Housewives demonstrationsB1=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Jacob HäggB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)James LeathartAssessed as B-Class at Request Assessment page. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)January 1987 Philippine coup attemptB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Julian Edward WoodB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Julian Elvis Ward Jr.B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Kessel RunB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Lionel GaunceAssessed as B-Class at Request Assessment page. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Lithuanian Dragoon Half-RegimentB class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)NāmākēhāB5=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Percy MacKenziedowngraded to C-class, CN tag. Zawed (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Revolt of Abd al-SalamB1=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Robert Boyd (RAF officer)Assessed as B-Class at Request Assessment page. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Saddam HaftarB class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)São Paulo Revolt of 1924 in the interiorB1=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Siege of BasavapatanB2=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Siege of TomarB3 = no, lead is too brief. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)SMS G135B1=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Terrorism Confinement CenterB class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Uday Singh (Sikh warrior)B class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Van H. Manning (engineer)B clas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)William GrinlyB class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)