Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TomStar81 (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 2 October 2008 (→‎Anything else?: clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1346
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 32
Featured pictures 473
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 684
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,400
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Shortcut

Handbook

Open 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.
Peer review
A-Class review
Featured content
Member affairs
Other

Instructions

Boilerplate and templates

Discussion

Version 0.7 Notice

It appears that the 0.7 team is picking articles for the next release version. I would propse that we move the selected articles to the special projects department so we can check all the information in the articles and address any issues with the article before they go offline, in this manner we can ensure the infomration adheres to all needed policies and address any concerns with regards to maintence tags and policy issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a very good idea. Any idea how many? --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot. It took a while for the list to load on my laptop, although thats wireless and the home pc is broadband, so it made load faster at home. A a minimum, we will need to eyeball all project FA-class articles since those are automatically included as candidates for any release version. It would prbably bo a good idea to check the A-class and GA-class articles as well, since those rank highly on our assessment scheme. Perhaps we should consider an adopt an article drive to get editors familar with the policy and MoS guidelines to participate and checking and clearing the designated articles? If we offer medals and barnstars for people willing to spend the needed hours to aid us then we could help clear the articles for an offline debut faster and more efficently. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems that FAs are not being automatically included here (although they may wind up in the release anyways); so that might not be a productive direction to go regardless. Kirill (prof) 09:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of A-class and FA-class articles, most of mine for instance, do not make the cut, because it didn't score 1250 points; most of the points are dependent on popularity, by pageviews, intwerwiki links and incoming links. So some very popular and very dreadful articles like Vietnam War are high up the list. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ver batum from the classical warfare task force talk page, the 0.7 notice reads as follows:


The links and other relevent info are all in that message, so we can start with this and plan our next moves. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A drive sounds like a good idea. However, we should learn from the last drives and keep the minimum workload small and include lots of different topics in each worksheet. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! I hadn't realised it was 1133 articles. That is a huge mountain to climb, especially given the specialist nature of the editing and familiarity with policy required. What do we do? Find sixty experienced editors prepared to edit twenty articles each? To be honest, I can't see this happening. And the big question is going to be "Why do we need to do this when they're already recognised as top-notch?" --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be too difficult as some of the articles are B-class articles that are there mainly because they have high readership stakes and are clearly unsalvageable due to uneven coverage, such as the Vietnam War. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can start by subdeviding the list into more managable task force portions, then eliminate the articles which have more than one tag for a related project (For example, Iowa class battleship and Montana class battleship have our tag and the WP:SHIPS tag, so we can let those slide out on the assumption that the other projects will check'em for quirks and such). That should leave us with a much more managable group of article to comb through. I think more about this tomarrow, but right now I am heading for bed, its after 3.00 AM here and I have school in the morning... :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can do all those things but even they will take a considerable amount of time to set up. Then there is the problem of recruiting enough good people and administering it. If we can up with something, I'd be all in favour of something altogether simpler – like flicking though the articles and trying to deal with any tags (fact, npov etc) – but for the top end stuff, even this needs to be done by people really familiar with the subject matter. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be too concerned for the top-end articles, actually; the bigger issue, in my view, is that the 0.7 selection algorithm is picking up a great many Start-Class articles. Regardless of how much copyediting we set up, we're still going to be left with a large portion of the selection that's simply deficient in terms of core material rather than MoS rules; given that, I'm not convinced that it's worth going out of our way to fiddle with 0.7 at all. Kirill (prof) 09:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need MOS compliance as top priority for all material? That's the major hindrance to recruiting otherwise competent editors. We should limit MOS-checks to FA and have them in special worksheets (they have been mostly checked for MOS, so it shouldn't be too much work). Another group can consist of GA and A-class material, checking this group has priority over B-class and possibly Start-class(Start-class should only be checked superficial). Worksheets with 20-40 articles are a very good idea and we will have several editors doing multiple worksheets, so this can probably be managed by 30 editors. I disagree with eliminating double-tagged articles from our worksheets, except we do know for sure that someone from another project is working on them. We owe that to our reputation. Another issue is recruiting copyeditors. Maybe we give them an alert and check how many of them are willing to contribute. If a checked article can be fixed with a copyedit we can direct them directly to the target. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the algorithm, anything that is rated B-class by several projects is included. The problem is that many projects didn't yet have a BCAD with the new criteria. We may voice this concern, perhaps these articles that do not comply with the new B-class criteria can be eliminated. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "MoS" I mean something aking to copyeditting, just a basic check to ensure that everything is still propserly squared away, more with regards to our MoS that the Wiki MoS. Simple things like checking that dates are unlinkied and combat pages are properly categorized and the infobox parameters are correctly filled out and stuff like that. For most article this won't be a problem, but for some of the high traffic articles this could pose a problem, hence the suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the list of articles at Wikipedia:Release Version is very patchy. I agree with Roger that the task is too big to be a 'must do' (especially as I can't see many people really wanting Wikipedia on DVD...). The best approach may simply be to post notifications on the project's talk pages and add an entry to the WPMILHIST Announcements template notifying editors that the next release is getting close and suggesting that interested editors run through the articles which have been selected. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked again the list, I share Kirill's concerns. For instance, this seems typical of a NPOV-tagged article and I'm sure we also remeber Oberiko's travails in Special Projects. So, perhaps the way forward (cherry-picking from others' ideas), is to

  1. propose a better article selection, per Wandalstouring based on our FA and A-Class articles, topped up with B-Class
  2. list the new selection, per Nick, for improvement lite.

How does this seem? --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I had some chats with the guys behind this drive. This explains the purpose and the volume of the release. And here they admit, that they are aware that most of their B-class stuff hasn't been checked against the new B-class criteria. So, I suggest to stick with the 0.7 release crietria and only work on our listed Start if we consider them part of a set or essential. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review the versions we chose and remove all starts from the release list. I would do it on my own if it wasn't too much work for a single editor. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that proposal Roger. Is is possible to get an automatically generated list of the articles which are start-class? Nick Dowling (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a table of the WPMH Start-class articles from the selection list, plus one Stub-class article that somehow made it in. Feel free to move it wherever. It was a pain in the ass to make; I hope it's helpful. Maralia (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. The list is really great. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. This will be much easier to work with. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed today that some articles selected are now sporting 1.o assessment template on the talk page. Should we be adding these to the articles selected, or no? And if yes, should we be filling in any of the fields in the template? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need to urgently produce a detailed battle plan for 0.7 covering the whole thing. Where do we start? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They currently run 0.7 and I suggest we take care about that. The 1.0 templates can be recorded and a drive can be prepared for them after we finished 0.7 and have thus gained some experience and also have more time and thus less workload per day. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my comment was about 0.7 and gettting that show on the road. (I've edited the comment accordingly). --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First we deal with all Start articles fom the 0.7 list. We may publish this list on the project page and ask anybody willing to improve material from this list to B-class. In most cases citations are missing. What doesn't get improved to B-class in time gets removed from the 0.7 list.
  • Secondly, we establish worksheets of B-class and GA material, assessing which version is ready for release because it complies with all B-class criteria. I suggest 50 article worksheets.
  • Thirdly, we have special worksheets with A-class and FA. These are checked whether they still meet the criteria(in case they don't, they will be nominated for a downgrade) and whether they are up to MOS standards, thus also establishing a for release version. We do have quite a lot of copyeditors listed with MOS knowledge, so we should have enough personnel for dealing with these, also in worksheets à 50 articles. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. That's 367 start-class articles. I've been looking through the list and, as you say, citations is the most frequent problem. This is a grave problem because it's probably the most difficult problem to fix. By way of example, the article on Henry IV of France has one inline citation but about sources. Other than that it looks like a great article!? Broadly, this problem is repeated: nice looking, popular articles, with a dearth of citation. Strangely, we have the opposite problem with Adolf Hitler, clearly a B, but tagged Start.
  • 2. The mechanics are fine but asking people to work on fifty articles is way too many. I have no experience of retrospectively sourcing an article but guess that it's two to three days work, plus the time taken to obtain the sources.
  • 3. I think we should leave FA and A-Class well alone, on the basis of if it's not bust, don't fix it. The problems are unlikely to be MoS-compliance anyway. Even if the problems were entirely copy-based, a MoS/professional-standard copy-edit takes this particular editor a minimum of three to four hours and often twelve to fifteen hours. So we come down to hours in the day.
  • I'm not sure we have anything like enough people to handle (1) and (3).
  • Finally, there's the problem of what we substitute. Popularity was an important criterion. In other words, 0.7 is looking to deliver a compliation of what people are actively seeking. On further reflection, I'm not sure we are able to make these substitutions easily. What, for instance, would we replace [[[Henry IV of France]] with? --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's all sorts of subtle problems with less-developed articles. Henry IV, for example, got his extensive bibliography as an upgrade from an older "Further reading" section; there's no indication that any of the listed sources were actually used in the writing of the article (and, considering how superficial the article is, fairly good indication that they were not). So even if a Start-Class article appears to be in somewhat reasonable shape, there's no good way to determine if that's actually the case without going through the research anyways, which could take weeks.
I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't be touching Start-Class articles at all; if they're simply not ready for distribution yet, then an artificially hurried effort to make them presentable isn't really the best use of our resources; we have many issues of higher priority to deal with, and shouldn't be derailed from them merely because the 0.7 bot happened to pick a bunch of inadequate articles.
(There's nothing to say the bot's algorithm won't change tomorrow and produce a completely different set of Start-Class articles, in any case; since we have no effective input into the selection process, we're always going to be stuck working on this after the fact.) Kirill (prof) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested that what start doesn't get improved, gets delisted without any replacement. This improving the starts is only a limited measure, almost all of them will be delisted because nobody is able to improve them in time. No matter, we can show that we tried to keep them. We can also run a BCAD on them, but I think that would be a waste of time.
  • We don't ask people to source anything. Take a look if it's fit according to the B-class standards and list this version for 0.7. If not remove it completely or search a version that is. One possibility is to remove all challengeable material. The worksheet is half the size of the BCAD and has a similar volume of work involved.
  • A check for MOS is a good idea in my opinion, because we can fix it if it only appears with a small number of articles. However, checking MOS is not essential. Find a version that is up to the standards (most likely citation issues with new material) and nominate it for 0.7.
  • We handled BCAD and that was bigger.
  • Hitler is the most popular Start class article. All the other Starts get relatively few hits and were more or less included for completeness, no great loss if we refuse them. If you want replacements, nominate all B, GA, A and FA material that didn't get nominated. Also the rating system has a large disadvatage. It is for people who don't have internet based on what people with internet are interested in. In my opinion this should give us to think a bit more about providing high quality material about popular and not obscure topics. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, the release versions should be free from all critizing templates, either because the issues have been adressed or completely removed. In case neither is possible, we nominate the articles for special care and work on them case by case. This can be done by some coordinators and other helpful editors. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A solution

See User:Roger Davies/v0.7

I've now got the whole listed wikified and sortable numerous ways. I've also spent some time looking at the start class articles. Many of these seem to have previously escaped our attention in drives or have been improved since assessing. Out of eight articles I looked at, six B-Class quality (and have been re-assessed).

I suggest we create a drive to deal with this. The drive would deal with three types of article differently.

1. FA, A-Class and GA articles. These are checked for templates (POV, refs etc). If it's not templated the current version goes for release. If it is templated, the editor pastes a link to the promoted version on the worklist and that becomes the release version.

2. B-Class. Any B-Class articles with templates are marked "remove (+ reason)" on the worklist.

3. Start-Class. Start-Class articles are checked against B-Class criteria and promoted if applicable; articles which fail B-Class or are templated are marked "remove (+ reason)" on the worklist.

Because of the specialist requirements for this drive, I suggest we make it invitation-only. I guess we need twenty or so editors.

Worklists

I suggest we break up this list to make the worksheets of twenty articles each. We warn and then remove editors squatting on worklists but not doing the work.

Follow-up stuff

After the drive, we knock out the headers from the worklists to create one big list again. We edit it, then copy and paste the required data into Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations, which follows the same order. We use the same worklist to create the deletion list.

How does this feel? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, except that I suggest to go through the articles you want to reject and find versions of them without templates and reasons for templates. That's more work, but this way we provide more material to 0.7. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A better aproach may be to wait and see how many starts end up as Bs, then depending on how many are marked as remove we can do one of two things: see about bringing them up to par with the needed B-class parameters, or replacing them with articles better suited to the release. More importantly, do we have some idea what kind of timeline we have to do this? I grant that we don't need the exact second that the bot will pick the perminent version of the aritcle for release, but a time frame for loose planning and execution would be a great help so we can see about how long we have to get the work done. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not a bad idea, WT. These may need post-checking though as Start isn't exactly a veruy high bar, quality-wise.
  2. I was aiming to try to get the drive finished in a week or so. v0.7 wants all the stuff done by 20 Oct, so we'll have a couple of weeks in hand for agonising and fine-tuning. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we ready to start? Time is running away. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all done. The review (let's not call it a drive) is now set up complete with forty-odd worklists, instructions and stuff. I've just mailed twenty of our finest gnomes and invited them to volunteer. That reminds me, there's a very important one I've forgotten. The deadline for completion is next Sunday, so bags of time for bringing articles up to quality, substitutes etc. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Kirill (prof) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Early feedback

A quick trawl through somwe of the completed worksheets reveals more problems than I had anticipated. The answer is probably to follow the drive/review with a workshop to handle the final selection process. We can, for instance, then invite editors to revisit their worklists and finetune. They're all good guys and I don't anticipate too many hitches. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our B-class assessment makes me sometimes wonder. Seems like people give it too easily without minding any criteria. I think we have to work on this issue to make sure B-class is B-class and Starts get promoted to this class if they are good. My suggestion is to run a BCAD from time to time.
I wrote to the reviewing editors and asked them to provide more suggestions for replacements because we can't reject half the stuff. On the long run such a drive needs to be prepared months in advance to give time to at least improve some of the articles. After we have learned our lessons in this drive, we should take care of 1.0 which has already started. The improvement of this selected material is likely to enhace our reputation and thus our recruiting because people see in most cases they want to inform themselves that we did good work and are satisfied. Currently, wikipedia faces much criticsm, although our project is better off than the average. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, unless we're careful this is going to turn into a massive time sink with little net benefit. I gather that W07 is being presented as a taster of a work in progress, ie warts and all. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I will soon get tired of repeating this, but your assessment criteria for a B grade is significantly more strict than that which the editorial team ask to be used for assessments. I find it hard to see that rejecting articles specifically requested, using arbitrarily hard standards, is helping. Sandpiper (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some projects on the converse inflate their rankings to make themselves look more formidable, and all it does is delude a few people, and in cases like this, let some more rubbish into a CD that will bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Most of the B-class articles are bad enough as is let alone all the start class articles that got through, a lot with flagrantly unencyclopedia tone. All an article has to do to get start class is be longer than a screen in length, but it could be random bits cut and pasted or a personal essay. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We pride ourselves on our ability to lead by example. Our standards are higher not because we set them higher, but becuase the community demands the articles answer to a higher calling. This is how we gained our good reputation on Wikipedia, and its why we strive to maintain our articles to higher standards than the standard standards. Thats why rejecting articles specifically requested, using arbitrarily hard standards, is helping: you asked for precious gems from nearly every wikiproject, and precious gems you shall recieve, but from us you shall recieve diamonds in the rough. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess thats a quote, but I should make clear I represent myself, not the editorial team. At the battle of Jutland it is estimated six more major German ships would have been sunk by the British if they had decent quality control on their shell production. But on the opposite side of the argument, what would have happened if they had imposed a decent standard and gone to sea with no shells at all? (shells which failed even the bad official test were accepted: there was a shortage of shells.) You do no good to eliminate history articles which are better than the standard requested just because someone else might be accepting articles worse than the standard requested. Sandpiper (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please come back if you officially represent the editorial team. We have a strict policy to ensure quality and as long as we have a say regarding the releases, we will check them and provide material that meets the B-class standards of this project and wikipedia (that has adopted our standard with slight modifications). And if the Germans had some faster ships they would have sunken down the Empire by crossing the T because the British didn't know the Gefechtskehrtwende. So what? That battle is over and I'm happy so few people died on both sides. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they may have adopted the grading idea but not your standard. Go and look at the example of one articles progression at the bottom of their grades page. Sandpiper (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion has arisen in this discussion. Before Roger Davies posted the above, I posted a reply which is now immediately below. This was deleted by Wandelstouring, who presunably felt it was not a serious comment. I have restored it, and trust the mistake of deleting it will not be repeated, but have added a clearer explanation which I have also posted on Wandalstouring's page. Sandpiper (talk)

Ok, guy comes up to you and says, 'will you paint my house white? You say to him, no can do guv, all i've got is cream, and that just isn't good enough for white. I tell you what, I'll do it in guaranteed 40-years lasting flaming orange.' You go into a shop and ask for curry. The guy brings you some of his mum's prize-winning fruit cake. Just the job. This release is meant to be a useful reference work, not a school project showcase. Sandpiper (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editorial team has defined a standard which they consider appropriate for material to be distrubuted in the name of wikipedia. The history project has chosen a higher standard. The project is currently arguing over whether to recommend rejecting articles on the basis of this higher standard, which logically the editorial team would be happy to accept on their own standard. The editorial team has asked for one thing, but is being given something different. I am sure they are pleased for all the help they can get, but if someone asks for a certain thing, why perversely give them something different when the exact thing they ask for is available?
Selecton of articles for distribution is significantly based upon popularity of the articles. I am assuming they equate the number of people who have viewed an article with its importance. I do; obviously the more people who are interested in a certain topic, the more important it is that wiki present an article about it. While obviously it would be counter-productive to distribute articles which are nonsense, that is not what is being debated here. A major consideration seems to be that entirely accurate articles are being rejected because they have relatively poor referencing, even though this still exceeds the requirements of the editorial team. I'm sorry, but to me that just seems like disrupting the selection process and making the resulting distribution copy worse. Sandpiper (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation but I'm not sure there was any confusion. I moved my message back to where I posted it, directly under and in reply to Wandalstouring's. By changing the order of the messages, you made it appear that my message was a reply to yours. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I didn't mean to do that, I just reinserted my own comment where it had been in direct and relevant response to wandalstouring's comment. Sandpiper (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the way we run this post on the project page and ask them them commend a different course. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacements

We have 1/4-1/3 of the worklists consisting of calls for replacements without propositions. How are we going to handle that? I suggest to nominate our recent GA, A and FA material, that has not yet been included, as replacements because we don't have time for a more thourough search. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways of dealing with this. Give me a day or so to mull them over. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see wandalstouring has for a second time removed my response to his comment. I would remind him that deleting the posts of those you disagree with on wikipedia talk pages is not permitted and may be construed as vandalism. I forebear to bring the entire thing back down here, but would again make the central point. The effect of the mil hist B grade selection criteria is to recommend exclusion of articles which would pass the editorial team B grade assessment level. Many of the articles you are seeking to exclude would be acceptable to the editorial team. Thus the difficulty would most readily be resolved by accepting those articles which pass their criteria. Sandpiper (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think our role here is to try to reconcile two sets of criteria.

  • The W1.0 team's bot has selected by popularity not quality (ie number of hits and links) and importance rating. The W0.7 list, containing roughly 0.5% of the en:Wikipedia corpus, is a Top 30,000 of Wikipedia's most popular articles.
  • Our review is driven by quality not by popularity, and our decisions have been made on that basis.

The conundrum here is that while our best are excellent articles they are not necessarily on subjects that large numbers of people want to read about. By replacing several hundred very popular articles with articles on other subjects, the replacements will inevitably be less sought after, our contributions will reach a much smaller readership, and overall the release version will be that much less appealing/comprehensive.

Having combed through the lists, while our reviewers have worked diligently and competently, far too many articles have been marked for removal. Because of this high rejection rate, it seems to me that for the final selection we should probably move to a different standard, something along the lines of "can we live with it?"

It might be perhaps helpful to bring out some aspects of the W0.7 release which weren't apparent earlier. First, it is seen as a test release, a trial run for W1.0 next year. Second, it will make not pretend to being anything other than a snapshot of work in progress. Third, "Citation needed and 'calls to edit' templates will almost certainly be gone… but for things like NPOV there is a strong case for leaving those in". These important factors weren't taken sufficiently into account during our review. The review itself has been exceedingly useful. It has exposed a wide number of quality issues, and perhaps highlighted our current inability to implement widescale change.

So how do we resolve this? I'll first look at the obvious route, referring articles to our task forces for improvement. Even this presents a massive logistical problem. I'll explain, using 300 articles for the example.

  1. We can notify the task forces on an article by article basis. For Military aviation or World War II, this will mean adding perhaps 50 different notifications to the talk page.
  2. The alternative is to create lists, by task force, of articles for improvement. But this is a big job. It probably involves creating a small database to tag each article by its task forces (most have three and some up to five or six) and output the results. The resultant list, though more accessible than fifty separate notifications, is still going to appear to task force members long and daunting.

The only real option that remains is a template for article talk pages, that requests improvement, and explains what improvements are sought. This would need to be custom made. There is, of course, no guarantee that the article will be touched, let along improved, during the next three weeks but it seems the only real option open to us.

I suggest we give the list a second pass, reducing the number of replacements to a handful. The criterion we should using is "can we live with this?" I mentioned above. For instance, an article with unreferenced sections would be passed, an article with a one-line lead would pass, but an article with unreferenced sections plus a one-line lead would fail. This is not that big a job as more than half the articles have already been "approved" and need no further work. In practical terms, this probably means consolidating the existing 25-article worksheets into 100-article checklists, and adding an extra column, headed say "Action". The articles would be classified four ways:

  1. "KEEP"
  2. "USE LINK"
  3. "IMPROVE (reason)"
  4. "REPLACE"

I welcome comment on this, especially from interested parties who might well find themselves dealing with this particular issue after the elections are over :) If we can reach agreement on something along these lines, the next step is to set up the checklists. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have, by the way, four worksheets incomplete. I've left reminders with the editors asking them to complete today. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be more or less introducing C-class, articles not being B but publishable. I can live with that, however, it clearly shows our article improvement is going the wrong way. That's an illness of wikipedia if there is a constant growth of good quality on obscure topics. Improving the popular core tagged by 1.0 should be the next task to face with a large drive. There are usually plenty of sources listed on the articles, it only needs footnotes. We can handle that although it's the biggest task we yet faced. The problems are that tagging on the talk pages is useless and long lists deter volunteers. I suggest therefore to combine several methods and make small lists.
  • First we split things up according to topics. We can do that with a level of time and below one of geography/political units for battles, wars and personnel.
  • What is tagged by the general topics task forces can be structured according to time and on a sublevel further specifications(haubitzer, rifle, etc.).
If topics overlap we need to draw a line what goes into which way of categorization. I can't yet cover all cases.
Afterwards we split these up into small worklists of 5-10 articles(not every worklist has equal length). An editor can sign up for these worklists and we can try to recruit taskforce members (and contacts while we're at it) who already have an interest into the topic. Their task is to footnote these articles using at least the listed bibliography on the topic. They are free to improve the articles, but only B-class is required because that's the level we can live with. Anything below that is a pain in the ass.Wandalstouring (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: W0.7. Hopefully, we can improve the quality of many of the C-class articles prior to release. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: W1.0. I agree that we should start thinking about W1.0 very soon indeed. It is probably sensible to set it up as a task force, so that we have a central point of contact, can take advantage of the article tracking categories, and associated infrastructure. This though should probably wait until after W0.7 is cleared as it will be a distraction if it's running alongside. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The issue with sacrificing quality of work for popularity is simply that of reputation. On the one hand, sure we can put in all the articles that are heavily read and popular, but this release of 0.7 should showcase our best work. We shouldn't be showcasing the popular work that can be defined as crap (in the two worklists I've done, there were several articles that definitely fit that term). Cam (Chat) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this with the same opinion but the logisitics of it are the issue. W1.0 is using popularity as a way of assessing a subject's importance/relevance to the world at large. We cannot simply replace articles, by the way. We nominate articles for deletion in one process and quite separately nominate others for inclusion. Both processes need rationales written (ie 800 rationales in all), and are in any event subject to W1.0's own release criteria. That said, I don't think we'll have too much trouble weeding out the real crap but I don't accept that a third of the nominations need fall into this category. If we can boil it down to a hundred or so, that's probably manageable. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you are correct, Roger, that a lot of our FA's are on more obscure topics, this presents us with an opportunity to broaden the average knowledge. The average wikipedia-surfer isn't likely to know about, say, the War of the League of Cambrai, or Pontiac's Rebellion. The beauty of this conundrum is that it has the opportunity to give these less-notable topics some much-needed (and much earned) time in the limelight. Before the ACR of Pontiac's Rebellion, for example, I didn't know a thing about it (my history textbook devotes all of half a sentence to the subject). By the time it achieved FA, I knew significantly more about it than most people (and it's now my backup topic for the IB Internal Assessment). While it may not give out the articles that are popular, this release should definitely be aimed at giving limelight to the articles that have really earned it. Regards, Cam (Chat) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we haven't been given an allocation to fill as we wish. we have been given a list of articles which fulfil their criteria. We are also not able, I'm afraid, at this late stage to change the focus of the release. There is nothing of course to prevent us nominating excluded articles, quite independently of our W0.7 initiative. We don't have to do it on a quid pro quo basis and if we think there's really good stuff left out, we should root for it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Not sure if I can post here, but to chime in with Wandalstouring, I'd be happy to help with referencing and citing popular articles needed for the release. I'm an MA student at Warwick University, and for some reason the Library here has a large number of military history books, especially WWI and WWII. So I can do some citing if that would help. Skinny87 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! There'll be plenty of stuff to do :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of membership things

1. We probably need to clean up the active members list in the not too distant future (to remove people not posting in the last three months). Is there a bot that will do this? Or do we need to do it manually? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Pdfpdf isn't a signed-up member of the project but is active here and is currently wondering whether he has a vote. What's the feeling? Should the applicable text on the election page say "Any member of the project and interested parties may support" etc? If so, should it be changed midstream? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 1) as long as it can be done via a bot. As for 2), I agree with your initial post there Roger - given that all it takes to join the project is to list your name on our members list I think that voting should be 'restricted' to members of the project as this isn't really a restriction at all. I'd have no problem with people who've just joined the project voting, and especially not Pdfpdf who has lots of good-quality military related edits to their credit. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) I would hate doing it manually, although it is possible if several coordinators team up and each one does one section. 2) No, he should join this project to vote. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a script around somewhere to do (1); I'll see if I can dig it out.
As far as voting is concerned, I'd say that they ought to join the project before voting, given that putting their name down doesn't have any negative consequences. Kirill (prof) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(More to the point, if editors really don't want to put their name down as members, then we should find out why; that's a bigger issue, in my view, than the technicalities of voting.) Kirill (prof) 15:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know the reason for Pdfpdf but I've asked him the question. Did you see this comment by the way? --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has given his reasons here. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point (though obviously not one considered by the majority of people who sign up). I'm torn between simply letting people like him vote (although perhaps we ought to do that anyways) and adding wording to the membership page stating that signing up does not entail any concrete obligations. ;-) Kirill (prof) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a fair point. I was thinking about a parallel where perhaps sandyGeorgia turned up and voted. I don't suppose anyone would turn a hair even though she's not a member of the project. Either solution you propose would be fine with me. That said, following the beans principle, the bit about no concrete obligations would need to be very carefully phrased :)) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have the bot follow the "No delivery" newsletter preference for the next round of election announcements? That would remove this particular annoyance. Kirill (prof) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd support that. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a fair point by Pdfpdf. It just means that he isn't in control of his wikitime and erects barriers to avoid overcommitment. That's perhaps the real issue we have to offer some advice on. I just had one on the stress hotline with this problem (by the way more coordinators should keep an eye on it). We should also think about it in making drives. We must avoid that people overcommit themselves and suffer in RL because of wiki and afterwards quit wiki because they can't quit RL for wiki. Our shiny medals currently encourage overcommitment with a positive feedback from the community and we offer no advice on how to structure your wikitime. For example how much time should I devote to a drive per day and what are the limits before excessive wikipedia does damage to my RL. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I followed that Hotline discussion and was puzzled by it. The extent of the editor's involvement was tagging about twenty-five articles during the course of one morning. Any adverse consequences of this are wholly unforeseeable. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's possibly more about spending time on wikipedia. Will have to check his contributions thouroughly. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Would someone more familiar with Milhist contacts than me, please take a look at this as editor appears to have just appointed themself to a defunct role. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look.Wandalstouring (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Can we make it a clear rule that this page isn't there for spam, especially by non-coordinators. In my opinion Sandpiper is crossing the line above. I don't know what we can do if someone disrupts a project's work, but hopefully there are some measures we don't have to employ. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Here is his last entry. I deleted it because it was totally off topic. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just another bored person which is trying to "revolutionize" our system. Hope it'll not be a second Mrg. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal to see people dropping by with issues every so often; the page is fairly low-key most of the time. Kirill (prof) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a problem. We could just start stonewalling whenever one feels is necessary. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used to do that before becoming a coordinator, and no one back then seemed to mind all that much. Admittedly, this is meant to facilitate coordinator commincation, but an outside opinion every now and then can be a good thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a public forum, and editors are, in my view, very welcome to post comments directed at the coordinators here. Sandpiper; you may wish to take your concerns to the project's talk page - we're coordinators, not rulers and can't change the project's assessment criteria without the change first being endorsed by members of the project. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind serious comments. I do mind gibberish and I do mind disrespect for the discussed topics. If you want a totally new discussion and it doesn't fit in, make a new chapter, don't hijack existing ones. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring, I made a directly relevant comment in the spirit of your own response to my previous serious comment. Despite my further explanation of my comment, both here and at greater length on your own page, you still do not undertand why it is relevant? Sandpiper (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment is OK. The rest has been moved. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACR Thomas Hines

this seems ripe for closing (inactivity). Could an uninvolved coordinator take a look please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of absence

FYI, I'm going to be on holiday from 4–26 October and won't be anywhere near a computer for most of that time (I hope!). Sorry for the late notice, but I didn't want to presume that I was going to be re-elected as a coordinator - it looks like I have been fortunate enough to be re-elected though. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good time! --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun. Relax. Enjoy yourself. And when that starts to feel like work, we will be happy to have you back. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing to be afk for a while. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. As another, very early, notification I'm planning on changing my user name when I get back - I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable using this one. I'll post further notifications of the change in due course. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contacts

Seems like I'm the last coordinator familiar with contacts. You have to decide if this system should be continued or abolished. I needs some flogging out of inactive users and perhaps a list according to topics similar to the way we organized task forces. Just now I signed up a new user as contact (the minimum requirement should be to A-class on the topic), so there is possibly some interest in it. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that there are now task force coordinators, contacts are useless and should be abolished. --Eurocopter (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-coordinator (but coordinator-elect) opinion: The contacts are inactive, and were made that way for a reason. Also, what Eurocopter says is correct; With the TF coords, those coordinators should know the knowledgeable editors within each TF if they receive questions, which is what I infer the whole contact thing was about. -MBK004 22:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, what we should do is merge the contact idea in with the main membership list, since our members tend to write about there interests or specializations there. Thats my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, it's great to see people committing to the project and going the extra mile. On the other, it's a second tier of project functionaries. Perhaps the concept could be reshaped slightly to reinforce the TFs? That seems to be were activism is most needed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the newest contact (for airborne warfare), and whilst I like the idea, it isn't exactly well advertised. Perhaps the page could be closed and those contacts still willing to be contacts (who haven't left etc) could be placed somewhere on the main MILHIST page, so that anyone needing them doesn't have to go to an obscure webpage? Skinny87 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page does have an archive tag on it but it's easy to miss among the other stuff. And, yes, I agree that if we continue with it, it needs much more exposure. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. I didn't even know such a thing existed until I stumbled on to Skinny87's talk page today. This may be because I'm new to MILHIST. But then, it's the new people who mostly need something like this, so it won't be any use with only the experienced editors knowing it. Chamal Talk ± 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the contacts into the task forces as specialised and dedicated members that are willing to help new editors on certain topics. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that we'd decided to retire the idea of having contacts due to the lack of participation (as well as an unclear definition of what, precisely, their role was). Given our increased shift towards our review processes and the availability of the logistics department and its associated infrastructure, I'm not sure whether trying to revive the contacts program—whether in its own right, or as part of the task forces—would really make sense; I would guess that "why won't anyone answer?" is a more pressing matter for most people looking for feedback than "whom do I ask?", at this point. Kirill (prof) 01:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we don't need formal contacts like this anymore. The various task force talk pages are the best 'contact' for most matters, with the task force's coordinators being the appropriate point of contact for sensitive or urgent matters. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Kirill, like this poor chap who hasn't had a reply to: this, this or this. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not contacts displayed on the relevant task force? Not all knowledgeable members in the task force will be coordinators, so it makes sense to have other contacts - it seems that not everyone reads the talk pages, either. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can make a proposal to the project to make contacts dedicated members of task forces who have written at least two A-class articles and are willing to help other editors on certain topics. Possibly this helps to counter the silence in the task forces. Any objections? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two A-Class article requirement seems to be moving this away from being a position that's related to answering topic questions, per se, and more towards one of an experienced editor on some topic. I'm not sure that really makes sense, at least within the scope of the original position; if we were going to do that, then we might as well simply put together a central list of project members who've written A-Class articles, and just have everyone pick people to ask from that.
(A list of FA and/or A-Class authors might be something to consider doing regardless of its role here, incidentally, simply for its motivational effects; compare WP:WBFAN. But there are also drawbacks to anything of this sort, of course, particularly given that many of our top-end articles are authored by people that aren't technically members of the project.) Kirill (prof) 01:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Set up whatever you think good, however, the lack of activity and support from the task forces is a problem. I only suggested a method to help people to find experienced editors willing to help. Your suggestion don't quite fulfill that role. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Business for the new term

Well, congrats to all of you who have been elected and re-elected. I'd like to jump right in and get down to business. Since we've had a significant turnover of coordinators, I think it may be time to choose TFs for all of us again just like what was done when it was implemented. The other business I can discern is the proposal with the contacts in the above section. Anything else? -MBK004 03:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard and thanks for the suggestion! I'm afraid that I disagree with completely re-organizing the TFs immediately on a gold rush basis. Some coordinators have been active within their TFs and obviously continuity is useful. Perhaps, it's better to see what gaps have been created by retirements; and which TFs the new coordinators are interested in. Also on the TF front, I suggest that we make it a requirement that TF coordinators (TFCs) do some of the basic stuff, like responding to messages that people leave on their TF pages. (See the example, above.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have an upadate on the 0.7 progress, and we need to establish a system whereby task forces created after the election selection period get coordinator attention (the land vehicals one had no coordinators until voluenteers came along, the response was slow). Also, we have had some incidents regarding FAC/FARC bound material from the project that wasn;t quite up to par, so we need to push for more participation in the PR and ACR systems. Thats my take. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are a handful of very interesting TFs and a load of less popular ones. Some are dormant. We also need to establish very clearly what we are going to do with TFs. That debate is probably long overdue. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we've also should begin a process of going over the older FA's to ensure that they're still of FA-Quality. During the pre-drive for 0.7, I came across a few that could use some help (notably in the citations section). Although we need to ensure that the newer articles working their way up the assessment ladder are given the attention they need, we need to also ensure that our older articles meet the new standards. Cam (Chat) 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Cam. We could indeed. The whole quality issue has been moving to the forefront over the last couple of months. (One major issue is that SandyGeorgia has noticed a decline in the quality of our ACRs, with articles nodding through.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roger; I'm glad to be here. I find it surprising that the general quality of our FAC's has declined, given that the new ACR system was meant to downsize this issue. Cam (Chat) 05:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This, in general, also points to a general problem within the project. We place a lot of emphasis on PR & ACR processes within the Review Department. At the same time, we perhaps don't give the same light to FAC & FAR/FARC. Even if we're putting out new A-Class articles at a high rate, having a large number of existing FAs fall through the cracks because we didn't get the necessary effort put in at FAR/FARC is an issue that should be dealt with. Regards, Cam (Chat) 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there's a connection between ACR and FAR but we do have a serious shortage of reviewers and improvers. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intending to say that there was. My point is that the ACRs attract more reviewers and improvers. While it's great to get new articles to A-Class and FA-class, we have, imho, sort of relegated FAR/FARC to a secondary task within the Review process. Cam (Chat) 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the PR and ACR processes are entirely within this project, while the FAC/FAR(C) process is external, so we tend to think that others are handling it. Thats my take. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some old FAs are so skimpy and poorly referenced by current standards that they really need re-writing from scratch. Which, as we all know, can be weeks of work. The point has been made (at WT:FA I think) that FAs offer a really lousy return on time invested and that, for the same time investment, four or five ACs could be created in their place. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the quality of the articles the project is putting forward as FACs has declined. Rather, I think that the requirements of FA reviewers seems to have changed to include a much greater focus on MoS issues and the like. As this isn't going to change, I guess that we need to promote greater awareness of MoS issues which is being done through the new A-class standards. I agree with the need for a review of the task forces - many of them are dormant and seem unlikely to be revived. I'd put question marks against the viability of the Military historiography, Baltic states military history and Taiwanese military history task forces for starters as they all seem too specialised (can the Taiwanese task force be merged with the Chinese one without causing any ructions?) Nick Dowling (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can add Nordic and Balkan to that list, no non-template traffic on the talk pages for over a year. I think there's a strong case for a European TF (this was raised on the main talk page) to handle this (and, say, Ireland, which doesn't have a TF), and retaining the active ones. The dormat TFs could then be moved to an inactive TF section and their tags removed from the template. I don't know how we update the existing template to reflect these changes, with code I suppose. Kirill will know. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the template to handle whatever path we go down won't be an issue, I think, so I don't see technical considerations being a significant factor in deciding how to proceed. Kirill (prof) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to do something as radical as mothballing a taskforce I suggest we make a motion on the main project talk page to get some feed back, otherwise it may appear that we are mothballing TFs for no apparent reason. I would prefer not to enter a new term as coordinator surfing a wave of backlash for axing TFs with little to no activity. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but let's explore the options are here first. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Adoption

Alright, since MBK004 suggests we get right on this....let's do it. Plenty to pick from, no one be shy! Cam (Chat) 04:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the table to show the current coordinators and those expressing interest. There's probably great scope for negotiation. For example, JonCatalán may well want to take "my" slot for MLV (he's very welcome to, he knows much more about it than I do!). --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved people expressing interest into vacant slots where they exist: we've still got a lot of holes. There is an argument incidentally for having three TFCs for the really big TFs (maritime, WWI and WWII, for instance) but four may be unnecessary. As a rule of thumb, to get a minimum of two TFCs for each TF, to allow for wikibreaks etc, each coordinator needs to sign up for a dozen. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed myself from the Military aviation and US military task forces. I'm happy to discuss the others if staying there causes a clash. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just taken myself off MLV to make way for El Catalan. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cam, you can have aviation if I could have maritime. And you could have WWI if I can have WWII. Is that agreeable? Unless anyone else has an interest in those TFs? -MBK004 06:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. On another note, would it be possible for me to be a coordinator of the Canadian Military History TF, seeing as that is my area of specialty? Cam (Chat) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Woody (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to become a coordinator for the MLV task force. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed YellowMonkey from the table because of his resignation. We have a few slots to fill because of that. Also, I see that Kirill has pulled out of a few as well. -MBK004 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've shunted a few around, moving from "Interested" to an actual slot where gaps exist. There remain a few slots to be filled and a handful are seriously oversubscribed. For these, it's probably best to regard "Interested" as a waiting list unless agreement can be reached with the incumbents :) Can I suggest that Tom and MBK work it out among themselves for the 2nd Aussie slot? --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom is welcome to have the Aussie slot if he wants it. I also believe that Cam and myself have worked out an understanding for maritime and the world wars (I've already taken myself off WWI). -MBK004 03:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's still only waiting list places. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We still have many gaps, the ideal being two coordinators per task force. At the top end, I see, coordinators have signed up for a dozen or more each. It doesn't really matter if you're unfamiliar with the subject matter: the coordinator job description outlines the role as "to serve as the primary points of contact for administrative matters [in task forces]". It's neither difficult not timeconsuming. So, if you've only signed up for a handful please take more on, especially those where Kirill is the only coordinator. He has an honorary/supernumerary role in the project and it's not really appropriate that we should have to rely on him to provide basic coordinator cover. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'll take on a few. Also, Woody would it be too much trouble/hardship if I could take your slot at Maritime warfare since that is my area of expertise? -MBK004 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption table

Task force adoption
Task force adopted Current TFC (1) Current TFC (2) Interested
Fortifications Woody TomStar81
Intelligence Nick Dowling TomStar81
Maritime warfare Woody TomStar81 MBK004
Military aviation Eurocopter Cam MBK004
Military biography Woody Roger Davies
Military historiography Nick Dowling Woody
Military land vehicles TomStar81 Jon Catalán
Military memorials and cemeteries Woody Roger Davies
Military science Nick Dowling MBK004
Military technology and engineering JonCatalán MBK004
National militaries Nick Dowling Woody MBK004
War films Woody Roger Davies
Weaponry Eurocopter Woody
African military history Woody Cam
Australian military history Nick Dowling TomStar81 MBK004
Balkan military history Kirill MBK004
Baltic states military history MBK004 Cam
British military history Eurocopter TomStar81 MBK004
Canadian military history TomStar81 Cam
Chinese military history Roger Davies
Dutch military history Woody MBK004
French military history Kirill Eurocopter MBK004
German military history TomStar81 Cam
Indian military history Roger Davies MBK004
Italian military history Kirill Eurocopter
Japanese military history Nick Dowling TomStar81
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history Roger Davies Eurocopter Cam
New Zealand military history Nick Dowling MBK004
Nordic military history Woody MBK004
Ottoman military history Roger Davies Cam
Polish military history Eurocopter
Romanian military history Eurocopter
Russian and Soviet military history TomStar81 Eurocopter MBK004
South American military history Jon Catalán
Southeast Asian military history Roger Davies
Spanish military history Kirill Jon Catalán
Taiwanese military history
United States military history TomStar81 MBK004
Classical warfare Roger Davies
Medieval warfare Kirill Woody
Early Muslim military history Roger Davies
Crusades Roger Davies
Early Modern warfare Kirill Nick Dowling
American Revolutionary War TomStar81 MBK004
Napoleonic era Kirill Eurocopter Cam
American Civil War Roger Davies TomStar81
World War I Woody: Eurocopter Cam
World War II TomStar81 Nick Dowling MBK004

Stepping aside

For a variety of reasons, which I've outlined on Roger's page, I've decided to step aside. Thanks for the past six months. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 09:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied more fully on your talk page but I do appreciate what you've done for the project and am sad to see you going. I wish there were a better way of selecting coordinators than the rather brutal business of beauty contests. Thanks again for your input, especially your advice, in the past, --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's for the best for everyone. I think it'll freshen me up. I'm not too worried/hurt about a voter backlash, this is as brutal as a pillow. I've received much worse, including some double-dealing, fall-guy traps, faking emails to get people in trouble etc by political users who were all schmoozing it up when they wanted me to dispose their enemies etc...One guy even called me a corrupt crook and then he came schmoozing asking me to do an illegal block for him. Nothing like that happened here of course. The coords all have 5+ A/FAs etc and none of them are running about trying to start a personality cult and disciple-gathering while never doing any work unlike some "seniors" in some other WikiProjects. It's just a lifestyle change. I was in two minds about walking away and getting more article work of course due to increasing time pressures, and I think this was the right thing to do. The only thing I can't do now is close a few A-class reviews, which only cost a few minutes a week anyway. I don't tally the contest votes because I'm competing obviously. I'm not sure how many people would be put off writing A/FA class articles if they consider it to be an endorsement of a coordinator to be a "fingerwagging headmaster" (MOS) but its good to stay on the safe side. They might think "If that's how MILHIST is run I don't want to be a part of it". If I want to change something I can do my own thing, but I think staying away and not feeling pressured about helping to spruce up the FACs and FARCs will rejuvenate me. Which involves fixing up MOS and then harping to people about getting into good habits about MOS and why it's important for FAs... and why it's important because MILHIST likes to keep its quality tradition up. I'll continue to do these MOS things without proselytising about it of course, which I'm probably less inclined to do without. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fair to say that it is a beauty contest, after all, everyone who got elected has written lots of A/FAs and nobody did publicity stunts, which unfortunately is the staple diet of getting political job promotions in other parts of Wikipedia which is a credit to this wikiproject. The members of this WikiProject are good at working out who is useful and who is freeloading. I can think of a lot of serious article writers, predominantly oldtimers, who have criticised Sandy and the modern FA system, and said that they would boycott it. I don't mind whatever the system is, but I don't want MILHIST people to boycott MHR-A/FA. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator vacancy

With YellowMonkey's resignation, we are now one coordinator short. The next candidate is Bedford, with nine votes, to whom – unless anyone objects – I propose offering the role. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, 31 votes between them means quite much. I suggest we reconsider this and make a decision after we discuss the issue all eight of us. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see an alternative. If he was the runner-up, then I would say that he would be the fair next choice. There was a 20 vote difference between Roger Davies and myself, if that counts for anything. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already enigineered an alternative: Kirill was elected the coordinator Emeritus; therefore Kirill+Corridintors+LC=9. Of course, math was never my strong point, so I bend with consensus. We need to discuss this with the community; I think asking the members if they would allow coordinators to exercise executive power with regard to filling vacancies would help solve the problem by allowing us to act independently of the coordinator elections. In this manner would could issue a comission for a coordinator that expires after the next election.
As for Bedford: If its decided that we really need another coordinator then I would be happy to have bedford in becuase bedford is good with T&A related matters, I am understandably concerned though given the 31 vote difference.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Kirill can step in to fulfill the full role until the next cycle of elections. I have concerns about taking the next runner-up when there is such a gap in the vote count. Let me qualify this: In the February 2008 elections I had 22 votes (the runner-up), while Woody had 31. This is about the amount I'd be comfortable with for an executive decision to promote a fill-in replacement. The situation was much more clearer back in August 2007 when Woody had 14 (and wasn't selected) while Roger had 15 (and was). In this situation, Beford has 9 votes, while Catalan has 30. That gap is just too great for me to be comfortable with it (and from the vote count it would seem that at least a good number of our members who voted would as well). -MBK004 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Kirill's role is the same as any other coordinator, then I agree that perhaps he should just fill the ninth spot. OTOH, if his role was not supposed to be the same (he was looking at spending less time than a normal coordinator with the project) then I think we would need another ninth coordinator. I should note that had I not ran for coordinator, then Bedford would have been the ninth coordinator, regardless of the amount of votes he received (assuming everyone else who ran was the same). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical matter, I have no problems with filling in to a certain extent—the number of coordinators is somewhat arbitrary anyways, so there isn't necessarily nine full positions that need to be filled—but I was not intending to be a full-time coordinator (and, given my other obligations, almost certainly won't be able to devote that level of attention to it); so going ahead and filling the empty slot may make sense regardless, especially if major initiatives that will require a lot of participation are on the table (as they currently appear to be). Kirill (prof) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) The vote difference is a red herring and I shouldn't have mentioned it. The election system works on a "first nine past the post" basis (unless there's a tie for the ninth place) and if a gap is created in the nine everyone below it moves up a step. The only difference here is that an editor dropped out just after, rather than just before, the election ending. Bedford has worked extremely hard for the project in the past and has a proven track record for getting on with the job. The consensus seems to be in favour of offering him the job. Can everyone live with this? --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me - Bedford was the 10th placed candidate. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be known that I am reluctant to elect Bedford. I don't see him as having the backing of our members given the turnout in the election and the number of votes for Bedford, especially given his recent issues. That said, I don't see any other option, we could leave it blank but then we would be a coord down with a hole in the taskforce coords. So, I see no other option but to do ask Bedford. Woody (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken entirely but if YM has dropped out 24 hours earlier, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, in the event that Bedford declines, I do not propose going further down the list. The rules, such as they are, say only that the "number of Coordinators may be increased if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position". An alternative would be to ask past coordinators (perhaps Wandalstouring and Kyriakos) to help out when we're hard-pressed. They have both said they will do this. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Woody on the backing of Bedford by our members. I would much prefer and support the co-opting of either Wandalstouring or Kyriakos to fill-in instead. -MBK004 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have a short re-election period, for one position? It's not orthodox, but I don't think it would be terribly horrible to set up. If we're talking about the support of our members and what not, then this would be the only real democratic method of doing it—asking old coordinators to take the position is more "undemocratic" than giving the position to Bedford—a position that would have been his had YM dropped out a day earlier, or had only 8 of us ran instead of 9. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That had occurred to me but what do we say? That we wish to hold with a second election because we don't like the way the rules applied to the first and that effectively we wish to veto a candidate? --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, and the rules of the vote were rather clear—the top nine candidates (regardless of the numbers of votes). But, with the majority of the coordinators preferring to have someone who has more backing perhaps we need to reach a compromise. Another problem with a new election, that I see, is that most of the current coordinators will throw their support behind one of the candidates, thereby making the election rather pointless (Bedford would probably receive the greatest amount of votes again, except if someone new runs). JonCatalán(Talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with a second election is that unless it is given similar prominence to the first (pan-project banners, bot notifications etc) we may well find ourselves fielding a host of complaints after the event from people saying that they would have voted if they'd known about it and contesting the result. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prioritising main issues

The following seem to be the main issues affecting the project. It might be help if we prioritise them, and decide what form they should take? Easiest is probably to add comments under each section: we can add headings if it gets unwieldy.--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W0.7 review (urgent)

While the review is completed, we have a way to go with the articles themselves and little time to do it in. I proposed a route forward above (see [#Replacements] for full rationale) but the outcome was inclusive. The problem is we have about 400 candidates for replacements. The basic idea is:

  1. Consolidate the worklists into 100-article checklists
  2. Give the list a second pass, reducing the number of replacements to a minimum (using a "can we live with this?" criterion).
  3. Classify them by four criteria: "KEEP", "USE LINK", "IMPROVE (reason)", "REPLACE/DELETE".
  4. No further action on "KEEP"
  5. Post links to W0.7 page for the "USE LINK" articles
  6. Post messages on article talk pages requesting improvement. (This is likely to have limited success.)
  7. Find replacements for "REPLACE/DELETE". If unsuccessful, recommend deletion.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there has been no response at all to this. --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like aplan. I refrained from commenting not so much because I had no comment, but becuase my schoolwork isn't allowing musch time to help out with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same with me. I couldn't even help out with the drive because of Hurricane Ike and four exams that I just finished yesterday. -MBK004 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. So who do we get to do it? Or should we leave it to peter out? --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to adress this. Do we have time frame for phase two? I could help over the weekend, although it wouldn't nessicarily be all that much every little bit helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good man, Star! We've got to get the whole thing done and dusted by Oct 20. Setting up the checklists isn't too bad (I can do that). Working through them per the above will take an hour or so each, I guess. The ideal is each coordinator taking one or two (it gives a great understanding of the state of the union). --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, I'm no longer in office, but I can help except next week(Mo-Fr) when I'm out there collecting pollen. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gratefully accepted, WT. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W1.0

We might like to start thinking about sharpening for the W1.0 release, which is scheduled for next year. It is likely, for instance, that the current articles selected for W0.7 will be selected. One possibility is setting up a specific task force to manage and coordinate the large number of articles involved. Wandalstouring has suggested a way forward:

Improving the popular core tagged by 1.0 should be the next task to face with a large drive. There are usually plenty of sources listed on the articles, it only needs footnotes. We can handle that although it's the biggest task we yet faced. The problems are that tagging on the talk pages is useless and long lists deter volunteers. I suggest therefore to combine several methods and make small lists.
  • First we split things up according to topics. We can do that with a level of time and below one of geography/political units for battles, wars and personnel.
  • What is tagged by the general topics task forces can be structured according to time and on a sublevel further specifications(haubitzer, rifle, etc.).
If topics overlap we need to draw a line what goes into which way of categorization. I can't yet cover all cases.
Afterwards we split these up into small worklists of 5-10 articles(not every worklist has equal length). An editor can sign up for these worklists and we can try to recruit taskforce members (and contacts while we're at it) who already have an interest into the topic. Their task is to footnote these articles using at least the listed bibliography on the topic. They are free to improve the articles, but only B-class is required because that's the level we can live with. Anything below that is a pain in the ass.Wandalstouring (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be in our best interest to hold a "release version drive" wherein all articles having tags for 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 are checked against all criteria, and when needed worked to to gain and maintain a B-class rating. If we were to set up a system whereby our articles within 1.0's scope are those that revieve the most attention in the monthes leading up to the release we can positions ourselves to be ahead of the pack when the 1.0 team picks its article by ensuring all our articles genuinly represent the best wikipedia has to offer. In this resepct we have a platnum oppurtunity: if our articles are all B-class or higher when 1.0 selects them we can further the image of our project being wikipedia's flagship project by extended the reputation of Milhist to offline frontiers. It may encourage people to look more favorably upon us and wikipedia in the long. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.0 tagging has already started. I don't know if they are yet finished, but think so. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Task forces

Various matters here:

  1. Can two coordinators handle busy TFs. (TBH, in my view, yes.)
  2. Should we consolidate existing dormant task forces? (This is one way of tackling "orphan countries", like Ireland, that fit into no specialist TF.)
  3. What can we do to invigorate the TFs?
  4. Do TFs need the support of Contacts as well?
  5. Could/should contacts improve our TF support?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe two coordinators can run task forces—tbh, our task forces are not necessarily that active (even the larger ones). There is only a small core of active members which partake in article writing and review. I think the best method of creating activity in the task force is to award people for their good work. For example, after I made the "tank badge" discussion immediately picked up in the task force, because it offers motivation for people to work. Perhaps a more general award should be introduced for people who have worked well for their task force, and it would be awarded through a vote open to that task force's membership and the coordinators? In this fashion, I believe, we will highlight the members who are truly interested in investing time and energy into WP MILHIST and the task force they belong to—and we will provoke motivation. In regards to contacts, I think that they should be maintained separate from TFCs because not all TFCs are knowledgeable in the TF they run—or their might be a non-coordinator member who is just as knowledgeable. But, we should specify contacts for each active task force, as opposed to the wikiproject as a whole. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, think the key is motivating/bringing on new editors. This is easiest at TF level because most people focus on one or two aspects of Milhist rather the subject in large. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would like to propose something radical: a complete reorganization of the way we introduce, run, and maintain or task forces. I figure now is as good a time as any to bring this up. This reorganization would happen in three phases:

Phase 1: Georgraphical task forces. We have a lot of task forces for countries, but I think we would do better to create Eight master geogrpahical task forces: North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, Australia/Oceania, and Antartica. From here, we reorganize our geo task forces into these groups and suspend the creation of any new geographic task forces. This would allow us to mothball inactivated task forces ealing with regions on the earth while still maintaining task forces for them.
Phase 2: Establishing task forces. There will always be a need for new task forces since our project encompasses what may be the worlds largest collection of R&D related labs and such, but I think from now on we should encourage potential task forces and thier supporters to establish a work group for a trial run (something like 60-90 days) to see if the members will buy into the group and give the members of the group a chance to show that they can be effective within the project as thier own task force. If at the end of the trial period the group is still functional, has demostrated a committement to maintaining articles, and has gained community acceptance (like other members agree that the group would be a welcome addition to the project) then we can create a full blown task force for the work group, otherwise the group can disband and be reobsorbed into thier parent task force. This owuld spare us the work of having to update the template and create the task force pages and such by allowing us a chance to see whether the potential task force will grow or be doa.
Phase 3. Introduce the concept of work groups. I see a need for something to exist between individual editers and the task forces. A few people will always share a common goal or thrust and it would be good for us to promote this across the project. I therefore think we should embrace the idea of work groups, informal gatherings of editers who share a common interest or goal, and advertise such groups as subsets of task forces. By doing this we can further invigorate the task forces by allowing them a chance to demostrate to potential new members that they can handle more spcialized intersts (like collecting editers who share a common love of tanks, or sniper rifles or such) and as such our task forces can be used as a way of promoting our project to the rest of the wikipedia. In this manner, we could further extend OpRTF by enouraging editer participation in the task forces.

These are of course only ideas, but I am intersted in here what others think. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my intrusion. I would suppose TomStar81's proposal. Rationalisation is long overdue, and 'master' TFs for each region are a good idea. My only worries would be the massive back-end task involved (re-task-forcing 60,000 articles, anyone?) and other systems admin worries which Kirill would be much better to talk to. Regards to all. Buckshot06(prof) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with TomStar81's proposal is that generalizing task forces may cause a drop in interest. For example, the military land vehicle task force can easily be rolled into the weaponry task force, but it's far easier to organize the MLVTF by itself and cause a drive in improvement over relevant articles—something which wouldn't have happened had the task force not been created. A European task force, for example, would encompass tens of thousands of articles and it would make it much more difficult for an innovative editor to take the lead and organize the task force's membership in such a way that activity and progress in article improvement would spike. I think that the creation of a motivational factor is much more important, at this stage, than reorganizing the task forces—a reorganization which would not necessarily increase activity (just the illusion of activity). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I brought up the work groups. I am not proposing that we discontinue the use of our current geographical task forces, I am proposing that we freeze the creation of additional geogrpahical task forces. As to you comment about rolling task forces into each other: thats why i suggested work groups. To use your own example: If we had begun the land vehicals task force as a work group and you guys showed there was protential in creating a MLVTF then we can green light the creation of such a task force, but if it failed then we could simply maintain it with the weaponry task force without the need to mark a bunch of pages as historical. The idea is have potential TFs demonstrate that they are not just a "spur of the moment" thing but can in fact wehter the test of time. This system would also allow for the creation of additional geogrpahical task forces if interest is shown via a workgroup first. For example: if someone proposed creating a Irish military history task force then they would be asked to create a work group on the master European task force page and un the work group effectively for 90 days (ballpark figure). If at the end of that time period the work group demonstrates to the community that it can stand independently then it can be established as its own independent task force, with the parent being a EurTF. If the work group fails to demonstrate that it can stand on its own then it can be reobserbed by the EurTF since the TF pages were never created. Remember, these TFs are formed by consensus, and consensus can change, so this allows for the possibility of the creation of a Irish task force at a latter date. In addition, if the TF idea for Irish MHTF fails to materialize they members can opt to maintain the workgroup as a subdepartment of the European TF. I think it would be a net gain for the project as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your Phase I proposal suggests that current geographical task forces be reorganized into greater geographical task forces, based on continents. That's what I was commenting against. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? (Not asking to be bother, just to get a better idea of where you and others may stand. :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the "greater task force" (let's say "European Military History") exists simultaneously with the "sub task forces" (let's say "Spanish Military History"), then I believe that the European Military History Task Force is redundant and is just adding extra bureaucracy. I think that inactive task force pages can be archived, to avoid having to recreate them in the future, and the task force canceled—but, I don't see the point of then rolling them into a "greater task force", because that task force will be just as inactive as the task force it just consumed. All activity will be in the "sub task forces", where the activity was originally, because it allows users to focus. There's no guarantee, in other words, that active users in the "Spanish Military History Task Force" will be just as active in the "European Military History Task Force"—just the illusion that they are, since the task forces overlap in domain. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally there wouldn't be any sub task forces, just a failsafe task force that could be looked upon to provide an alternative to a task force that is, or will be, mothballed. I concede a point with regard to beuracracy, but in my minds eye I do not see a master TF (European TF) competing with a more specific TF (Spanish TF), the idea would be to have all nations represented under at least one TF and those with the backbone and legs required to stand and walk on thier own would be granted the chance to do so as independent task forces. Thanks for commenting, BTW, its always nice to get other people's opinions on such matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One issue that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the role of task forces—even inactive ones—in maintaining project cohesion. One of the main reasons why so many task forces were created (particularly national ones) was to prevent the editors interested in those topics from forming separatist WikiProjects which, even if not particularly active, would be quite detrimental to both our attempts to standardize at the article level and to our general functioning as a single project (compare WP:USRD with their seceding task forces and such). I'm not sure, to be quite honest, whether this remains an issue of substantial concern; but I think that we do need to step carefully to avoid creating such a cluster of subsidiary projects, which will be much more difficult to absorb in the future if they come into being due to confrontational circumstances.
Aside from that, I can see the benefits of continent-level task forces as organizational tools, but not so much as editor groups; if there aren't enough editors working on country X to sustain a task force, then merely clustering those editors into a larger group won't really change that. Editors working on Ireland and editors working on Hungary won't suddenly start collaborating on some common topic merely because we lump them into a single task force, since the topics don't really intersect regardless. Kirill (prof) 21:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging & Assessing

Various options here:

  1. Should we hold any drives until some of the more fuindemental quality issues are addressed?
  2. What should be the focus of our next drive? When should it be?
  3. Should we aim at finding B-Class articles, hidden in Start but as yet unassessed by class? (15,000 articles?)
  4. Should we re-check B-Class? (3,000-ish articles)
  5. Should we aim to tag all outstanding articles that have no TF (6,000 articles).
--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the rate of success of the last drive? I think we should recheck our B-class articles, because a lot of them are not B-class articles. I also think that there is a misconception (telling from the WP MILHIST writing contest) that B-class articles are close in quality to GA-class articles, when I don't think this is true. We are promoting articles with one or two citations to B-class, because we believe this covers the requirement for references. Either these articles should go back to Start class or there should be an important distinction between B-class and GA-class. In any case, I for one would support a new tag and assess drive. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The response rate to drives has been progressively falling off. The first one, perhaps because of its novelty, attracted many very experienced editors. The later ones markedly less experienced, typically looking to find out how the project worked and wanting to get stuck in. There's a real risk of getting important work done by people who aren't experienced enough for it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not run them all at the same time? When we have our next T&A drive, why not mutlitask it to include a BCAD, stub drive, fair use image check drive, etc? We could potential bring in dozens of people who may not otherwise show any interst in it if we try to do it all at once. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that experienced editors aren't participating because they've been there, done that. The problem with multi-function drives is the huge potential for confusion, especially with inexperienced editors. Other than that, I have no real desire to spend my entire life here setting up and running drives (which are a massive time sink) and would like to see considerably more input from other coordinators on any future ones. Perhaps, as a rule of thumb, coordinators proposing ideas should be the ones to implement them? --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps run a big drive once every 9-12 monthes then? It may be good for diversity. Also, I am concerned that if you implement a policy wherein a coordinator suggesting a policy has to implement it I may stop suggesting ideas since my techno savvy is only in the mid range :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Chuckle] I said "rule of thumb" not "policy" :) Manpower is a serious issue though. Let's run through it. We have eight coordinators. Woody is busy in RL; Nick is on holiday until end October; you, MBK and Cam have heavy study commitments. That leaves Eurocopter, JonCatalan and me (and I've no idea how the other two are placed). --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR/FARC

  1. Should we set aside resources specifically to rescue articles?
  2. Is this good use of editor time?
  3. Are there other priorities?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the questions too well. If the editor is interested then he or she should definitely rescue the article. I don't understand the difference between someone working on an article and taking it through FAC, and rescuing an article going through FAR. Perhaps we should motivate these editors with some type of award, since they are not awarded credit for helping the article get to FA unless they specifically as for it (something not every editor is willing to do). And, the upkeep of the quality of our WP's articles is of utmost priority, IMO. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a needed part of the project, but for more input here I think we may need to bring in FAR(C) trolls to get a better idea of where we are weak. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are weak in reviewing, in general. We have four (I believe) FARs opened, and yet none have really received any dedicated responses from major project members. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I think FARs tend to be a waste of effort unless the article's primary maintainers (if any) are involved. We're not going to be able to bring a random article up to FA level without input from someone specializing in the topic; and, since the range we cover is so large, the odds of finding someone like that who's not already involved with the article are quite small. Kirill (prof) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we can get the commentary to delist it, which is just as important. Without the star, it will give future editors motivation to get it back to FA standards. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Kirill on this. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure my point is not missed; my belief is that by partaking in the review by voting to delist the article we will in turn motivate an editor (or several editors) to take it back to FA at a later date. Right now there may be no motivation, because like it or not humans are greedy. The fact that it's currently FA means that someone who rewrites it while it's FA gets little to no credit (is not added to the FA nominations list), while if it's delisted then that editor will get the credit. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you've clarified that because you make a very good point, which I completely accept. To clarify my position, I think that backs-to-the-wall rescue attempts, by hitherto uninvolved editors, are a very poor return on time invested. --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACR quality

For whatever reason, our ACR is out of sync with FAC. The major problems include MoS issues and sources. The ACR process could be tweaked to up standards. Options include:

  1. Increase the reviewer minimum for a pass from three to four.
  2. Introduce a five-point checklist (based on the criteria) which each reviewer must certify.
  3. The closing coordinator is required to discount any one-line "supports". Reviewers would be expected to suggest improvement for every article they review. I have yet to see an ACR (or FAC, for that matter) candidate that really does "meet all the criteria".
--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to include the table with three links that is included in all the FACs, in our ACRs? That would help us fix early issues of dead links, disambiguation pages and whatnot. A point system may be more direct and easier for a general reviewer to comment, and it may "force" some reviewers to make a more in depth review of the article in question. OTOH, some reviewers just don't have much to say—not all reviewers, for example, are good when dealing with prose. Manual of Style is important, but I don't think we should focus on that. The power of the MILHIST A-class review is that the article is being reviewed by "historians", and so we can check the factual accuracy of an article, while on FAC this isn't true. I think we should focus on the accuracy of the information in our articles before they go to FAC, which is a more difficult process, but focuses on entirely different parameters. We can also comment on Manual of Style, but these are generally easy changes and I don't think we should prioritize MoS over factual accuracy. Besides, if we force reviewers to make in depth reviews when they originally couldn't, then we are supporting "bsing"—just to make the review—and we will slow down the process considerably. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's easy enough. I was thinking along the same lines, adding the criteria/FAQ. I take your point entirely about accuracy but it's not that easy finding genuine experts. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have to agree with Catalan on most of this. MoS issues, unlike glaring difficulties in prose, are relatively easy to fix. replacing a hyphen with an endash doesn't take a lot of brain power and writing ability. Prose and sources, on the other hand, do. Our ACRs, therefore, should focus more on those two aspects. Lately, we have several editors who have become more involved in commenting on MoS issues, while glaring issues in prose and verifiability continue to stand out. We're wasting editor resources on MoS. Cam (Chat) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that we should indeed change some things in the A-class review process, but I'd not quite agree with Roger's proposals. Considering the low level of activity within the current process, it would probably take a very long time to gather five supports, while a five-point checklist will increase bureaucracy. Regarding Roger's last point, i've seen many successful A-class reviews after which articles were ready and put under FAC immediately, so I see no reason to adopt it. The major problem of our current A-class review process would be inactivity and lack of constant reviewers (we have one month-old A reviews with a total of four comments - that makes a comment per week). So my proposals to solve this issues are:
  1. Set up a new 10-day deadline for A-class review (with an option to extend it for maximum 4 days) - thus add back the "Attention needed" note to project's template.
  2. Create a rotating system in which three coordinators would be assigned every month, their task would be to participate in that respective month's every A-class review. We should assign reviewer-coordinators for a certain month two months in advance, in order to be clear for everybody when is going to be his turn (this would allow eventual changes in the schedule, if problems caused by holidays/wikibreaks/etc appear). I'm pretty sure that if adopted, this system would solve the major problem of the current A-review process, inactivity.
  3. Also, a closing coordinator should be assigned each month, responsible with archiving every review at the proper time.

Here's an example of how an A-class review process schedule could look like:

Reviewer coordinators Period Closing coordinator
Catalan
Eurocopter
TomStar81 		1 October 2008 - 1 November 2008 Roger Davies
Nick Dowling
Cam
Woody 		2 November 2008 - 1 December 2008 Kirill Lokshin
MBK004
ninth coord.
Roger Davies 		2 December 2008 - 1 January 2009 Eurocopter

--Eurocopter (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that this, in general, is a good idea, I don't agree that we should maximize the amount of days an A-class review can be open. By doing so we are limiting the amount of commentary. The fact of the matter is that not everyone may have time to review within those ten to fourteen days. Time span between comments will be a reality and it's something that the "author" should be ready to experience when he or she takes the article through a FAC. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Must it be a coordinator who is reviewing for a month? We could try to recruit other capable editors and thus reduce the workload per editor. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should inspire editors to review by offering them motivation in the form of awards—the reviewers award is good, but perhaps we should begin to also give out the WikiChevrons to offer a break in the monotony of the type of awards given out; otherwise, the motivational factor of the award will decrease over time. Perhaps that A-class award should also be extended to those that make particularly good reviews? JonCatalán(Talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo Waldalstouring's question. There are some quite capable non-coordinators who could fulfill this role as well. Also, if we are going to use the table that Eurocopter has proposed, we should also take note of when they are available when making the assignments (myself for instance couldn't take on the role during the proposed slot I'm in now due to final exams at university). -MBK004 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That type of "hard" schedule will always result in someone having something unexpected come up, messing with the schedule—and we have effectively cut off motivation and necessity for non-coordinators or non-listed reviewers to partake in the review process. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I try to participate in as many A-class reviews and peer-reviews as possible, but I generally avoid commenting on articles on topics I don't know anything about as this seems unfair to the editor who's nominated the article. As such, while having dedicated reviewers is a good idea in theory, in practice it may discourage editors. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to get the FAC external link checker into an ACR page? it would help with source verification. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can apply the template to our ACRs, although I'm not sure how to do this automatically. The template is at Wikipedia:Featured article tools. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to set up the A-Class review page such that it pre-loads template content when it's first created; but I'm not sure of any good way to prevent people from inadvertently deleting it when they fill out the nominations. It could still be better than nothing, though. Kirill (prof) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MBK004, the table above is just an example, nothing definite. The reason that I propose only coordinators within this schedule is responsability (I really think that if we establish a convenient schedule for each of us, we would fulfil this task accordingly). We can proceed in a similar way with the task force coordinating, each coordinator would add his name to the convenient period for him. Any support in order to move forward with it (points two and three)? --Eurocopter (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying. Personally, I'm all for point #2, but I think that #3 isn't needed. Any coordinator who hasn't commented on a review ought to be able to close it. -MBK004 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with MBK004 in that it shouldn't be limited to coordinators. Many of us, with our own article writing, logistics, assessment, and general project management, have enough on our wikiplates as it is. The project shouldn't have to rely on us to run article review, article assessment, and article logistics all on our own. At the end of the day, we can't be the only ones. As an example, if I'm the only one commenting on an ACR, I guarantee there will be some numerous and glaring MoS issues remaining (particularly with those bloody dashes;) when the review is complete. Cam (Chat) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With that in mind, I'm wondering if we could link article logistics and A-Class review together somehow? We don't have to search high and low to find copyeditors..they're all listed at logistics. We shouldn't have to search high and low to verify content..we have ready access to significant resources listed at logistics. Perhaps we need to have slightly more collaboration between departments in order to solve this problem. Cam (Chat) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Applying this system would not mean that non-coordinator reviewers won't participate in the A-class reviews anymore. This will only guarantee to us that we have three inputs within every A-class review (even within the ones with mininum interest and activity), in order to conclude it in a reasonable time. I really think this can't damage to the process and if nobody opposes it, we should apply it as soon as possible, considering also that we have several 2-week+ old A-class reviews with insufficient inputs. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That time scale is something they should get used to as they approach FAC. A true solution would be motivating all editors to review by distributing different awards. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the experience I have with this process tells me that such measures won't work, and we need to establish somebody which would have guaranteed inputs and make sure that all proceedings run accordingly. However, i'm not going to insist anymore on this as I notice the lack of interest in my proposal. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ACR process works, it's just that it's a long process because reviewers come over time. Before trying to solve the "problem", we need to look at why these problems exist in the first place. These include because there is a lack of motivation and interest in reviewing (which offering a prize would then instill the motivation required), and because the ACR is not very well advertised (adding open ACRs in the monthly bulletin would probably help). By forcing coordinators to partake in the review, to "guarantee" comments, isn't going to help. Furthermore, it will perpetuate the likelyness of that coordinator voting in support just to get the review over with. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, our problem is inactivity, caused by lack of interest in the process and i'm pretty sure this won't be solved by giving a couple of barnstars. That's the reason I proposed an organized system, in which assigned persons would have certain responsabilities in the process (similar to FAC and FAR). --Eurocopter (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC does not have assigned editors reviewing articles. There are editors who have taken it upon themselves, and volunteered, to check certain things. These editors are not an "important" part in supporting the article, either. They normally check links, sources and MoS, while other (more random) editors normally throw in supports. I am not proposing a "couple" of barnstars, but issuing a large number of barnstars, continuously. Even making new barnstars to break the monotony in old barnstars. This will give the idea that this person is becoming an important part of the process, and this is an important feeling for any editor (and why most editors continue to work with Wikipedia). JonCatalán(Talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAC and FAR have assigned persons which manage them properly. They do not need assigned reviewers because they are not confronting with inactivity problems. Everything we do here on wikipedia is voluntary, and once we candidate for a coordinator position, it means we agree with the open tasks mentioned at the top of this page. So if this schedule would become a coordinator task, then we should voluntary add our names into it and fulfil the task. Also, I did not propose this just to gather three supports, I proposed it in order to get three proper inputs from persons which, by the way, are certainly familiar with the process and A-criteria. You can play with your barnstars as long as you want, but that still won't guarantee that we have sufficient input in every review. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAC and FAR do not have assigned reviewers, which is what we're talking about right now—talking about anything else would just be a red herring. We do have assigned personnel to close reviews, like the FAC process—they are called coordinators. The problem by choosing three coordinators to review an article is that these coordinators will feel pressured to review it, even if they don't want to—thereby, you are setting up a perfect situation for bad reviews. Motivating reviewers to make good reviews is by far a better option than putting pressure on people who "volunteered" to review every single ACR for that month, and almost closing off the potential for other reviewers to make reviews as well (since, theoretically, we now have "dedicated" reviewers). JonCatalán(Talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are just insisting on this idea, that if we have 3 assigned reviewer coordinators it means other editors cannot participate anymore in the process. That is completely false, as those inputs besides assigned coordinators would not influence at all the other editors. I see no reason why a coordinator should feel so pressured as we never have more than 10-15 reviews a month (that means a review within 2-3 days). I wish you good luck with your "motivation" strategy, I just can't wait to see your achievements. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for hostility or sarcasm. In any case, the problem is that we are pressuring the coordinators to partake in the review because they have been assigned to review for that month, according to your table. So, obviously there is pressure. I may not want to comment on every ACR, because I don't believe that I can pass good judgment. But, if there are three assigned coordinators to review per month it will send a message that there is less of a necessity for extraneous reviewers to review the article in question. That's what I'm saying, and what seems to be missed. Regardless, if any given coordinator is really interested in reviewing then he or she can do it whenever she feels like it, so that means that the table is irrelevant. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I should mention that the current system is that coordinators who participate in a review do not close it (for COI reasons). Whether we want to stay with this or not is another matter. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about leaving it to the coordinator's judgement? Without the time limit there is no reason for a coordinator to vote in support and then close, anymore, and so we might not have the same issue. IMO, it would shorten the time an A-class review is up, since sometimes they are up for weeks at a time, even when they have enough supports to be closed. For example, I closed one the other day that I had supported, but there were four votes of support, and so since there were three without mine I felt I could close it—I felt I could close it regardless, since I thought my vote was genuine. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have to establish if the A-class review process is working from now on by rules or by personal "feelings". --Eurocopter (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally against this simply because I believe the more eyes the better. I also think an uninvolved coordinator is likely to come to the article with fewer preconceptions and is therefore less likely to rubberstamp it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that voting in support and then closing is suspicious, but we were voted coordinators for a reason (people trust us). I voted in support of the article I closed a couple of weeks before I closed it, not just to close it. If we have a policy against supporting just to close, and the fact that there is no more time limit, then there shouldn't be an issue. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the point remains that some COIs can become particularly significant. I agree with Eurocopter on the idea of having assigned coordinators who close ACRs for given months. That said, I don't think that pressuring non-coordinators into commenting on reviews is a particularly dire issue. If we look at the Review statistics from the last three-month section, only one of the top three ACR reviewers (Eurocopter) was a coordinator. BorgSphere & Cla68 were the 1st and 3rd most significant contributors to the ACR process. We had three other non-coordinator reviewers with at least 4 reviews during that segment, twelve with at least two (and even that number has gone up in the last month alone), so I don't think the number of ACR reviewers is too much of an issue.Cam (Chat) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, since the closing coordinator and the "assigned reviewers" in Eurocopter's system are never the same, the three who are required to review would still be able to input significant comment (and just because I'm not on the list for October doesn't mean I won't be contributing to ACRs). On our own, the coordinators are capable of providing a significant amount of feedback, so the issue of other reviewers isn't as significant as it might seem at first glance. Cam (Chat) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Members list

This came up before the election but the active members list is ripe for pruning. A quick look through revealed that many participants hadn't edited for three months, our usual trigger for moving to inactive. The TF lists will also need looking at as otherwise they'll be out of sync. There was a talk of finding a bot to do this as it's a tedious and thankless task done manually. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill said he had some scripts somewhere that he has looking into dusting off for the job, has he had any luck with that yet? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the scripts for it, but haven't had an opportunity to set them up and run them yet. Hopefully I'll have time this weekend. Kirill (prof) 12:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else?

This is bound to be far from exhaustive. Are there any other majorish matters I've overlooked? --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to establish a system to replace/remove coordinators who are inactive, resigned, on extended break, and so forth. This comes nder the larger heading of executive power, so we would need community apporval for anything, but the fact that our last two coordinator elections have left us one coordinator short has IMO demonstrated a need for such actions. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have cooption, which works well enough. I'm against any process to remove coordinators: the term is only six months and coordination is (or should be) no big deal. If someone is seriously abusing their position (closing reviews in favour of mates, for instance), we can always revert or restart. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I'm the only coordinator to have ever been subject to a removal motion (albeit one which lasted only a few hours before being thrown out of court), and the experience convinced me that we don't need a formal process to get rid of coordinators. Given that there's not much coordinators can do wrong in their official capacity and its only a 6-month position anyway, adding a removal process would be a form of guideline creep which would probably only be used by disruptive editors. In the unlikely event that a coordinator ever goes off the rails they're probably going to end up being blocked for their behavior anyway. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to clarify something: when I said remove, I was thinking about LordAmeth and his long wikibreak, which I felt may have justified a remove and replace. Things like exercising the right to vanish or being banned, stuff that is outside of the project that effects a user's ability to operate in cooridator capacity, thats what I mean by "remove". I am not talking about removal based on edits or anything of that nature, if you are here, and you are working, then you are doing what you were elected to do, and to be removed from a position in which you are doing your job becuase one or two people disagree with you is no excuse for coordinator removal. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators&oldid=242619910"