Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 6

message: If anyone has a bit of free time, some other opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gheorghe Tătărescu on whether the subject is in-scope for us or not would be very appreciated! Kirill 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion needed on scope question 

message: In anticipation of a future effort to finally clean up the top-level category scheme and all the associated naming problems, I've set up a sandbox of sorts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Category restructuring.  Input would be very welcome; I think it will help significantly with getting something productive done if we can present a halfway-coherent plan to the project, rather than just asking for ideas without any concrete proposal to start from. Kirill 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category restructuring sandbox 

message: Wouldn't it be nice for our project to have a motto? Just a thought.. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fabulous idea. Great thought.--ROGER DAVIES talk 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We should have a motto, but it would proabably be a good idea to keep our distance from any established mttos for current armed forces groups. In this way we can aviod favortism toward any particular nation or armed service group. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a great idea. JUst thinking aloud I have a suggestion, how about They fight, we write. Feel free to disagree. :). Kyriakos (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How about something along the lines of "The pen is mighter than the sword"; since writing is what we do :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Kyriakos (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool, Tom. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad everyone seems to like that; however, (refining my earlier comment a little), how about we go with "Our pens are mighter than swords"; in this manner, we can make it our motto by clarifying which project has the pen (our project, thats who :-). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even "The keyboard is mightier than the katana" or "The mouse is mightier than the mace" :) (Seriously though I prefer the unvarnished original.)--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the original does seem a bit better; we don't want to come up with something too dependent on wordplay. ;-) Kirill 11:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, plus a minor modifcation: "My pen is mightier than my sword" might lead to unfortunate typos :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no problems with adopting it.  (We should run it by the project as a whole before we do, though.) Kirill 11:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both Kyriakos' and Tom's ideas, but I think the one proposed by Kyriakos sounds a bit more like a motto.. Anyway, if we adopt a motto, where should we use/place it? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided it's reasonably short, we could easily stick it in lots of visible internal places (navigation bar, project banner, userboxes, welcome template, newsletter, etc.).  Other than that, I'm not sure. Kirill 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So, any other comments?  If not, we can probably put the idea before the project, together with the two potential mottoes discussed here, and see what sticks. Kirill 02:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one: We ought to be prepared for any other suggested mottos from the project and given them equal consideration, it may be tha someone else has a better idea for a motto than the ones siggested here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problems with that. Kirill 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've started the discussion at WT:MILHIST#Project motto. Kirill 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: According the talk page, the article was copied some time ago from the website on the talk page. I checked the net and found nothing substantial to support the claim, but just to be safe I would like a second opinion from someone higher up the contribution ladder. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last few paragraphs were all copied straight from http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl18-e.htm, as far as I can tell.  I've reverted back to the version before the stuff found its way into the article. Kirill 02:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help Kirill. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyes needed at [[Steyr-Mannlicher M1895]] 

message: Since we now have a contributer with a total of 5000+ articles for our tag and assess drive should we officially announce that the chevrons are to be awarded at the 5,000 mark? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FayssalF has threatened 10,000, by the way. So we may need more than one new award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Epic Barnstar for 10,000, maybe? Kirill 17:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in between 5000 and 10,000? This gets tricky.--ROGER DAVIES talk 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the editers barnstar?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No problems here. Kirill 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevrons @ 5,000? 

message: Any hints about how to deal with an editor who is effectively working on one article and following entirely their own agenda (which doesn't appear to include rigorous WP:NPOV)?--ROGER DAVIES talk 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RFCs—formal or otherwise—are usually the way to go in cases like this. Kirill 18:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kirill. Informal might be a good route forward. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Single article users

message: I am begining to wonder if should have additional contributers look over other contributers lists when the assessment drive to ends to double check and see that all articles that we can tag have been tagged. From the tempo of messages beinig left on the talk page for the assessment drive I get the feeling some pople may be intentionally overlooking article that fall within our scope. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been monitoring them a bit as we go and getting in touch with contributors if things are going wrong. I don't honestly think we will need to scrape around for articles afterwards; it's generating thousands and thousands of new articles, and just keeping track of those tagged will stretch our resources :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Look?

message: Without further ado:
; Project consolidation : The Vikings and Castles WikiProjects have now both been absorbed into the associated task forces.  The only things remaining are the Arab-Israeli conflict WikiProject, which should be getting merged in the near future, and the Scottish Castles WikiProject, which seems so narrow (and active) that I don't really feel like trying to swallow it at the moment.
; Discussions on hold : We have a number of discussions that have wrapped up (for one reason or another) without really producing any practical solution.  We'll presumably need to come back to these at some point; for the time being, to keep track of them:
:# Rank capitalization: see WT:MILHIST#Rank articles: capitalization of title.  This seems reasonably manageable, as we've only failed to move on this issue once.
:# Personnel categories: this has been discussed extensively many, many times.  Apparently there's some movement outside the project to standardize the various "Occupations by country"-type categories; but, regardless of that, we'll still need to deal with this eventually.
:# Top-level categories: this one has been on the table a few times now, with no real resolution beyond the status quo.  I've started up a sandbox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Category restructuring, but the material there may not be what we need.
; Future plans : A couple of things that come to mind:
:# Infobox conversion: this has been piling up for quite some time now, particularly as we've recently upgraded a few infoboxes to cover some missing areas.  Most of the instructions are still missing at this point, though, which limits the usefulness of the page for the casual template converter.
:# Old FAs: do we need any major preparations for this, or should we just put the list up and announce it as a special contest?
:# Vital articles: there's apparently some new contest that's been declared (Wikipedia-wide) offering prizes for improving "core" articles.  It may be useful to go through that list and pick out any military-related articles we could work on; doing well in such a contest would be a good feather in the project's cap, I think.
; Miscellany : I've asked Cbrown1023 to handle the delivery of our newsletter; so, assuming nothing comes up, that should be taken care of for the foreseeable future.
As usual, any and all comments would be very appreciated. Kirill 00:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status report for November 24 

message: I've gone through the various review archives for the past few months, trying to get a list of people that have participated repeatedly:
*  — Awarded 7 December 2007
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
(Some of these are obviously more frequent participants than others, but the list is short even so.)  I'd appreciate it if someone could look over and see whether I've missed anyone.  
Beyond that, if there are no objections, we can make a first award of the review medal to everyone on the list, and announce it on WT:MILHIST.  Hopefully that'll spur some additional participation in the reviews. Kirill 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the fact that I do not see your name anywhere on that list Kirill I say it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, Tom. I've fixed Kirill's modesty oversight, and awarded him the Content Review Medal, making him—appropriately—the first-ever recipient.--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, everyone! Kirill 12:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, awarded to everyone, and announced at WT:MILHIST#Content review awards. Kirill 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential award recipients 

message: I've just been looking at the figures and the drive has slowed right down. (Inevitable really.) At this rate, we'll be lucky to hit 50,000 articles assessed. I was thinking of offering a supplementary cash reward for the most articles assessed 15-30 December. Thoughts on this? And any other ideas? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yep, for the top assessor 15-30 Dec. see WP:REWARD#Money for examples. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it sounds good! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me (although I'm not convinced that it'll really make that much of a difference in the end).  Kirill 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Cash rewards getting "fashionable" these days? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Having thought it over, I agree that it would probably make little difference. Coincidentally, tagging seems to have picked up again. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll wager that to be the result of more students getting into their Christmas Vacation. I know thats the case me :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 13:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess so too. :) I hope some get very bored at home too and do a bit of wikignoming :)) --maroon">ROGER DAVIES</font> talk 14:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have mixed feeling about that; if the other return to tag and asess the work will get done sooner, but if they do not return than that means more lists for me to do (and by extension, more rewards for me to get). Either way I look at it, its win-win :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag & Assess 2007 

message: I've been poking through the pages tagged as class=NA recently, and many of them are lists, OOBs, and other material that should really be rated with the normal assessment scale rather than simply being shuffled off to "non-article" status.  As far as the legitimate contents of that category are concerned, we have actual non-article-space pages (categories, templates, etc.), which are easy to identify automatically; aside from that, we basically have disambiguation pages.
I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to add a distinct class to the template for disambiguation pages to use (allowing them to be categorized separately) and then deprecate class=NA.  We'd then be able to bring all the other "non-article" pages back into the assessment system.  The drawback of this approach is that it would involve sorting through about a thousand pages—the current class=NA ones—to determine whether they were disambiguation pages.
Would this be something worth doing, or is it likely to be too much trouble? Kirill 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be worth while; I know that WP:SHIPS has their template set up to allow editers to plug disambig=yes into the project template to classify the page as a disambigious page. I would also suggest create a "|class=list" parameter so we can classify list pages as such. I would not eliminate the NA parameter; that is as you pointed out useful for the categories and other such pages. Thats my two ceants. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually changed the template to automatically sort pages outside the main namespace into the appropriate non-article categories; there's no longer a need to explicitly mark them as class=NA.  As far as lists go, I was operating under the assumption that our intent was to have them assessed on the regular scale as they move up to FL status.  Is that no longer the case? Kirill 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats still the case. I am still struggling to get my sleep schedual back to normal, and as a result haven't been thinking things through all the way before commenting or replying to them, as would be the case here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment and disambiguation pages 

message: How should we handle duplicate Talk Pages?  That is: an article that has more than 1 Talk page pointing to it.  Talk:Snohomish County Airport and Talk:Paine Field is one example.  I'm new here; I haven't been able to figure this one out. Carl M. Anglesea (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Talk:Snohomish County Airport page is left over from a page move. I'll tag it for deletion. Thanks for mentioning it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: This page explains all about deletion of pages: including what the criteria are and how to go about it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate Talk Pages

message: I've been thinking about our MILHIST template, and I have an idea I wanted to bring up. I was curious if it would be possible to modifiy the template to categorize those pages that no information on their associated task forces. Articles missing information on their task forces are missing out on a valuable resource for improvement, and I think we owe it to our task forces to red light articles with incomplete task force information. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be pretty trivial to tag articles which have no associated task force (I assume that's what you were getting at?), but keep in mind that we don't actually have task forces for every topic, so the category wouldn't necessarily be something that could be cleared by tagging. Kirill 16:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Our Template