Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 1

message: Bring the requests page back to a usable state, and field article/image/map/cleanup/translation requests there (in addition to having them occur through the task forces, of course).
How do we structure it. Suggestions? Wandalstouring 01:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the top level, we might split it by type of request (e.g. new article, cleanup, image, translation, etc.), sort of like what we have now.  Within those, I'm not sure; it might depend on how many requests there are, and how quickly they move through the page. Kirill Lokshin 01:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried my hand at pulling some things into alphabetical lists, but this may not be the best approach.  In any case, any help with clearing old entries off the page would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request area

message: Our newsletter could do with a tips and tricks section to improve editing. Wandalstouring 15:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could even create a permanent page and just link it from the bottom of the newsletter each time, thus increasing exposure... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; not invassive and still making a showing.--Dryzen 13:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The forthcoming FAC "checklist" could be used for this, maybe? Kirill Lokshin 14:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and pick some questions from the talk page about editing problems, etc. what you encounter and tell how to solve it. Wandalstouring 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsletter

message: In the A class review it was suggested to check the existing articles. Actually we could make a check of high quality labeled articles like featured and A-class by running them for objections a few days from time to time, perhaps in an automized random process. Of course we should not overdo this. What are your suggestions? Wandalstouring 16:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that a random review would have any benefits.  Better, in my opinion, to submit articles that are believed to be deficient for review at the appropriate place instead of wasting time "reviewing" articles that nobody actually has any problems with. Kirill Lokshin 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality control of A-class and featured articles 

message: the image request departement is almost unused and there seems to be no great interest into it. Seems like I am the only one making so much noise about it. Are there any suggestions to change this or should I reevaluate my request area project? Wandalstouring 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaning up the overall requests page might be helpful in terms of making things more readable.  In general, though, you should't assume that any particular portion of the project will have a consistently high level of activity; let it gather steam for a while, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 20:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already cleaned the image requests of responded demands. It seems some requesters have been a bit lazy, they could have easily requested these images from an internet source. Wandalstouring 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people don't know how to request images from a third party, though; that's hardly something to fault them for. Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a listing of image requests to the main open task template; that might help bring some more attention to that area.  It would be great if someone could keep track of those and rotate them as needed, though; unlike requested articles, there's no easy way to tell whether the request has been completed just by looking at the template. Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image requests 

message: I've added "Attention needed" and "Expansion needed" listings to ; help with keeping these regularly rotated would be very appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open task rotation 

message: Just a note that the nascent A-Class review process is very much in need of some attention; it won't work too well if we can't get three people to comment on the nominated articles ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does not work, we have to change the rules. Wandalstouring 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems to be working now. (My comment is more than a month old!) ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You requested more people on Ho Chi Min trail A-class review very recently. Wandalstouring 18:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes.  That's the solution to this issue, really: request more input explicitly if people don't drop by on their own.  What I meant was that, given this approach, we seem to be in a position to guarantee the needed number of reviewers. Kirill Lokshin 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, I closed the last open candidacy this afternoon.  It's happened before, incidentally; now it just sits until somebody else nominates an article. Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review needs attention 

message: do we have any regulations on wartime images like not showing the faces of the fallen soldiers? Wandalstouring 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, not really.  Too many images of fallen soldiers are iconic for such a restriction to be sensible, I think. Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem are actual photos. In Germany for example there is an agreement within the press not to show faces of fallen soldiers on such images for ethical reasons. In the last wars of the US, the dead enemies were also covered or at least their faces, when international press was present (I found neither on English, French or Arabian sites the faces of dead soldiers). I'm no expert on the subject and will try to inform myself. But in case there are widespread agreements, we should consider them as also applying to us. Wandalstouring 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably a distinction to be made between showing pictures of the bodies once they have been collected, and photos of a battlefield scene in situ (where some of the bodies will have faces shown).  For example, the "Harvest of Death" photograph from 1863 is of major historical significance in its own right; not showing it because it includes the faces of the dead soldiers would be doing a disservice to our readers.  Obviously, more recent photography will follow whatever standards are currently used, and we shouldn't go out of our way to pick gruesome images; but earlier photography would often follow different conventions, and I think it would be a mistake to try and apply the current standards of journalism retroactively to it. Kirill Lokshin 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's abide to the generaly accepted ethical conventions of the times when an image was made. Wandalstouring 22:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'dd heard something about this convention on faces, yet cannot remember the specifics. I have the utmost fealing that it did indeed apply to rassembled desceased due to its likeness of trophy shots. But I shouldn't be quoted. Rational should come intoplay, like Kirill Lokshin indicated.--Dryzen 17:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  regulations on wartime images 

message: Wikipedia:Reward board gives rewards for solving specific tasks. It should be a minor problem for us creating something shiny to present on ones userpage as the reward. My intention is to try finding some capable editors in areas we could not cover properly with our members. So it is more like a bait o make contact and recruit good editors. Any suggestions? Wandalstouring 15:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might not be a bad idea in theory, but does the reward board actually get any attention?  I was under the impression that it had been more-or-less abandoned. Kirill Lokshin 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know, but as long as someone uses such a board chances are not zero. Wandalstouring 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reward board heh? We should just have a help needed board not problem cases of people only helping for rewards or peopel already helping getting annoyed at not getting rewards. I think our Project "Medals" (to use the term loosely) was in mind to reward editors with Stars and claps for their aid and sustained efforts.--Dryzen 17:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on. We can vote in public what we want rewarded and with what (For example Bantu military theory and tactics development and the reward is the picture of an Assegai on the userpage + a nice note from us).Wandalstouring 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't even need to make it that complicated.  As the (current) award is open to being given out by anybody, you could just list some requests on the board yourself, without any need for a bureaucratic procedure for "approving" them within the project.  It might be an interesting thing to try, if only to see if anyone still reads the page. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible new source for recruiting 

message: To keep our leader busy ;) 
Does anyone know where I can ask for an improvement of the article redirects? I would suggest that instead of redirecting to whole articles there should also be a way to redirect to chapters within articles. Wandalstouring 12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now!  The developers finally added this a few weeks ago; it's now possibl to redirect to sections using the same syntax as linking to them. :-) Kirill Lokshin 14:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should give Grafikm a note. Wandalstouring 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved redirects 

message: Building on some of the comments in the discussion above, I've come up with a (brief) draft description of what the coordinator positions generally entail; this can both be placed on the coordinator page as background material and used (as discussed above) for the coming elections.  What I've come up with so far: The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth.  There is fairly little here that couldn't be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places, such as the A-Class review, have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group.  The coordinators also have two additional roles.  First, they serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project.  Second, they have a (highly informal) role in leading the drafting of project guidelines and overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use. I'd appreciate it if anyone could look this over and make sure that it makes sense and covers the major points involved.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, any objections? Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since there haven't been any objections, I've copied the above material to the coordinator page. :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Help to solve edit conflicts is an inofficial task derived from the respect for coordinators. We can suggest ways to solve ongoing disputes or help get discussions back to constructive criticism. Wandalstouring 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I'll add that. Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done; does the text seem more-or-less what you had in mind? Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. (Besides I miss the other guys, you always have to call them explicitly. Perhaps we could make a weekly meetup or sth.) Wandalstouring 23:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  A number of them are (expectedly or not) busy outside of Wikipedia, so that wouldn't really be very successful, I think.  (But people do tend to show up when it's really needed, for what it's worth.) Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I lurk, and try to comment just to let ppl know that I'm paying attention and still here and all that (as I'm doing right now)... I try to do what I can in little ways to be more admin/coordinator-like, but I guess it's sort of stealthy. Sorry if you feel you have to call some of us out directly in order to get our attention, but I assure you that (a) I nearly always read or at least skim the relevant discussions even when I don't take part, and (b) I am more than happy to take part and help out in whatever ways I can when you do call me out individually. LordAmeth 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Formalizing this too much might not work out in practice; people's schedules are going to vary, and there's not much we can do.  I do agree that it would be useful to have a more active approach to things, though; something like weekly (monthly?) status updates/discussions on what work is needed would probably be a good thing. Kirill Lokshin 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing coordinator work 

message: Based on some comments from PocklingtonDan, I'm beginning to wonder if it might not be a good idea to have a single consolidated review department for the project, including:
# Peer reviews
# A-Class reviews
# FACs
# FARs
# Other featured content reviews
An extremely rough mockup is here.  The main advantage would be providing a single page that members could watch for new reviews (of all kinds), and allowing easy browsing of MILHIST-related FACs/FARs (which currently isn't available).  
Thoughts? Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect. Wandalstouring 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent mockup, it isntantly brough to mind my strongest point of contention: Size. Gatering all those themes together makes for a very large page. At times will be very manageble while at other it will horendously large, with wich some member's browser will have trouble coping. This gathering also make it easier for one to get lost between subjects. Blurring the lines between types of reviews. That it for the negative. Having everything together will undoubtably bleed over particiaption, where one whould usually only do A-class might dabble in Peer and the such, wich is a good thing considering the number of editors who take the time to review. The capacity to put it on Watchlist will as well enable to ease to follow devellopements within the reviews. As to having all this displayed in one place we already had this with the newsletter, but again with this later one must take the tiem to read day by day and some will perfer to simply have it in the watchlist with the rest fo the important contribution centers.--Dryzen 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The size issue is actually one I had considered.  I'm of the opinion that it's not going to be that big of a deal; the page is only a fraction of the size of one of the central reviews (e.g. WP:FAC itself), and those don't really get any complaints from people unable to load them.  While it is larger than the current separate pages, I doubt it will ever get so large as to be an actual technical problem. Kirill Lokshin 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've created a more coherent mockup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review, and have asked for comments on it here; let's see what people think of this idea. Kirill Lokshin 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidated review page?