Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 34
 | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |  |
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Implementing the new task force structure
Given that the Bugle notice hasn't resulted in any more attention to the proposal, I think we can go ahead and implement the new task force system. I've put together the table below to keep track of what needs to be done; please feel free to pitch in if you have some free time, using the fortifications task force as a model. (Double-checking anything marked as done would also be appreciated; I'm sure that mistakes will be made, and it would be good to catch them sooner rather than later.)
The items marked as "not sure" should probably be left to the end, as they will require some discussion with the other parent project for each task force before we really know what, if anything, we're doing with those. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, we also need to be on the lookout for !votes from stragglers; apparently, some people haven't heard of this until now. The last thing we want, I think, is for the discussion to get flooded with objections halfway through the implementation phase. Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
While I'm in the neighborhood
I'm really struggling to get copyediting done at A-class review. I'm getting nothing at WT:GOCE. In the past, I've swapped favors [to get people to come copyedit for us] and helped train people, but it generally sucks up a lot of time, and then the people wander off. Because there are four times the number of submissions at A-Class Review now as there were in, say, October, I can't get all the copyediting done myself. That leaves several options:
- I can give up. Not my first choice.
- I can limit my time on any one article. I didn't like the results when I tried that in early December; some proceeded merrily on to FAC with articles that probably would have gone down in flames if I hadn't rushed in and finished the copyediting (although you never know, FAC is so fickle). I've now gone back and finished the copyediting for all the A-class articles from early December, so I've covered almost all the articles since the end of September (except for a few that got promoted very quickly). [I meant, I've covered articles submitted up through mid-December, it will take a while to get everything now at ACR.]
- I can adopt the same strategy as at FAC and GAN: I can use the criteria to force the editors to do the work, or oppose (and then whether the article passes or not depends on whether the closer thinks my oppose is actionable; that's not my call). There are a lot of reasons not to make A-Class Review more like FAC ... it would be impossible not to discourage writers and reduce the MILHIST output if we go that route ... but we could probably tighten up a little.
- I could get some help in recruiting competent copyeditors. I'll do my part, including training. Would anyone object if I offer $50 and a barnstar to the most helpful copyeditor at A-Class Review in January? - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if we can get more copyeditors, that would certainly be ideal. I certainly don't think anyone is going to object if you're willing to put up your own money for the project; indeed, we'd all be very grateful.
- More generally, I think we should try and avoid having the oppose-centric FAC atmosphere become too ingrained here. One of the advantages of our ACR process is that it offers people who are unable or unwilling to deal with FAC a chance for high-level article review; we should not lose that aspect of the process if we can help it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Describing FAC as "oppose-centric" is an odd characterisation; if Dank sees problems with an article's prose it should not be solely his responsibility to correct the problems. If he does the work of the nominator they're unlikely to improve. While it's always harder to copy edit your own prose, it is possible to improve. To be honest, the sight of an "oppose" is a lot more motivating than "comments" as you want to change the opposer's opinion. I believe Tony1 (talk · contribs) used to have a similar problem with FAC as he was involved in copy editing a lot of articles, but as the number of nominations grew he had less time for each. As a result he would give examples of what was wrong with the prose, enough to prove his point but not an exhaustive list as that wasn't his responsibility. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps "adversarial" would be better than "oppose-centric". There is a large number of editors—including many who've written FAs in the past—who avoid FAC because they're not willing to go through what they perceive to be an unnecessarily confrontational process; we should try to not exclude those editors from ACR participation, since their actual article output is generally of sufficient quality. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I may, I would suggest that you limit copyediting to one article at ACR per day, moving from the bottom of the list to the top of the list. Adopting this strategy would allow you to:
- Take an approach of getting to the copy editing of articles at ACR more slowly, which should help reduce your workload some since others tend to pick a little at copy editing problems as the review goes on,
- Focus wholly on one article per day so that you do not ending up burning out or worse being so rushed that you miss things,
- Allow you more free time to edit where you want to.
- While I admit that this may seem a little a weird I can personally testify to the merits of this particular method since I myself have used it and while using it I earned a few content review awards for consistently going over articles. It fits with your third option - limiting time in any one article - but since you are working from the oldest to the newest no article should get through ACR without getting copy edited. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Tom. That's roughly the rate I'm going, now, and I'm doing them in order, working from the end of the list. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Dank, I think it should only be your responsibility (such as it is, we don't pay you for this!) to give examples of prose issues at ACR, to limit your time. Also remember that MilHist ACR is particularly about coverage and accuracy, and not generally as tough on prose and style as FAC. I realise you're doing what you are partly to get these articles FAC-ready, and I often find myself treating ACRs (and war-and-military GANs) the same way, however not all ACRs will proceed to FAC (I haven't decided yet whether my current ACR will or not) and, even if they do, you may have to detach a bit and let them "sink or swim". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll make sure I don't burn out, Ian. Speaking of payment, who wants the $50 to hold for January's most helpful A-class copyeditor (other than me, of course)? I can mail or paypal it. I propose that all the coords but me will be eligible to vote on who gets it at the end of January. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Another thing, the instructions say that A-class articles can be promoted after 5 days. If we really want to do that, that's fine with me, I'll adjust, but we almost never do. What's a more reasonable minimum? - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Dank, I think it should only be your responsibility (such as it is, we don't pay you for this!) to give examples of prose issues at ACR, to limit your time. Also remember that MilHist ACR is particularly about coverage and accuracy, and not generally as tough on prose and style as FAC. I realise you're doing what you are partly to get these articles FAC-ready, and I often find myself treating ACRs (and war-and-military GANs) the same way, however not all ACRs will proceed to FAC (I haven't decided yet whether my current ACR will or not) and, even if they do, you may have to detach a bit and let them "sink or swim". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Tom. That's roughly the rate I'm going, now, and I'm doing them in order, working from the end of the list. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I may, I would suggest that you limit copyediting to one article at ACR per day, moving from the bottom of the list to the top of the list. Adopting this strategy would allow you to:
- Perhaps "adversarial" would be better than "oppose-centric". There is a large number of editors—including many who've written FAs in the past—who avoid FAC because they're not willing to go through what they perceive to be an unnecessarily confrontational process; we should try to not exclude those editors from ACR participation, since their actual article output is generally of sufficient quality. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Describing FAC as "oppose-centric" is an odd characterisation; if Dank sees problems with an article's prose it should not be solely his responsibility to correct the problems. If he does the work of the nominator they're unlikely to improve. While it's always harder to copy edit your own prose, it is possible to improve. To be honest, the sight of an "oppose" is a lot more motivating than "comments" as you want to change the opposer's opinion. I believe Tony1 (talk · contribs) used to have a similar problem with FAC as he was involved in copy editing a lot of articles, but as the number of nominations grew he had less time for each. As a result he would give examples of what was wrong with the prose, enough to prove his point but not an exhaustive list as that wasn't his responsibility. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really certain it needs to be changed, as sometimes there will be a clear consensus to promote after five days (although usually there won't be), but if others agree that there is a need to change, I can live with it. Maybe 10 days would be more reasonable? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see a need to change the minimum but, like Rupert, happy to listen to other points of view as it's a while since we last discussed/agreed the limits. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to ask another way: how long should I wait before copyediting? - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I see where you are coming from. Perhaps the solution is for you to take a quick look when the ACR is opened (or in the first five days) and state on the review page whether you think it needs work or not. If it does need work, then the other co-ords know not to close it until you've had a chance to go through it. At the same time this would also mean that you don't feel you have to start work straight away. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can do that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I see where you are coming from. Perhaps the solution is for you to take a quick look when the ACR is opened (or in the first five days) and state on the review page whether you think it needs work or not. If it does need work, then the other co-ords know not to close it until you've had a chance to go through it. At the same time this would also mean that you don't feel you have to start work straight away. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to ask another way: how long should I wait before copyediting? - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, all! I wish everyone a good and prosperous 2011, both on and off Wikipedia.
I have received an email from MBK004, who wishes for us to know that he is now the proud recipient of a Bachelors of Science in Criminal Justice with a minor in History. His prolonged absence has been due to an unexpected technical problem: after five years of faithful service his computer has finally died (oh the irony, considering my tower died in 2010 too), but he wishes to inform you all that he should have anew one soon and will be returning. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Happy New Year to you all! While I didn't have Champagne, I did down several glasses of Guinness before and at midnight. Pass my congratulations on to MBK004! My laptop will likely be on the fritz by about May, at which point the purchase of a new computer will be in order (assuming I land the job I want!). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 08:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
MHotY 2010
Given that it's now 2011 (and the discussion has been archived anyways), should we go ahead and give out the Military historian of the Year awards? Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Given that New Years happened to have fallen over the weekend, I say we wait until Monday to hand out the awards to allow for any last second voting and to make sure that those to be awarded will learn of it promptly. It would be nice for the working people to start the work week of a new year off with an award, don't you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- In that case the thread should be unarchived. Nev1 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was archived for lack of activity in the section, so I'm pretty sure people are done voting. :-) We can wait a day to hand out the award, but I don't really see a need to. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- So are we going ahead with the awards, then? Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have the same question – I need to get it in the newsletter! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we should finalise this now (disclaimer: I think I came third, so my comment could be considered a conflict of interest). I'd be happy to help hand out the awards, but as I am a nominee I think it would probably be best for someone who wasn't nominated to do so. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Shucks, that discounts me, and quite a few others as well. Sounds like a job for... Coordinator Emeriti!!! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, good point AR, I wasn't even thinking of COI. Ian, Kirill does not wear blue/red with crazy strength and a cape. Kirill, I was a nominee too – feel like having out a couple awards? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Shucks, that discounts me, and quite a few others as well. Sounds like a job for... Coordinator Emeriti!!! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we should finalise this now (disclaimer: I think I came third, so my comment could be considered a conflict of interest). I'd be happy to help hand out the awards, but as I am a nominee I think it would probably be best for someone who wasn't nominated to do so. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have the same question – I need to get it in the newsletter! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- So are we going ahead with the awards, then? Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was archived for lack of activity in the section, so I'm pretty sure people are done voting. :-) We can wait a day to hand out the award, but I don't really see a need to. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- In that case the thread should be unarchived. Nev1 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind handing the things out, but I'm probably not going to have time until tomorrow morning. Perhaps Roger will be able to get to it before then; I'm not sure what his schedule is these days.
I assume we're still handing out WikiProject barnstars to all the nominees that don't win one of the gold/silver/bronze wikis? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is my understanding. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
New Year Honours List
Hi, all, I've created my own New Year Honours List and have taken the liberty of handing out some awards to editors that I think have contributed greatly to the project in some way. Of course, the list is not exhaustive, and I hope I have not stood on any toes in handing out these awards, but I thought maybe other co-ordinators might like to do something similar (doesn't need to be formal). It might be a way to boost everyone's morale moving into 2011. Anyway, just a thought. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Noticing what other people do is the most important thing we do. Bravo. - Dank (push to talk) 05:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Were it up to me I award each and every member of our project the teamwork barnstar for helping make our project one of the most successful on Wikipedia. It is one the reasons I didn't vote in the milistorian of the year award pool; how do you single out one editor to stand at the top of the pyramid when said editor would not be there without the various other members working to hold him/her up? IMO, it can not be done, although it is fun to watch and see who is remembered when the nominations come in. By which ever criteria you choose to employ in order to single out the editors who have contributed greatly in some way, remember that sometimes the greatest contributions are those that go unrecognized since they are frequently the edits most taken for granted, and that many who join our project as new members of Wikipedia have yet to receive an award even though they justly deserve one. Keep these two points in mind as take last year in review and I am sure you will find those worthy of recognition ;-) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly, Tom. Indeed as a commander of troops, I always found that it was a constant struggle to not only acknowledge, but to "discover" the contributions of those soldiers that preferred to perform their duties silently but diligently. In compiling my list, I have tried to acknowledge some of our project's silent contributors, although by the nature of their contributions there will always be a large number that go unrecognised. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Were it up to me I award each and every member of our project the teamwork barnstar for helping make our project one of the most successful on Wikipedia. It is one the reasons I didn't vote in the milistorian of the year award pool; how do you single out one editor to stand at the top of the pyramid when said editor would not be there without the various other members working to hold him/her up? IMO, it can not be done, although it is fun to watch and see who is remembered when the nominations come in. By which ever criteria you choose to employ in order to single out the editors who have contributed greatly in some way, remember that sometimes the greatest contributions are those that go unrecognized since they are frequently the edits most taken for granted, and that many who join our project as new members of Wikipedia have yet to receive an award even though they justly deserve one. Keep these two points in mind as take last year in review and I am sure you will find those worthy of recognition ;-) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Content review awards
Hi all, just on the off-chance that we double up, I'm totalling people's contributions to A-Class and Peer Reviews over the last quarter so we can hand out more awards -- will post a table when done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ian. I'll give you a hand with the awards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, totals above... Given it the closest attention I could muster but I'm not infallible -- especially at this time of (new) year -- and if anyone's kept their own score and wants to challenge, feel free... ;-) In that light I'll leave this for a while before handing out the first awards; tks Rupert for your kind offer to assist. BTW, I can't help noticing that, once again, most of the top scorers hail from a certain island continent -- are we super critics, naturally helpful, or simply have nothing better to do, I ask myself...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Once again AR makes the rest of us look like slackers... Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, probably about time to dish some awards out so I'll make a start today and we'll try and have things ready for inclusion in the December 2010 Bugle. The formula is WikiChevrons to those completing 10 or more reviews, Content Review Medal to those with 3-9, two stripes for 2 reviews, and one stripe for 1 review. Award templates are here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- All Chevrons except mine and all CRMs done now, so pls feel free to start on the remainder as discussed, Rupert (if you can take a break from reviewing!)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've awarded Ian's Chevrons and I'll start on the others tonight. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tks mate; now added blurb/table to the December Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for that. I'm doing the awards for 1 review (one stripe) right now. So if you are free and want to do the two stripes, we shouldn't get any edit conflicts. Otherwise, I'll will probably be able to them a bit later also. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I've done all the one and two stripes except one: User:Jo0doe appears to be indef blocked [1]. I am uncertain about how to proceed in these circumstances. Should the award be placed on the talk page? Has anybody got any advice? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say to skip him – if he's indef blocked, he doesn't need any awards ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I've done all the one and two stripes except one: User:Jo0doe appears to be indef blocked [1]. I am uncertain about how to proceed in these circumstances. Should the award be placed on the talk page? Has anybody got any advice? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for that. I'm doing the awards for 1 review (one stripe) right now. So if you are free and want to do the two stripes, we shouldn't get any edit conflicts. Otherwise, I'll will probably be able to them a bit later also. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tks mate; now added blurb/table to the December Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've awarded Ian's Chevrons and I'll start on the others tonight. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- All Chevrons except mine and all CRMs done now, so pls feel free to start on the remainder as discussed, Rupert (if you can take a break from reviewing!)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, probably about time to dish some awards out so I'll make a start today and we'll try and have things ready for inclusion in the December 2010 Bugle. The formula is WikiChevrons to those completing 10 or more reviews, Content Review Medal to those with 3-9, two stripes for 2 reviews, and one stripe for 1 review. Award templates are here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was my take. Ok, so long as nobody has any objections to this COA, we can now rule a line under this task. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. Thank you both very much – this could not have been easy! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Simplifying the essay system
Given that the general essay system (Category:WikiProject Military history essays) hasn't really taken off—we have, to date, only four essays, with two of them simply being archived copies of Bugle editorials—I suggest we abandon the idea of a stand-alone essay structure, and fold everything into the Academy instead.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- That seems a sound idea. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Not even a nibble
I haven't gotten any response yet from GOCE'ers to my offer of $50 for copyediting. Despite the absurdity of copyediting in a language I don't speak (British English), I don't think I've got a choice. I'm going to have to grab a British English style guide or two and sit down and read them, and make notes cross-referencing to Chicago and AP Stylebook. The question is ... which one(s) do you Anglophiles consider most authoritative and relevant to Wikipedia? The Oxford Style Manual (2003) and New Hart's Rules (2005) are affordable. The Guardian (and Observer?) style guide has the advantage of having an online version, so that I can point people there, and it's of course more up-to-date, but in the US at least, style guides suitable for news writing aren't as satisfactory for Wikipedia as Chicago since they don't make a serious effort to reflect the style of typical Wikipedia sources. I've also asked at WT:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, Dank, I tend to copyedit everything I review anyway, and if I even qualified for your generous offer I would say pls give it to your favourite charity -- or a local military museum! In terms of style guides, I've never consulted any, I just learnt basic rules by rote from my parents (not even at my so-called grammar school) -- so all I can do is act as a sounding board on BritEng questions, not point to a manual... ;-) On the other hand, if you wanted to split the work a bit, perhaps we could demarcate and you just review the AmerEng articles while I do the BritEng ones... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- You'll do so much better with those articles than I would, Ian, thanks. I'll start skipping them by default, but I'll be happy to drop by on request. - Dank (push to talk) 04:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it's a deal then -- so long as you stop by mine as well to give them a reality check... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I find I am a bit out of my depth with American English and in a number of past reviews, as a result of my lack of knowledge, I have created more work for Dank. As such, recently I have limited my comments on American English articles to content and presentation. Nevertheless, I'm keen to help with copy editing if I can. I've tried to do an in depth prose review as part of the Siege of Fort William Henry ACR. Dank: when you get up to it, if you wouldn't mind taking a looking at my review and letting me know what I should have picked up, I will try to adjust my reviews accordingly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's the best of all possible worlds for you guys to point out problems with the writing, since you're knowledgeable and respected, and I hope I didn't pressure you into it by whining about my workload. One way to give you feedback will be to do a review after you do your reviews; that will be a little more work for me in the short run, but that's fine. Please let me know if writers or other reviewers are giving you reactions that don't make sense, not so we can gang up on them, but just so you don't have to sort it all out solo. (P.S. AR, I never thought you were creating more work for me.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers, Dank. It is true, though, all those "re hyphens" in 29th Mass were based on my advice, e.g. "re-enlist" etc. In Australian English this is correct, so "reenlist" looks horrible to me; nevertheless "reenlist" is correct for US English (which I now know). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Although Merriam-Webster and Webster's New World agree with me, AP thinks you're right (so in retrospect, I should have left that one alone). - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers, Dank. It is true, though, all those "re hyphens" in 29th Mass were based on my advice, e.g. "re-enlist" etc. In Australian English this is correct, so "reenlist" looks horrible to me; nevertheless "reenlist" is correct for US English (which I now know). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding reviewing your comments at Siege of Fort William Henry ACR: is there a way I can tell the difference between strikeouts that mean "I didn't mean to say this" and ones that mean "This comment has been dealt with"? I've been using strikeouts just for the former in my reviews; if writers have missed a few points, I generally just tell them what they're missing. This also makes it easier for me to go back and see what I said in a previous review the next time that writer puts an article up for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've been using strike outs here to show that the comment was dealt with. If it is easier, I will stop doing this. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- If we're trying to gauge progress from one A-class review to the next, or copy editors are comparing notes, I think it's easier. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, no worries then. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- If we're trying to gauge progress from one A-class review to the next, or copy editors are comparing notes, I think it's easier. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've been using strike outs here to show that the comment was dealt with. If it is easier, I will stop doing this. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's the best of all possible worlds for you guys to point out problems with the writing, since you're knowledgeable and respected, and I hope I didn't pressure you into it by whining about my workload. One way to give you feedback will be to do a review after you do your reviews; that will be a little more work for me in the short run, but that's fine. Please let me know if writers or other reviewers are giving you reactions that don't make sense, not so we can gang up on them, but just so you don't have to sort it all out solo. (P.S. AR, I never thought you were creating more work for me.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I find I am a bit out of my depth with American English and in a number of past reviews, as a result of my lack of knowledge, I have created more work for Dank. As such, recently I have limited my comments on American English articles to content and presentation. Nevertheless, I'm keen to help with copy editing if I can. I've tried to do an in depth prose review as part of the Siege of Fort William Henry ACR. Dank: when you get up to it, if you wouldn't mind taking a looking at my review and letting me know what I should have picked up, I will try to adjust my reviews accordingly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it's a deal then -- so long as you stop by mine as well to give them a reality check... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- You'll do so much better with those articles than I would, Ian, thanks. I'll start skipping them by default, but I'll be happy to drop by on request. - Dank (push to talk) 04:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for your feedback on the Fort William Henry review. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Strategy think tank location
A couple of proposals with regard to the strategy think tank:
- Comments like this suggest that the current location of the STT under the coordinators' page is giving people the mistaken impression that it's an area for coordinators, rather than one for general discussion. Given that the location of the STT was chosen as a matter of convenience, not out of any real need for it to be located there, I would suggest that we move it out from under the coordinators' page to sit directly under the main project page.
- On a mostly unrelated note—but if we are going to move the page, we might as well consider this—I would suggest that we simplify the name to simply be the "strategy department", both to be more consistent with the other, similar areas of the project, and to allow significantly shorter subpage names (since the entire structure could then be located under Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy).
Any comments on either of these ideas would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both of these proposals make sense to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Notice of possible break
Hi all, due to the floods around Brisbane I might not be able to contribute much over the next week or so. My internet is unreliable and I'm busy with sandbagging, clean up, etc. Apologies for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a huge mess on the news here ... every scene showed cars and houses being washed away. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is a huge mess, Dank. I'm in Sydney but have relos between Brisbane and Ipswich and they've been watching the waters rise towards the hill they're fortunate enough to live on -- not without keeping their sense of humour -- my cousin told me yesterday morning "Yes, the neighbours have evacuated, and we're having breakfast". I didn't recall where you lived Rupert, sincerely hope things are going relatively okay with you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- My sincerest sympathies to all of the Aussies here. Makes me not so likely to complain about the foot of snow the last little storm dropped around here... Good luck, Rupert, and please let us know if there is anything on-wiki we can do to help. Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having ridden out a flood of biblical proportions (by El Paso standards) in 2006 I, too, offer my best wishes to all of you dealing with the flooding. It is my hope that you all stay safe in the days to come, and that your homes and possessions stay safe in the midst of the rising waters. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hope things go alright AR and that your house isn't affected. For those outside Australia, this footage provides an indication of the extent of the damage. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same from me. What with the fires and now these floods, you guys have been having it rough the last few years. Although it's of no practical assistance, my thoughts are nevertheless with you and yours. EyeSerenetalk 08:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having ridden out a flood of biblical proportions (by El Paso standards) in 2006 I, too, offer my best wishes to all of you dealing with the flooding. It is my hope that you all stay safe in the days to come, and that your homes and possessions stay safe in the midst of the rising waters. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- My sincerest sympathies to all of the Aussies here. Makes me not so likely to complain about the foot of snow the last little storm dropped around here... Good luck, Rupert, and please let us know if there is anything on-wiki we can do to help. Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is a huge mess, Dank. I'm in Sydney but have relos between Brisbane and Ipswich and they've been watching the waters rise towards the hill they're fortunate enough to live on -- not without keeping their sense of humour -- my cousin told me yesterday morning "Yes, the neighbours have evacuated, and we're having breakfast". I didn't recall where you lived Rupert, sincerely hope things are going relatively okay with you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for the thoughts everyone. My house is okay and the immediate family is fine; we live in the northern suburbs of Brisbane and are up quite high. Of course, we are all trying to help out where we can with the clean up and relief efforts, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that. Good luck with the clean-up, but remember to stay safe. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Article Alert Bot
It looks like AAlertBot (talk · contribs) is up and running as a replacement for the Article Alert Bot. Does anyone know if we are set to receive alerts from this bot, and if not, should we get ourselves setup to do so? I think it'd be a great thing for the project, seeing as how we coordinators can not be everywhere at once :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts what you're looking for? Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Request for 2nd opinion
Via ANI I've recently indefblocked an editor who was involved on various articles that come under milhist (mainly Blue-water navy, Indian navy and some others). I requested a block review at ANI but haven't had any feedback in 24 hours - probably because I did so in a subsection of the main thread that was, by then, halfway up the page and it's been overlooked.
In this case I think transparency and due diligence are important; the circumstances are slightly complicated and it turns out that I've taken admin action against the same editor in a previous incarnation, though I didn't realise this at the time. If anyone's got a few minutes I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thread/sub-thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Some problem and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bcs09/Chanakyathegreat block review requested; earlier thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive664#Some problems. Thanks! EyeSerenetalk 08:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit: threads now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive664#Some_problem and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive664#Bcs09.2FChanakyathegreat_block_review_requested. EyeSerenetalk 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sandy has started a discussion about problems with MILHIST articles at FAC. Personally, I'd be very interested to hear any new, practical, workable suggestions; this is a persistent problem. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that part of the problem is that MILHIST editors tend to review MILHIST articles. This is not always the case, but often is. Sandy wants to get some outside views on these articles, which I think is a reasonable request, as outside eyes often see things (jargon, missing information) that those inside the project and having read several gazillion ship/battle articles might miss. And since MILHIST editors often don't review outside their topic area, other editors are less willing to jump into MILHIST articles (reciprocity). I think that encouraging MILHIST editors to review outside of their topic area might help to encourage more outside review of our articles. However, verbal (or in this case typed) encouragement doesn't always (or even often) work. Concrete solution - Perhaps we could add a reviewing section to the monthly contest. Say, 2 points per FAC/FAR/PR/GAN/GAR/A review, and for everything outside of A-class it doesn't matter if the article is within the project or not (and we actually encourage it to be not). The reviews would obviously have to be checked to make sure that no-one is trying to game the system. It seems to be working for WikiCup with GAN reviewing, and so far (it's only been two weeks, true) they don't seem to have had any problems. We could either have coordinators volunteer until the end of their terms (I'd be willing to check reviews), or we could have all of the willing coordinators rotate through the checking so that no-one gets burned out. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- For a number of reasons, any of which would start a fight if I listed them, I don't think this will work. What I think might work better would be to encourage MILHIST people to look at GAN and FAC articles that cover major historical figures, and consider whether there's enough of a MILHIST component to consider (and possibly tag) those articles as MILHIST articles, and review them. There are quite a few, and I can help with the roughly 40% that are AmEng. Ideally, this would do 4 things at once:
- build and broaden our wikiproject
- target the articles that involve nominators and reviewers who are most likely to make informed comments in our current articles (and avoid the ones who won't)
- deal with the persistent complaint of FAC regulars that we don't do our fair share, and
- deal with the complaint that our articles are sometimes all military and no history, that is, they could do a better job of situating the event in a historical context.
- (tweaked) - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I promise not to start throwing things if you won't :) We have to do something, and gentle encouragement so far has not worked, either on MILHIST tagged articles or otherwise. I really don't see how tagging more articles is going to make people more willing to review, especially on major historical figures/events, since these are some of the most difficult reviews to conduct. Besides, if we tag an article as MILHIST and then review it, how is that going to fix the complaint that we only review our own articles? The issue is that most MILHIST editors would rather eat their shoes than review a mushroom article, and so the mushroom editors have no incentive to review a MILHIST article. As I said above, WikiCup seems to be making the points-for-review thing work (so far), so why shouldn't we try it? Give it a one-month or two-month trial period. If people try to game the system and it doesn't work, smack a few hands and scrap the points. If it does work and we actually get more MILHIST editors reviewing outside and that encourages outside reviewers to review our articles, then fantastic. If no-one bites - hey, at least we tried. Dana boomer (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, the articles on heads of state (who were generally commanders-in-chief, after all) tend to be long and complicated, but there's no rule at FAC that reviewers have to get involved in everything ... in fact, it works much better when they stick to whatever areas they know best. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've long thought that a point-based contest would help drum up reviewers. I floated a proposal back in June that basically duplicated the article writing contest (I mocked up an example here), but it didn't really go anywhere. Merging it in with the regular contest as Dana suggests would also work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I might be miss-reading Sandy's comment, but the issue seems to be a shortage of reviewers across all FACs at the moment and the military history articles possibly requiring less reviewers than other articles given that they normally arrive at FAC in good shape (which is an huge compliment to the project and indicates that the steps which were taken to address Sandy's earlier concerns about problems with A class articles were successful). Historically there was a reluctance to include FA reviews in MILHIST contests as this could be seen as an attempt to 'stack' the nominations of articles, and I think that we should be very careful about going down this path. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- The part that I'm looking at is: "[MILHIST articles]...need independent review for prose, "brilliance" of prose, jargon, readability, flow." and "at least five MilHist or ship articles that have not been engaged by reviewers" and "The issue with MilHist and ship articles is that they frequently get no independent (uninvolved) review, so just need outside (fresh) eyes, generally for a jargon and prose check." - all said by Sandy in that discussion (the discussion is at WT:Featured article candidates#Requests for review, for anyone who's interested). I took this to mean we need more outside editors looking at our articles. My suggestion to this is that we somehow entice outside editors to look at our articles, possible through *gasp* looking at articles outside our own project. We are sometimes seen, rightly or wrongly, as somewhat insular, and so if more of our editors made more of an effort to look at articles on law or music or biology or anything other than milhist, it might help us in getting independent reviews of our own articles. Because so many MILHIST articles are reviewed by other MILHIST editors at GAN, PR (both in-project PR and outside PR), and obviously A-class, FAC is sometimes their only chance to be looked at by someone who hasn't already read 50 ship or battle articles, and so might have a fresh take on things (and this isn't just a MILHIST problem, we see it in the equine project too, although that's much smaller). This is part of the reason why I'm suggesting that we encourage reviewing outside the project in the contest - maybe even make it worth slightly more (2 points for a MILHIST review, 2.5-3 points for non-MILHIST or something). There is a general lack of reviewers across all articles at FAC, and I do take it as a compliment that Sandy said our articles come well-prepared. But that doesn't change the fact that she also thinks our articles don't get enough independent review - and that is what we need to do something about. Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I think that we need a WikiProject Review here on Wikipedia; the number of articles that get no outside oversight creates problems for everyone, and by everyone I mean every registered content contributor on site. The chronic shortage of GA and FA reviewers means that the articles put up these assessments are frequently reviewed by less than four people, of which about 50-75% have some attachment to one or more of the projects that have a stake in seeing the article passed. Investing in a reviewing wikiproject would not solve all the problems we have with reviews off the bat, but it would offer a site wide project where groups like the FA-team and the Guild of Copyeditors could go to coordinate movement. As a bonus, such a project could serve in a quarterback position by listing in general articles up for reviews across Wikipedia, which would help decompartmentalize a lot of the current reviews on Wikipedia since most projects only generate a list of the articles they currently have at PR, GAN, and FAC (intentionally leaving A-class out since we are one of only about three projects to have successfully employed the scale). As for project specifically, we could adopt a new contest page as Parsecboy suggested, but I have mixed feelings as to how well the idea would play out since we already have reviewer awards within our project intended to recognize those who review the articles we list for PR, ACR, and (I think) FAC. We could borrow from Durova's triple crown and offer a unique reviewing award such as we have for the A-class system whereby those who review three GANs, ACRs, and FACs; if we stagger the award (like we do for the A-class medals) and make it upgradeable we could help generate long term interest in these processes, which in turn could help generate a move to get more reviewers on board with the system. For our purposes this award could cover the GAN, ACR, and FAC spectrum, but in the interest of getting more projects on board with the idea (and hopefully getting this to work at a wikipedia-wide level) I would suggest including PRs, GANs, and FACs only. If we could convince others to get on board with a full blown reviewer wikiproject this could become the standard award scheme, and could help address some the concerns Sandy (and others I'm sure) have about the low participation rate at FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- The part that I'm looking at is: "[MILHIST articles]...need independent review for prose, "brilliance" of prose, jargon, readability, flow." and "at least five MilHist or ship articles that have not been engaged by reviewers" and "The issue with MilHist and ship articles is that they frequently get no independent (uninvolved) review, so just need outside (fresh) eyes, generally for a jargon and prose check." - all said by Sandy in that discussion (the discussion is at WT:Featured article candidates#Requests for review, for anyone who's interested). I took this to mean we need more outside editors looking at our articles. My suggestion to this is that we somehow entice outside editors to look at our articles, possible through *gasp* looking at articles outside our own project. We are sometimes seen, rightly or wrongly, as somewhat insular, and so if more of our editors made more of an effort to look at articles on law or music or biology or anything other than milhist, it might help us in getting independent reviews of our own articles. Because so many MILHIST articles are reviewed by other MILHIST editors at GAN, PR (both in-project PR and outside PR), and obviously A-class, FAC is sometimes their only chance to be looked at by someone who hasn't already read 50 ship or battle articles, and so might have a fresh take on things (and this isn't just a MILHIST problem, we see it in the equine project too, although that's much smaller). This is part of the reason why I'm suggesting that we encourage reviewing outside the project in the contest - maybe even make it worth slightly more (2 points for a MILHIST review, 2.5-3 points for non-MILHIST or something). There is a general lack of reviewers across all articles at FAC, and I do take it as a compliment that Sandy said our articles come well-prepared. But that doesn't change the fact that she also thinks our articles don't get enough independent review - and that is what we need to do something about. Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I might be miss-reading Sandy's comment, but the issue seems to be a shortage of reviewers across all FACs at the moment and the military history articles possibly requiring less reviewers than other articles given that they normally arrive at FAC in good shape (which is an huge compliment to the project and indicates that the steps which were taken to address Sandy's earlier concerns about problems with A class articles were successful). Historically there was a reluctance to include FA reviews in MILHIST contests as this could be seen as an attempt to 'stack' the nominations of articles, and I think that we should be very careful about going down this path. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've long thought that a point-based contest would help drum up reviewers. I floated a proposal back in June that basically duplicated the article writing contest (I mocked up an example here), but it didn't really go anywhere. Merging it in with the regular contest as Dana suggests would also work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, the articles on heads of state (who were generally commanders-in-chief, after all) tend to be long and complicated, but there's no rule at FAC that reviewers have to get involved in everything ... in fact, it works much better when they stick to whatever areas they know best. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- For a number of reasons, any of which would start a fight if I listed them, I don't think this will work. What I think might work better would be to encourage MILHIST people to look at GAN and FAC articles that cover major historical figures, and consider whether there's enough of a MILHIST component to consider (and possibly tag) those articles as MILHIST articles, and review them. There are quite a few, and I can help with the roughly 40% that are AmEng. Ideally, this would do 4 things at once:
Now I'm concerned that I'm coming off as coy by failing to give my reasons (which I'm always telling people not to do in their articles), so I'll give what I perceive to be the reason that awards and arm-twisting won't work: because, in my experience, most MILHIST people are uncomfortable with what happens when they go to FAC, and that discomfort will only grow if we push them to spend more time there than they're already spending, as nominators or reviewers. Mike Christie and Andy (Laser Brain) have just made posts at WT:FAC (here) that echo this. I'm going to start reviewing more history articles, for the reasons I gave above. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, to put a more positive spin on that: I don't think an effort to get more regular FAC reviewers from MILHIST is doomed, but my guess is that it's premature, if we're talking about some awards program aimed at everyone in the project. (My hope in starting this thread was that we'd get one or two more volunteers.) I'm in favor of doing more of what we're already doing to make the experience of the average nominator at FAC more pleasant (mostly by doing a more thorough job at A-class, particularly for articles headed to FAC). I'd be willing to revisit the issue of drumming up support for FAC reviewing in about a month. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we do get a little respect from the FAC types. Sandy just wrote this: "MilHist has an A-class peer review process-- those articles are typically well prepared and well sourced and comprehensive, and only need independent review for prose, "brilliance" of prose, jargon, readability, flow. Seriously, anyone can do it-- I don't know why editors avoid them. Except sometimes they can be dull, if you're not interested in body counts and don't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun :)" --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do we have any idea how many of our A-Class articles go on to FAC? What I'm wondering is how many article writers see milhist ACR purely as a preparation stage for FAC as opposed to an end in itself. For the former I agree with Dank that perhaps the best way we can assist is to prepare the articles as thoroughly as possible, though if we're going to do that we need to be careful about going beyond our A-Class criteria when reviewing. I doubt we have the resources to offer a separate FAC-prep service for articles that are headed that way, although it would be one solution. However, I'd strongly (and selfishly!) resist anything that might be detrimental to our own ACR process.
- As far as FA reviewing goes, if prose etc is the perennial issue it's also one of the most time-consuming to review for. In my experience of assisting a number of articles through FAC over the years, it can also be fairly arbitrary; prose reviews sometimes come down to nothing more than personal reviewer preference. However, awarding extra points for reviewing outside the milhist area is something we can do without much effort and may encourage reviewers. EyeSerenetalk 10:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed that A-class standards are different, both as defined and just as a consequence that there are too many A-class articles and too few reviewers to do a careful job on every one of them. For ACR articles that I'm pretty sure aren't headed to FAC, I go faster, I miss things, and I don't ask as many questions. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
One of our A-Class articles, 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden, was apparently discovered to have a significant copyright problem; what remains of the article appears rather meager, although I'm not really in a position to judge the content in detail. Should we list it for a re-assessment ACR, or just delist it procedurally? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delist it procedurally; if it had copyright problems then it clearly should not be ranked in the top three highest assessment categories. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delist it procedurally. The nominator (who included the copyvios) is currently indef blocked for his copyright violations. Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I also agree, so I went ahead and did it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delist it procedurally. The nominator (who included the copyvios) is currently indef blocked for his copyright violations. Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Purple Heart
I've been handing out these makeshift purples hearts off and on over the years to recognize the members of our project that have displayed grace under fire during trying events such as arbitration cases and long lasting edit wars. I wonder then if there would be any interest from our coordinating team in formally vesting this as a project award with a template substitution such as we have for our other awards so that to be given out under the previously mentioned circumstances. Any interest in doing this? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)]
- I've noticed your thoughtfulness to others and greatly appreciated it when I was a recipient of your award. However, for an official project award might it be a little US-centric? I'm not sure what others think. EyeSerenetalk 10:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was happy to receive one from Tom. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is an interesting idea, Tom, and I like the idea of building morale. Bare with me for a moment, though, while I play Devil's Advocate. How would we overcome the possible claims of bias that might come with such an award? For instance, would it not be a bit subjective of us to bestow such an award on one party in a dispute (who remained calm), but not another (who didn't remain calm)? The second party would (possibly) feel that they had remained calm, even if others did not. Could that not perhaps fan the conflict further, and perhaps be seen as the co-ords "taking sides" or "banding together" to promote one argument over another? (I'm thinking back to just last year and the "systematic bias" claims.) In regards to the symbology, I'm not opposed to the Purple Heart, but perhaps a dove with an olive branch might be more universal? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll tackle the two main points separately so as to provide a more manageable reply to both:
- On the matter of the bias claims: Its true that the award is somewhat one sided, and that it does to some extent aggravate a situation in which one member of a debate is singled out for an award wile the other is left empty handed. In the cases where I have had occasion to award a purple heart its been to editors who were dealing either with an unfair amount of crap for carrying out tasks as mandated by policy and guideline standards (such as ALR), those who dealt with an unfair amount of criticism for their work on articles (Balloonman and the Military Brat fiasco), and those who have gotten the raw end of a deal for doing the right thing (Nick-D and EyeSerene, for example). I've been careful to award a purple heart only to people who, in a debate, were correct on all counts of an argument (consider the matter of milhist v. blablaa, where even though some of blablaa's claim could have been backed up the manner in which blablaa went about preparing his case left him clearly out of order, or in another example, the case of Truthseekers666, who after being blocked for refusal to follow the guidelines and policy here took to youtube in an effort to encourage people to harass those who disagreed with him here on wikipedia). I'm sure if we put our minds to it we could outline a set of criteria to help us judge when a formal purple heart award should be issued so as to avoid claims of bias.
- On the matter of symbolism: There are many signs for peace and unity, but I went with the purple heart more for the meaning behind the award - one injured in the line of duty for doing one's job. While I do understand the idea behind a dove or an olive branch those do seem to do more to promote peace then they do to promote that someone took a hit and kept on going. If you want something more universal we could perhaps go with something like a red cross with a background star made band aids or crossed crutches or something of that nature. I would concede a point in you favor here that the purple heart is somewhat US-biased, but it was the best I could think of to go with at the time, and the decision to go with the purple heart is actually why we have a purple color heart shaped pictured since it was brought to the attention of the folks at the admin noticeboard (I think) that having an actual purple heart on someone's page could be construed as a violation of US federal law. I'm open to other suggestions for what the award should show, by no means does it have to be a purple heart, but I would like whatever we settle on to convey a sense of "wounded but no beaten/broken" or something similar to that effect.
- I am glad that you asked the questions, and I hope these answers help clarify your points to some extent. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll tackle the two main points separately so as to provide a more manageable reply to both:
- This is an interesting idea, Tom, and I like the idea of building morale. Bare with me for a moment, though, while I play Devil's Advocate. How would we overcome the possible claims of bias that might come with such an award? For instance, would it not be a bit subjective of us to bestow such an award on one party in a dispute (who remained calm), but not another (who didn't remain calm)? The second party would (possibly) feel that they had remained calm, even if others did not. Could that not perhaps fan the conflict further, and perhaps be seen as the co-ords "taking sides" or "banding together" to promote one argument over another? (I'm thinking back to just last year and the "systematic bias" claims.) In regards to the symbology, I'm not opposed to the Purple Heart, but perhaps a dove with an olive branch might be more universal? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was happy to receive one from Tom. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that "bias" is precisely the concern here; rather, the question we should be asking is whether having such an award will be seen as the project endorsing a particular side in a dispute—and, more pointedly, whether this will result in negative consequences for the project if that side is later determined to have been at fault. So long as this is a personal award on Tom's part, it is of little interest to the broader community; but if it is seen as having the weight of the project behind it, then it will simultaneously become an avenue to accuse the project as a body of malfeasance in cases where previously only individual members were vulnerable. We do not, in my opinion, want to make that particular attack easier; we are by no means free of detractors. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Kirill and I are thinking the same thing. As a personal award, it's great. As a project award, it would backfire. We can't be seen as taking sides in nearly all disputes (the exception being when the project itself is accused, and even then...). 04:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that "bias" is precisely the concern here; rather, the question we should be asking is whether having such an award will be seen as the project endorsing a particular side in a dispute—and, more pointedly, whether this will result in negative consequences for the project if that side is later determined to have been at fault. So long as this is a personal award on Tom's part, it is of little interest to the broader community; but if it is seen as having the weight of the project behind it, then it will simultaneously become an avenue to accuse the project as a body of malfeasance in cases where previously only individual members were vulnerable. We do not, in my opinion, want to make that particular attack easier; we are by no means free of detractors. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well perhaps it would be better then if its run as a private award then, in this way if anyone gets heat for the decision it'll be me and me alone. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Kirill has managed to articulate my concerns more eloquently than I was able to. Tom: I'm sorry to put a dampener on your enthusiasm. I certainly have no concerns with individuals handing out such awards (indeed in the right circumstances I would do so myself). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well perhaps it would be better then if its run as a private award then, in this way if anyone gets heat for the decision it'll be me and me alone. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Setting a preference for American, Imperial or international units
I just want to float an idea and get some feedback before I take this any further. Suppose you could set a preference on Wikipedia to get Template:convert to display your choice of American, Imperial (British), or international units. (Converting spellings and words to an American or British style would probably be too prone to error and not particularly useful.) There is zero support in American style guides for consistently displaying two different units, or two different formats of almost anything, in narrative text. It gives the appearance that we either aren't familiar with or are rejecting professional writing standards. My belief is that it's ironic that Wikipedians, of all people, are trying to get the world to do things our way rather than following the sources.
Of course, for anyone who doesn't set a preference and for all webcrawlers and mirrors, the page appearance wouldn't change. I'm looking to see if you guys think the answer is "not ever" or "not yet". If the latter, then I'll start making a note to myself about potential problems with the convert template as I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 05:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- You can set a parameter of the convert template to use American or British spellings. The default is British, unless you add |sp=us to the template. As for units, my rule of thumb is to use whatever was in use by the nation whenever the ship was built, regardless of whatever else is used in the article. So a German shell, measured by them in metric units, hitting a British ship that is the subject of the article, will be given in metric. But that's just me, and since I provide a conversion for everything, I really don't regard it as a problem, even if it's superficially inconsistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)