Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Training/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using numbers

From the title, I expected the above essay to focus on WP:MOSNUM—clearly, I am far off the mark! Could we come up with a more descriptive title, perhaps simply "Battle Statistics"? User:Maralia (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2009

Perhaps "Using statistics"? The material is written around battles, but can probably be applied a bit more generally? Kirill [pf] 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Maralia (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

TFA appearences

I scribbled down some advice for those first timers who are aiming to get an article on to the main page. I'm hoping to put it here, but before I do I was wondering where I should put it and what the page should be titled (assuming that we need a new page). TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, this seems like it would suit best under a "Featured" category/heading, or something along the lines of "Miscellaneous". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just thinking, it might be worthwile to create a "Creating and maintaining featured content" page branching off the main Academy page, and have different guides/tips related to all types of featured content on that page. Just a thought. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
We already have some material on creating FAs, so perhaps we should simply create a new "Maintaining featured articles" course? Kirill [pf] 13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking that if we expanded further into the featured area (articles, lists, images, etc), then it might be worthwhile to create a main featured page for the Academy which would include links to all courses/guides related to differing areas of featured content. This is just an idea however. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the Misc idea: I was thinking about something of that nature to, but I was also thinking about expanding my advice a little and offering advice for navigating the requests page for TFA as well so that those who were attempting to get an article there for the first time would have a few pointers on what to expect as well as a warning that we tend to be overrepresented there. I open to putting the page wherever, even if wherever is not necessarily here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Info on FA

Since I started closing FARs, I 've started gathering things at User:YellowMonkey/FAR about expectations of articles. Should I just integrate it into some existing FA-type thing or start a more detailed thing about best practices on sources. Also, my views might be considered maverick YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest just adding it as a stand-alone course for the time being. We can always move it into a more comprehensive page later, if that's how we start organizing things; but, given that only a small portion of the likely course list has been written at this point, I don't think there's much benefit to trying to guess how things will be structured at the end. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, what about opinions written by people like myself with views that might be considered non-mainstream? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, I left a reply to this earlier while I was on campus but I guess the computers there did not save it properly. :/
I am of the mind that this would do well in a separate article myself, perhaps something along the lines of What to expect at FAR. Alternatively, we could probably fit the material into the FAC advise page, but I am not so keen on this move since you have a lot of good material and the material in the FAC advise page is short and to the point.
As to your comments on reactionaries: at the moment we need material - any material - to get this thing up and running. Everything else at the moment is secondary to this endeavor. Once we actually have material to work with we can see about addressing issues like polishing, merging, copyeditting, and all that. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed; we can always figure out a better way to frame it later. If you're concerned that the views are very non-mainstream, you can frame them as individual advice (as here), but I wouldn't worry about it too much. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox templates

What are you guys looking for on these? I have some vague ideas, but would like to get a better handle on what y'all are looking for. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, uploaded what I think are the most important issues with infoboxes, but would appreciate any suggestions. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK article

I think the article about DYK should include some more info to reflect some recent changes to the DYK process. Now, since TomStar81 has already written one on this, should I write a new one or add to his article? I was thinking it'd be better to write a draft myself, so that the necessary things can be then decided and combined. Any ideas? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the article at the content drive, btw. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Run with what I have, or if you feel the need to rewrite the course then do so. I have no qualms with surrendering an academy page to someone else for credit if they did a better job of explain the process that I did :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no question about the credit, there's nothing wrong with yours :) I just thought there were a few points to be added since the DYK criteria has got a little more strict. I'll get to it after I've got my facts together then. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done No need to add minor details I suppose. Please feel free to remove/fix any unneeded info as necessary. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Course header template

I've put together {{WPMILHIST Academy course header}}, based on our current infobox style; I think it might help to give a unified approach to the Academy courses and has the minimum info a candidate might want. It's pretty basic though, so further suggestions welcome ;) EyeSerenetalk 13:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For ease of use, we should probably combine it with {{WPMILHIST Academy}}, so that we only need to include one template call on each course page. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. I was uncertain about the infobox-like format because it currently vies for space with our navigation template on the right of the page. If we do combine the two though, the {{WPMILHIST Academy course header}} format might need some tweaking to make more of the parameters optional, as I'm not sure all would universally apply. I'll have a go anyway; my template knowledge is limited, but it's a good opportunity to learn! EyeSerenetalk 15:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've combined the two at {{WPMILHIST Academy course header}} (for now). If we're happy with the result it's probably worth moving that to {{WPMILHIST Academy}} rather than editing all the academy course pages. It may also be worth making all parameters optional to give us back the option of having a vanilla header, and I may have mucked up some of the category include/includeonly tags :P The docs page also lacks cats at the moment, but that can be done easily enough if/when it's moved. EyeSerenetalk 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've played around with the template a bit. Alternating stripe colors don't work well with optional parameters, unfortunately; if one of the rows is missing, the stripes won't stack correctly. I'm not sure if it's better to leave it in the standard infobox format, or perhaps put lines between the rows or somehow break it into sections. Another thing to think about is whether we want the header template above the navigation one, or next to it; if we make the former narrow enough, we could float them side-by-side, which might produce a neater layout.
In any case, please take a look at what it looks like now, and let me know if you think that's an improvement over the wider layout. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, yes, I got a bit too carried away with the stripes and forgot about the optional parameters. The reason I used them was to mitigate the large amount of whitespace, which the infobox format does just as well. However, as the template is intended to give both basic course information and (where appropriate) act as a navigational tool, I think it ought to be fairly easy to find on the page, and as it's also now combined with the header message I think it should come either above the navbox or (my preference) float to the left of it towards the middle of the page. I'm not wedded to either though ;) EyeSerenetalk 18:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm having some trouble getting the left-floating to work, because the navbox and infobox float styles don't play nicely with each other. It should be doable, but we may need to manually code the "infobox" styling rather than using the core infobox one; I'll play with this some more over the next few days. Kirill [talk] [pf] 19:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried earlier when doing the merge and couldn't get it to float properly either, though I thought you might know a few tricks I don't. It also overlaps with our banner in its current form. I think you're right - it'll need to be coded into the table the long way. Since you've offered, I'm happy to leave that to you ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I have it all working now; does that look more or less like what you had in mind? Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That's excellent! I've got a test instance up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Performing an A-Class review, which seems fine in combination with the banner. I've been thinking about the merge/move though - do you think it might be best to retain both header versions, {{WPMILHIST Academy course header}} and {{WPMILHIST Academy}}? Not every academy page will lend itself to the extended course header (for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Reviewing articles, which is a general overview rather than a specific course). EyeSerenetalk 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
From a maintenance standpoint, it'd probably be easier to make more parameters optional than it would be to have two templates. Alternately, we could put a conditional around the entire second table, similar to how the "no-banner" option works on {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that might make more sense. I have no preference, though if the second table's wholly conditional I suppose we may want to move the "This is an Academy course..." header to still have it display on all Academy pages? That bit might also look a little odd being so narrow if there's nothing below (empty parameters or conditional table; I guess this would apply to both options), though personally I don't really see that as a problem.
While we're on the subject: because the current Academy sub-page structure is flat, do you think it would be worthwhile adding something like a "Parent" parameter to the template, perhaps inbetween duration and previous, to allow navigation back to the relevant overview page? I'm thinking that although we've got single articles for most courses at the moment, many of them may well evolve into a series of connected lessons (for want of a better word!) as they're developed. EyeSerenetalk 17:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that brings up a slightly broader question: do we want a tree-like structure (overview course and sub-courses), or a chain-like structure (overview is first course in sequence, sub-courses follow)? So long as all the courses are explicitly linked from the Academy page itself, I'm not sure that there's much benefit to further nesting; I think it might make more sense for a series of related courses to be presented as an explicit series, and not merely a cluster. Kirill [talk] [pf] 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Well, what I'm wondering is how convenient it will be to get back to the Academy mainpage and/or course overview page from any given course page, while still maintaining a logical structure. With the current flat subpage structure, we won't have a meaningful (in structural terms) page/subpage link in the top left of the page: rather than Milhist/Academy/Course overview/current page, we'll have Milhist/Academy/current page. I think there are good reasons for keeping it this way, but then whatever structure we imply will be through the way the courses are listed on the Academy mainpage, and how they link to each other through the course header template. I have no argument with preferring a chain over a tree as long as we make it easy for editors to both follow through a course series from start to finish, and also to dip into any course at any level and to come back out again. The Academy mainpage link is no problem - it'll be in at least two places anyway - but I think a link back to the overview page might be useful too (where appropriate).

Using Reviewing as an (incomplete) example, a logical course structure might be:

Reviewing articles (overview)
A-Class reviews (intro, general advice etc) B-Class reviews Start-Class reviews Stub-Class reviews
A1 (specific advice, examples and exercises) A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

...but this would of course be a virtual structure implied by the various links, as the actual Academy subpage structure is flat. There could be chains from eg

  • Reviewing <-> A-Class reviews <-> A1
  • A1 <-> A2 <-> A3 etc
  • A-Class reviews <-> B-Class reviews <-> etc

I guess I'm proposing a sort of nested structure with chains both vertically and horizontally for ease of navigation and to provide the overall course structure. EyeSerenetalk 09:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All good points. The more I think about this, the more it seems like a better solution might be actual navigation templates, not just one-step linking through the "infobox". Is that something worth trying? Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm rapidly coming to that view myself :) EyeSerenetalk 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When and What to Cite

What are y'all looking for on these articles? I could summarize WP:CITE and give it a little more practical spin aimed at our audience, but is that what y'all have in mind? Oh, and my preference would be to combine these into one article as they're so closely related. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and combine them then. On the matter of what we are looking for, those are both introductory courses, so I think it would be better to write something that does not necessarily summarize whats already written somewhere else; newbies are going to be relatively clueless on what and when to to cite and WP:CITE is more along the lines of how to cite. If it were me asking I would suggest explaining citations in the context of reliability and explain what and when to cite in the context of the mos-ours and wikipedia's- rather than resummarize CITE. That's me, of course, but as a practical matter we just need material. In keeping with that last point I'd say write whatever you want and we will worry about sorting it out later. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, here's my first stab at the When to Cite article. It talks more about the informal standards regarding B-class cites, but doesn't get into reliable sources, etc. I did decide to leave it separate from How to Cite as that's much more fully covered in WP:CITE. Feel free to expand it as necessary. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

external media

Template:External media is the successor of external images that was invented by this project to solve our image requests. Since than it has gained popularity and has been widened to include more types of media. I suggest to incorporate this template into the advice at the academy, but I don't want to write it into several chapters. Are there any suggestions how I should proceed? "Using external links" and "Making best use of images" would be appropriate candidates to write a longer comment and link to it from other chapters that touch the topic. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, I'd suggest just writing it as, say, "Using external media" an leaving it as a stand-alone article. We're probably going to go through and merge or rename some articles after the content drive concludes—I think we've acquired several on the topic of A-Class reviews, for example—so we can always integrate the material into a larger course later on. At the moment, though, our priority is just getting the stuff written down, not necessarily deciding how best to arrange it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

images

I suggest to merge the two sections "Are images important?" and "Making best use of images" under the header "importance and use of images". And I'd like to introduce a new section about obtaining images. This can be done by writing requests or searching for free content. We also need a discussion about the quality and accuracy because some images like the drawing of a "Macedonian phalanx" get recycled in lots of articles despite of its obvious inaccuracy. (the spears are depicted as held too long and the shields are too big and there's a lot of discussion whether the shields were fastened on the arm or hanging down in front of the body) Wandalstouring (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to amend and add sections above as you wish. I created many of the the redlinks here more as a way of encouraging editors to click and write than to fit precisely into a meticulously planned schema.
Other images related articles could include "Creating images" - about making graphics and taking original photographs - (which would work well alongside your suggested "Obtaining images"). Another closely related one is "Image restoration", which was there but seems to has been removed.
"Image quality and accuracy" is also a good proposed one, especially if it discusses the implications of original research.  Roger Davies talk 18:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Diagrams on military maps

Explanation of this needed. I looked up some books to revamp RM Gillespie (talk · contribs) A-class articles and saw a lot of maps with squares with circles and crosses and numbers in them without a key YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does this have to do with the academy? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems like an obvious point to cover, no? We ought to have a course on making and/or selecting maps, at the very least; and one of the considerations that needs to be mentioned is the use of unconventional symbols, particularly if no key is provided. Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly worth discussing. Including a key may prevent a map being used in non-English language Wikipedias, and I'm in two minds about using any sort of symbols that require a key or expert knowledge to decipher them. Over time I've gone from using standard unit symbols to different-sized national flags, which I hope is easier to grasp for non-experts. (per File:Operation Spring.png compared to File:Operation Perch.svg). EyeSerenetalk 07:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Slowly. One thing is we need a standardisation for maps and a legend that explains what is depicted. That's an issue for our style guide. I think there will be different rules depending on the period and on the kind of warfare. We may even ask the mapmakers for advice. Anything in the academy that concerns maps can have a link to the style guide on maps and even a short summary. The other thing is how to create a map. The academy's scope is clearly to provide technical information on how you do it. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I intended to write a basic tutorial (geared towards Inkscape, as that seems to be what many editors use and it's easy to get hold of). I think I originally titled it "Making svg maps" or something, though I later changed my mind and went for something more general. However, I haven't started writing yet (trying to clear my copyedit backlog first), so if you want to dive in, please go ahead! EyeSerenetalk 10:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just organizing things a bit. I'm in contact with User:Mohammad adil. He's also one of our creators of battlemaps. Maybe you can exchange some ideas with him. His English isn't perfect and he tends to be a little chaotic. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I ran across him via that RfA note you left. We've exchanged civilities, but I'm thinking perhaps it might be worth raising the whole maps thing with the rest of the project before we go ahead and write too much for the academy. For example, do we follow the guidelines on WP:WPMAP or come up with our own? EyeSerenetalk 08:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to use the existing standards, but make some additions. elephants and irregular infantry need different symbols from the usual rectangular formation symbol. I also ran across circular formations with differing depth between the ends and the center used in medieval Arabian warfare and in the battle of Cannae. Another example of cicular formation seem to be the Scottish shiltrons in some engagments. We should have a way to present this differing concept from the rectangular deploy. We might also run across more problems with East Asian warfare. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

MilHist Academy and images, especially maps

Dear fellow members, to follow up on the previous section, could I put in a plea that the MilHist Academy encourage editors to take seriously the need to force (usually up) the size of thumbnail images where the detail, importance and context suggests this? Although the default thumbnail is likely to be adjusted up from 180px to 220 or 230px as a result of the current RfC, in my view we still need to put more into image management.

Nowhere is this more necessary than for MilHist maps, which are often indecipherable without double-clicking on them to see the full size. Please remember that most of our readers don't even know they can do this, and some have slow connectivity that makes the accessing of full res a bit of a bore. In addition, it's often handy to be able to see a map as one reads the accompanying text in the article, rather than clicking back and forward from full-res map to article text.

Resizing the pixel width is one way of improving a map; the other is to go back to the original image and make the text larger if you have control over it. Could I remind editors of the Academy courses that the MoS has a section on image management. There is also our WP:Image use policy. Tony (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing essentials open for feedback

Dear members

I would be pleased to receive feedback on this recently prepared part of the Academy. One specific question, among others, is whether the use of the image is inappropriate. Tony (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks excellent to me. I don't have any issues with the image. I intend to work through it as a student when I get a chance, to get some idea of how long it takes to complete. What's your estimate, and what sort of level (beginner, intermediate, advanced) would you place the course at? EyeSerenetalk 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, seems like a very useful set of guidelines. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Very useful section, but possibly not for beginners. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Further development

Although a number of articles are still redlinks, and many of the existing ones will need polishing and/or reorganising, I think we've got enough content to start thinking about developing the structure.

The first task is probably to look at what we've already got (including redlinks), and organise it into some sort of logical tree. We'll then be able to see where articles need merging/splitting/tweaking, and where the gaps are. I think the current Introductory/Intermediate/Advanced structure doesn't perhaps lend itself to being easily navigated by an editor looking for a course in a specific area or on a given topic, so I've had a go at laying out a possible alternative structure below, under three broad headings. Each lowest-level item is an existing or redlinked article from the main Academy page. Would this be a suitable basis for further development? EyeSerenetalk 12:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested structure

  • WikiProject Military history
    • About the project
      • Departments of the Military history Project
      • What do Milhist task forces do?
      • How the Logistics Department works
    • Help and advice
      • Asking for help
      • How can I help the project?
      • Participating in working groups
      • How to use the Milhist template
    • Project coordination
      • Being a coordinator
      • Getting the best out of a task force
      • Setting up drives
      • Developing consensus for a major initiative
  • Articles
    • Article development
      • General help and advice
        • Writing a good stub
        • Writing a B-Class article
        • Writing good articles
        • Writing an A-Class article
        • Writing a featured article
        • Writing featured articles
        • Writing a large-scope article
        • Writing an effective article introduction
        • Plagiarism and how to avoid it
        • Pop culture sections
        • Working with translations
        • Are style guides set in stone?
        • Creating and Maintaining Black Project Articles
      • Text
        • Using external links
        • Using infobox templates
        • When to use sections
        • Battles: understanding the terrain
        • Unit names and abbreviations
        • Ranks and abbreviations
        • Writing an Order of Battle
        • Featured article criteria 1c
      • Images
        • Are images important?
        • Obtaining images (for beginners)
        • NPOV images
        • Maximising public domain government image collections
        • How to improve images
        • Working with free content images
        • Working with non-free content images
        • Creating images
        • Obtaining images
        • Original photography
        • Image quality and accuracy
        • Image restoration
        • Creating maps
      • Sources
        • When to cite
        • What to cite
        • Using different reference formats
        • Exploring reference templates
        • Using statistics
        • Citations and references
        • Working with foreign-language sources
        • Filing a Freedom of Information Request
      • Other
        • Using media files
        • Using external media
        • Working with sounds
        • Working with categories
    • Article improvement and maintenance
      • Improving articles
      • Copy-editing essentials
      • Maintaining articles
      • The effect of aging sources
    • Reviewing
      • Articles
        • Reviewing articles
        • Performing a Stub- to B-Class review
        • Reviewing good articles
        • How to prepare an A-Class Review
        • Using the A-class review toolbox
        • Performing an A-Class review
        • Reviewing featured articles
        • Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence
        • Performing a peer review
        • Handling FAC
        • Initiating a featured article review
      • Images
        • Dispatches: Reviewing free images
        • Dispatches: Reviewing non-free images
        • Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates
  • Wikipedia
    • Understanding talk page templates
    • Deleting an article
    • Wikignoming
    • Barnstars, Awards, and Honorable Mentions
    • Copyright issues discussed
    • Today's Featured Article requests

Comments

Both structures have their merit. Your structure is for looking up things, the current structure is for taking courses on a number of fields. I recommend both. We can have one navigation by topic and another one by development as a wikipedian. It's pretty much about how we name the links and organize these two charts of links. How we store the material is another question, your suggestion is probably the better choice for maintenance. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above in all respects. Also, I think it would be worthwhile to send out some sort of survey to get feed back on the questions that people have asked, from the data collected we could begin to get an idea about what we are missing, and in the process gather the FAQs into essays for the academy. The problem will be getting the project to participate, although if we ask those projects that jointly run task forces with us to add such a notice to their newsletter we could perhaps increase the feedback. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Feedback is always a good idea. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing (Phase I)

In order to move forward with finally completing the Academy as a first-tier resource for project members, I think we need to undertake a two-phase reorganization:

  • Phase I: Merge and/or collect courses into sets to reduce the number of overly short or overlapping courses
  • Phase II: Polish remaining courses into finished documents

The current list of courses is below:

Current list of courses

I think, based on a brief look, that we could easily reduce the number of courses by a third to a half simply by combining stubby and overlapping ones into more comprehensive documents. I've made a start on organizing them below; please feel free to make changes and comment. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To be merged

To be collected as series

To remain as is

Comments

This is definitely a step in the right direction, better than the hodgepodge of articles we have now. If I understand what you mean by series correctly, the lessons on images could be its own series, and so could the two lessons listed last about coordinators' work. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem in organising the material is that we have something at the moment that's partway between a teaching resource and an information resource, but doesn't seem to know which one it wants to be.
Course-wise, what I'd personally like to see would be a graduated series of linked lessons making up a complete course. This wouldn't apply to everything but, for example, A-Class reviewing could be split into short lessons on how to review for each criterion along with an overview and some general advice. We could organise the images lessons into, say, finding images; using images in articles; creating images etc, with each step being a progression from the one before. My view is that we should above all aim for accessibility; students should be able to dip in and out of courses at whatever level they desire, and be able to find the subject they want without too much rooting around. Per all that, I think it probably makes sense to start with merging those pages that can be merged without too much attention to formatting etc for now. I'd possibly even go so far as to merge every related page into one - all the images pages together, all the reviewing pages together etc. Once the raw content on each subject is in one place then I'd think about ordering it and splitting it back out into logical series. EyeSerenetalk 10:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That seems like an awfully large waste of resources, but I do see some sense in it. Personally, I'd like to see some course with how to content in them for the people. At the moment I would argue the most badly needed how to page is "how to close an A-class review", since I suspect that many of the coordinator shy away from the task since they are not sure how exactly to go about that task (even I have trouble remembering every little thing these days). I should note here that a while back I left a message somewhere concerning the academy and content that we could borrow from a similarly themed area of Wikipedia that I thought would help us fill in the blanks so to speak. I do not remember where exactly the place was, but if I have time tomorrow then I may go digging for the message and see if the source material I thought would be useful could be incorporated into this reorganization at all. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm approaching it more from the viewpoint of reducing repetition and standardising the format rather than any desire to throw out material. What's not used or inappropriate in tone for a lesson could always be dropped into supplementary essays and the like.
Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual is a good resource, but as with other lessons I'm not sure how far we want to go with reinventing the wheel when there's suitable content already on site (eg I transcluded the GA reviewing article from elsewhere). I suppose in time it would be nice to write everything with a milhist-specific slant though. EyeSerenetalk 11:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A-class checklist

Note: the checklist is now on the project page, here.


Per the discussion at WT:MILHIST#A-class review, let's brainstorm a checklist that writers should check before submitting an article for a MILHIST A-class review. We don't want it to be burdensome on any one writer ... but if the checklist is easy enough to follow, we're likely to get volunteers from outside the project, especially if we swap a few favors, so any and all ideas are welcome, at least until we get a feel for how much help we're going to get with the workload. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Text

[Tweaked and moved to project page]

Discussion

Is it worth including some common grammatical mistakes?

What's coming to mind is the endless arguments we had in style guidelines: everyone seemed to take a list of words as an invitation to add another word to the list. Maybe we could just say: if people say you're using a word wrong in an A-class review, then please check how you're using that word in your future efforts. Or maybe just: please ask for help if you're not sure about word usage, preferably before the article gets to an A-class review. I don't want whatever is said in an A-class review to become law for future article submissions; that feels too much like FAC to me. - Dank (push to talk)

I see comprises/composed of misused a lot.

I do too. For AmEng, I've always liked the examples from AP Stylebook: "The United States is composed of 50 states"; "The United States comprises 50 states"; and "Fifty states constitute the United States". Use "include" instead if the list only represents a part of the whole. - Dank (push to talk)

Also, assuming we're not just concentrating on good prose, we could perhaps add technical things like checking for overlinking, checking the sources listed in full in the refs section match up with those used in cites, checking wikilinks go to where they're supposed to etc. EyeSerenetalk 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, anything that's helpful for other reviewers would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll toss up a few ideas, but I tend to go overboard, so we might want to review this once the brainstorming is done to comply with KISS. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
"avoid defining it in the article unless it is critical.": well, sure, full definitions are generally a distraction. OTOH, MOS says, and the style guidelines have generally said, "Jargon should be explained or avoided", "jargon" meaning anything that non-specialists may have a hard time with. For instance, at Logistics at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter, I added a quick "the management of personnel and materiel" for "logistics". - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Bahamut0013)
Yeah, I'm finding it hard to separate in my own mind the distinctions between the different quality criteria. I think I might be straying a bit from the A-class and into the GA and FA a tad. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay ... I moved that up to "Clarity". Feel free to tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked it again, keeping some of your bits, tell me what you think. (Disclaimer: I generally try my best to leave other people's words alone unless it's my job to copyedit and they trust me as a copyeditor, but I think the checklist has to be minimal, exactly right, and hard to misinterpret, so I'm going to be pushier than usual on this project.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
In "Consistency", I'd prefer we not ask for consistency with "style", because the writers won't know what that means and it's not something I (or other copyeditors, generally) need. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Tweak as much as you please, that's the point of this little brainstorming session. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking it still makes more sense at the definitions section. You might get my meaning a bit more if you read my draft for the Bugle's editorial. We could try combining the bullets, but that might be unweildy... maybe make the dictionaries bullet a sub-bullet of the clarity one? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the fact that your column is perfect as-is suggests to me that we don't want some of that stuff in the checklist, because it's got nuance. On an instinctive level, people take criticism of their writing the same as they would criticism of the way they talk ... that is, as an insult. It's irrational, but unavoidable. So any rules and regulations we give people should be self-explanatory and easy to implement, with a minimum number of words. Now that you bring up the "dictionaries" point, I'm inclined to just remove that point, if that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw, one thing you added that I removed was the admonition not to give definitions in some cases. My position, and I've got support for it if you want it, is: if the reader can at least come up with a vague guess what the linked word or phrase means, then the link is usually sufficient. If they will have either no idea or the wrong idea what it means, then a link is not sufficient, you need a quick description in the text. Also, I just want to repeat: I'm generally easier to work with than this, I'm going to be very picky about the text of this checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point now about not asking for definitions; I removed that bit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean about nuanced writing, but one way or another, if the writing is bad, they are gonna get offended when it gets pointed out to them. And I'd be aghast if something got through ACR merely to spare feelings!
My point on definitions wasn't to never use them, it was to avoid them when not reasonably necessary for conciseness and clarity. So I think the current wording works very well for that bullet. Perhaps we could mention template:convert for the consistancy bullet? I think it's the single best tool an editor has when dealing with numbers (you don't even have to do the math yourself, and it's perfect each time), but it might be unfair to start transmogrifying the helpful points into a list of tools... perhaps we could add a list of resources at the end, which includes some good templates, how-tos, and places to ask for help.
There's more support around FAC for not using the convert template (or for substing it) than for using it, a position that I disagree with ... but then, I'm generally out of step with WP style when it comes to units, so I just put units in my standard disclaimer and don't pay much attention. - Dank (push to talk)
I think we've focused quite a bit on style now (A1, 3, 4, and 5), and we need to get some more content meat into the list (A2). It might be difficult to generalize with such a vast array of potential topics, but I think we can add a bullet about comprehensiveness and completeness in general, one on balance (i.e. WP:UNDUE) and NPOV, one on the limitations (conciseness/article size, BLP).
For me, that depends on whether the checklist is aimed just at the MILHIST A-class review. Violations of content policies are not pervasive there; if someone's committing a SYN, I'll just ask them to read up on the content policies, which are all tight and readable. If we're going to use the checklist for peer review or history in general or FAC, then it makes sense to try to be more comprehensive ... although even in that case, I'd want to break it into pieces, with one piece staying focused on A-class. - Dank (push to talk)
Is this checklist going to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class FAQ? I think that might be a good home for it, or at least linked from there prominently! And please don't apologize for the banter, I realize the importance of the wording here and I'm rather enjoying the collaboration. You're much easier to work with than I'm accustomed to, and much more polite. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No preference on where it lives. Thanks, I'm enjoying the collaboration too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd actually suggest absorbing both the list and the FAQ into an Academy article that will cover all aspects of preparing for an ACR. The FAQ format is not particularly suited for the level of detail we're presenting, and the FAQ itself will largely be redundant to the new material in any case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Writing an A-Class article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using the A-class review toolbox also contain some useful material to be pulled in. I'd suggest using the first one as the location for the new, over-arching article. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No preference. Your first link seems fine to me, as long as the checklist (and a brief description of what it's for) are in a separate section. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ach! Took me a lil bit to find the moved list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Checklist. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Asking for Help Article

I have been doing some work for a new article for the training division. The subject is Asking for Help. I currently have a partial draft of this article which I would like some feedback on. The draft can be found here: Draft of Asking for Help.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If I was writing that, I'd mention the lists of task force members. WT:MILHIST can sometimes be a bit daunting because of so many active threads and at the same time your interests may not over lap with those who are particularly active there. Instead, some may prefer a one-on-one approach in which they seek advice from someone with a declared interest in a subject area. Quickly checking over their relevant contributions would also assist in assessing whether a person is worth consulting. Nev1 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point. In addition to the individual task force member lists, the main member directory is also a place to look (especially once we have the new format implemented). Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Some things not mentioned:
  • There's WP:RFF, which provides assistance, not quite peer review level, but some authors just want general feedback rather than detailed review. It is virtually unavoidable to get an RFF from a newbie using the Article Wizard.
  • Editors can put {{helpme}} plus a question in their talk page and await a reply on their own page rather than a helpdesk, for assistance.
  • Do the IRC channels at WP:CHAT provide assistance? Not sure myself, never used IRC, but might be worth adding, if they do.
  • Adopt-a-user program for experienced editors to help guide inexperienced editors to a high level of wiki navigation.
Might be worth expanding each item on your page to explain not only what each one is or does, but the different results that can be gained, also in terms of the level of assistance on a scale, eg. Basic -> Intermediate -> Advanced.
Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 08:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Strategy/Training/Archive_1&oldid=1151006128"