Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News Showcase Style guide Announcements and open tasks  → Articles needing attention  → Popular articles  → New articles talk  → Nominations for deletion talk The Academy talk
Departments Assessment talk  → A-Class FAQ / B-Class FAQ  → Assessment requests Contest talk Logistics talk Review talk  → Review alert box
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active / Inactive  → Banners and userboxes Awards talk Stress hotline talk Portals talk Project banner talk Project category
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge talk  → Military award talk  → Military conflict talk  → Military memorial talk  → Military person talk  → Military structure talk  → Military test site talk  → Military unit talk  → National military talk  → War faction talk  → Weapon talk  → Command structure talk  → Operational plan talk  → Service record talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces
General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military land vehicles talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk
Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Lebanese military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Pakistani military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk
Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk Cold War talk
edit · changes

Contents 1 German writing contests 2 Prizes/Awards? 3 Recognition 4 I'm not sure if I qualify for the contests, but...= 5 Review 6 What about...? 7 Should we give up? 8 Scoring error? 9 Nevada 10 Good God... 11 Owen Tudor Boyd 12 Forgot to add an entry... 13 Scoring errors? 14 Help please 15 Scoring mistake?

[edit] German writing contests

(The German wiki has a long tradition of writing contests. While our systems are generally similar, they have a jury that creates a ranking of the winners. The clue is that other registered users do promise prizes for the participants. The first placed is the first to choose from these donations (can be anything, material or else, like a DVD or coedit help in the next article), the second next and so on. This way editors do have some non-virtual feedback. Some prizes are offered uder conditio that an article has to be written about a certain topic to get the prize. Naturally we are spread appart all around the globe, making these donations a bit more expensive to deliver, but on the other hand we reach a lot more wealthy donators than a bunch of 100 million German speaking people from Central Europe. Wandalstouring 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So basically it's something closer to, say, Wikipedia:Danny's contest than to a rolling point model, yes? Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prizes/Awards?

I was wondering if we would come up with some kind of award for the winner each month. Mabey a variation on the WikiChevrons or another sort of award. Any ideas? Cheif Captain 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the central recognition, you mean? We can always hand out WikiChevrons, I suppose. (I wouldn't be surprised if the longer-term winners would receive the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, for that matter.) Kirill Lokshin 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recognition

You know, it would have been nice if you had credited us... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming nobody really cared about such things (seeing as our developments have been silently "borrowed" by, well, just about everybody); but, if you insist... ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally not when lesser projects take stuff. WP:BAY has directly copied most of our pages (their founder is a member), but it's nice when a bigger project pilfers ideas from smaller ones to credit them, I reckon. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not sure if I qualify for the contests, but...=

As some of you know, I've taken on a task, which has been defining itself as I move along, of writing or improving a number of articles on intelligence and related areas, which have military components but are not strictly military. I would like to share the big picture of what I'm working on, as well as where I'm struggling with structure.

In the list below, !! indicates in-process but not published (not to say that any published article can't be improved), and ++ means that I am trying to reconcile ideas spread across several existing articles or drafts that I am considering. Indentation shows hierarchy:

Intelligence Cycle Management--includes tasking

Intelligence Collection Management

SIGINT

Historical and current, likely to need splitting

SIGINT by Alliances, Nations and Industries

SIGINT Operational Platforms by Nation for current collection systems (organized by ground, sea surface, submarine, aircraft and satellite--may need to split

SIGINT in Modern History for World War I to the present (probably needs to split)

Techniques ++ including ELINT/COMINT split, EOB, and where this fits vis-a-vis EW

MASINT (all of these have analysis as well as collection components)

Electro-optical MASINT

Radar MASINT

Materials MASINT

Geophysical MASINT

Nuclear MASINT

Radiofrequency MASINT

HUMINT (challenge of how CI operations, espionage, special recon fit); currently working on analyzing human networks, which might split

OSINT (working on existing article)

Intelligence Analysis Management

Intelligence Analysis

Intelligence Dissemination Management (the gaming and net assessment might split)

Intelligence cycle security!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcberkowitz (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Is there someone with an assigned job of reviewing these? It is already May 2 and they haven't been reviewed yet. --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the poke. Woody (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about...?

Points for creating new articles? I tend to create a lot articles on a whim :) In theory, I could post here that I intend to create it, and than go ahead and so so, but usually I think of that only after I do so (in the past two hours I've for example created the Mongol invasion of Poland, and then remembered about this page). So what about a rule change or a different contest for articles improved and reported to MILHIST post facto? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We do have the points for creating stubs, though it would be hard to enforce points retro-actively. It would be very hard to keep track on articles for CO-ORDs as you could just go through your contribs and select articles all the way back to 2006. If you forget, I am sure that the tallying coordinator would be amenable to giving you a poke at the end of the month, but that is not sustainable. Easy solution: don't forget! ;) Woody (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no problems if I can report my articles from the past few days or weeks, but under current rules it is impossible to report anything post facto. Can we agree on the finite amount of time one can report his work after it has been created/improved? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The past few days (ie 3/4) could be added to next months competition, but anymore than that and it is outside the discretionary period. I understand your problem, having done it many times myself, but this is not an article creation contest; it is an article writing contest, a development contest. Personally, I can't see how it would be feasible, or fair to create a large discretionary period. I have asked for some other coord input as this isn't the most heavily watched page. Woody (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree this may not be fair, although it would be nice to clarify in the rules that editors can report recently improved content here. How about starting a different contest, one rewarding editors for creating new articles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can allow a nomination 24 hours after article creation. That would be trackable. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So where should I report by Mongol invasion and similar articles in the future? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure that we've ever had a really consistent approach to this issue; I do recall that people have listed articles after working on them in the past, and that it did not provoke comment at the time. From a motivational perspective, I think there's an argument to be made for either approach, but I think that opening up the listing period (in other words, allowing people to list any work they've done during the contest period at any point in said period) would orient this more towards rewarding article work in and of itself, rather than article work which happens to be planned in advance. I'm not really convinced that there's a substantial benefit to preventing after-the-fact listings, so long as they're still within the current month. Kirill ^(prof) 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I share Kirill's view. The objective afterall is article creation and improvement. Providing the creation and submission are in the same contest month, I have no problem with this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done that myself. I don't have a problem with it. The only practical change is that people don't list 3-4 times as many articles that then get inspected and nothing has happened. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we give up?

Jesus H. Christ, Belhalla. Enough entries???? Jeez. =/ lol! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My secret plan is working… Mwah-ha-ha-ha! :) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should run to the hills before we are overrun by the sheer amount of Belhalla's upcoming point total. =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 00:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...so I count 17no, now it's 18 articles in Belhalla's list at the moment. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 05:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The solution is simple. Enter one article, and ninety-nine redirects to it :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't that mean creating 99 talk pages with 99 WP:MILHIST templates with 99 _-class assessments too? =D ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 07:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Bagh! You've found a flaw in my cunning plan. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

;D I try. Technically it's not a flaw, good sir, it's just an annoying problem that someone will have to deal with if they want to beat Bellhalla....though you'd have to be beyond bored to do something like that manually. =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 07:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now I think about it, you simply redirect all the talk pages as well and hope that the assessing coordinator doesn't notice. You never know, it might work. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm that would be an idea...ecspecially if you were assessing your own! =D ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 20:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring error?

Hi, just wondering - I submitted two articles, one of which went from start to B, and another from none to B, but in the table I only have one article for this month, and the points for one. Possibly this is because I've changed my signature - one of my entrants is signed as "Borg_Sphere," another as "Joe." Thanks - Joe (Talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, the new sig confused me. Should be amended now. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Joe (Talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nevada

Hi guys! Nevada, my entry, is now at A-class...will my score reflect that, or do i have to re-enter it for October? And do I get my own spot in the sweeeet table? =) —the_ed17— 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit outside the discretionary period really for inclusion. All the points have been tallied up now. What you can do is relist it with the assessment as it was at the beginning of the month and it will be included for the October tallying. Then you get a place in the table. ;) Woody (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks. (and wow, my question sounds like I am in 5th grade...) —the_ed17— 17:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm sad--I didn't get any mention in the newsletter for my September entry of the Nevada, start => GA.... =( lol! (Boy if I didn't sound like a 5th grader then, I do now!!!) —the_ed17— 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It'll be in the October edition for the A-Class, and also FA if it gets there in time: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Newsletter October 2008. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol it's no problem regardless...I don't care if I get recognized...only 15 seconds of "fame"! (I'd rather work anonymously as to avoid Wikidrama...) —the_ed17— 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good God...

Did I count Bellhalla's articles right? 143? (as in one hundred and forty-three points...) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Totals (not including me-still one more pending ... and does anyone feel like double-checking?)

Bellhalla @ 143 - Confirmed by Cam

JonCatalan @ 32 - 42, corrected by Cam

Georgejdorner @ 26 - 27, corrected by Cam

Ian Rose @ 17 - Confirmed by Cam

Abraham, B.S. @ 12 - Confirmed by Cam

Skinny87 @ 5 - Confirmed by Cam

ERcheck @ 1 - Confirmed by Cam

Rosiestep @ 1 - Confirmed by Cam

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked. Cam ^(Chat) 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Catalan's was such a dumb error.... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly that after creating or editing 13 articles last month, I received a total of 1 point? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid so (well, actually it was two points). Unfortunately, the writing contest is not designed to reflect the sort of edits that you made over the last month, it is designed to reflect the significant expansion of the actual content. This contest does not have a mechanism of factoring in the addition of infoboxes and persondata as they do not significantly affect the "article assessment rating" by which we score this contest. That is by no means a reflection on the type of edit, it is just not what this system is designed to reflect. Sorry about that. Regardss, Woody (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Tudor Boyd

I would like to ask how you rate weather or not an article has been improved? I would of thought that you would decide improvements by filling out the B-class check, it is there for the sole reasons of assisting assessments and showing what improvements need to be made. My recent entry Owen Tudor Boyd was said to of had no improvements, even though the B-class checklist was not eve filled out. If i was assessing that article i would find that it satisfied the B-class check list and would therefore re-class it as B-class. Can i ask why this was not the case? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 13:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It must have been just an oversight, as the checklist is usually filled out. I have since re-assessed the article, but I still believe it is a Start. The main areas of concern are coverage and prose/grammar; the information is lacking in my opinion and there are no substantial paragraphs - in many places it is just a list of appointments. Not that these hinder the article's rating, but it would be best if more sources were used in the text, and I'm not too sure the "Promotion Dates" section is really necessary. Well, I hope this helped sort out some confusion :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This will help me improve the article further. I was concerned that the article had just been glanced at before being assessed. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 18:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forgot to add an entry...

Do we have to add entries to this list in order for them to count? I just noticed that I forgot to add 194th Engineer Brigade (United States) to my contributions for December. I created it this month and it's only a Start class so I normally wouldn't be particular about it, but it just so happens that the extra 1 point would put me in a tie for second place this month. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that a no? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, once they have been tallied up and the barnstars issued, we can't really then add more to them. You could add it for this months, but that is not what you asked. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring errors?

For the January contest it looks like there may have been errors in scoring two of my entries:

• SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) was at Start-Class at the beginning of the month, so the points awarded should have been 15 for A-Class, not 10.
• SM U-27 (Austria-Hungary) was not in existence at the beginning of the month, so the points awarded should have been 6 for GA, not 5.

Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See this edit, I realised that when I was tallying the score and amended them, but I must have edited an old version of the page when adding the tallies. Your actual score is correct though. Regards, Woody (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

Poitrus' two entries that are not scored - are they within the scope of our project? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is your response: User_talk:Roger_Davies#Re:_Contest -MBK₀₀₄ 06:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring mistake?

I've been given 10 points for Hastings Ismay which went from Stub Class to A-Class. Shouldn't that actually be worth 16 points? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that error. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)