User talk:Roger Davies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ARCHIVES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12

Contents 1 Conflict 2 Tag and Assess 3 Military Music 4 Special Projects 5 Worklist C 6 Jarama 7 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008) 8 VNQDD 9 Battle of Verrieres Ridge 10 Re: India Drive 11 Re: Awesomeness 12 Thank you! 13 Gibraltar 14 May reviewer award 15 Request

[edit] Conflict

Could you mediate a conflict on the 20th Engineer Brigade (United States) article? I am having a disagreement with an IP claiming to be public affairs for the unit, but I fear we're just getting locked into an edit war. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure :) But before that, perhaps you could clarify why you reverted this editor's first set of edits. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you'll see the IP's revision and the Previous revision, you'll see that the editor appears to be just copying information from another site and pasting it on wikipedia without sources, links, or anything else. He claims to be civil affairs for the unit, but the article just looks copied from the unit's website. The article is, in its cureent form, a GA, and the revisions reduce its quality drastically. I feel that the editor is clearly in the wrong and have explained this on the article's talk page, but he's presisting in reverting the edits. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was very helpful, thank you. I see that Narson and Blnguyen have already intervened very speedily and very effectively so good order is now restored. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag and Assess

Hi, I am taking part in the drive, and am curious as to which means of granting awards is easiest for you guys. (As Earned or Lump Sum) Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking and for joining in :) To be honest, it's much easier if to do them as a lump at the end as the as-you-go system needs regular time-consuming monitoring. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, didn't want to cause more work. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military Music

Here is a case in point about planning ahead in categories. I remember there was a discussion over Military Music, and eventually consensus merged it into Military Band with a redirect. Of course I argued against it :)

Now we have this, The Airborne Symphony. It is a military symphony not played by a Military Band, but by an orchestra. Should it be categorised under World War II in the way the 1812 Overture is categorised under Category:Napoleonic Wars?

Then there is the issue of Category:Marches. It includes both the music, and the troop movement type articles. Etc--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it was probably a case in point myself :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

From the article, Airborne Symphony is really film music, albeit music written for a film with a military theme. It's no more military music than Haydn's Military Symphony. Mind you the military band article seems very American, the term is virtually synonmous with concert band today, which is barely mentioned in the article. David Underdown (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The applicable scope guideline explicitly includes only music "with long military associations—for example, It's a long way to Tipperary and Lili Marleen". I'd be very interested in any suggestions you have for improving the scope wording for greater clarity. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to have a think about it, though my banding days are long over, and I have only very slight acquaintance with the current British military band set up. I do wonder if Gustav Holst's First and Second suites should be included, as they were explicitly written for miltary bands rather tahn general concert bands (I'm not sure there really were any other in the UK at the time, the brass bandbeing the closest civilian equivalent). David Underdown (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being disruptive, but the above example of the 1812 Overture has a longer military association then either It's a long way to Tipperary or Lili Marleen, and it too is a symphonic work, albeit with the simulated gun firing. Airborne Symphony is not really a film music, having been written during the war, by a serviceman, to commemorate the airmen, as the article says, and is no less a monument to the service personnel then other military memorial then those in Category:Military memorials and cemeteries. this is another that comes to mind as being within Military History Project. There is after all Category:Military art, and music too is an art.

I would suggest that the scope of music covered by the Project be expanded to include any and all music either written for the armed forces, about events in military history, or adopted by the armed forces for their own purposes, usually rescored as a march, such as the Waltzing Matilda

I would suggest rewording the last part of scope

• 8. Artistic expressions during military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose. (remove "long military associations")

Probably the enumeration of media can be historically ordered painting, sculpture, prose, poetry, music, film, digital design--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't realy call the 1812 particularly military either, certainly wouldn't think it particularly falls within the scope of the project. On the other hand Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony possibly does, due to the propaganda that surrounded it and it's various premieres during WWII. David Underdown (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1812, that's the one dedicated to the Battle of Borodino! You wouldn't say that "particularly falls within the scope of the project"? Hmmmm--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what it's programme is thank you very much, though many who hear the work proabbly do not, but I don't see why that should fall under the project when for example A Bridge Too Far (film) has not been "claimed", or perhaps closer to 1812, War and Peace is also not included. Unless the artwork was specifically commissioned for the military, or has in some way itself impacted on military history, I wouldn't see that as falling scope. The examples currently mentioned are interesting as iconic tunes of WWI and II respectively (for both sides in the case of Lili Marlene). David Underdown (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we are back to the failure of the Project scope to be clearly defined, and this is connected to the issue of categorisation that is used to structure/map the articles' range. I am actually surprised that War and Peace are not within the scope of Military History Project, and neither is A Bridge Too Far (film). Surely more people have become aware of military history through these works, never mind the 1812 overture, which in Australia is played on every occasion possible for the Australian Army, then through very many other articles in the current scope. This is because these works reflect the relationship between social consciousness of different societies and war/military, and its popular expression that is art. So, both Mobile Army Surgical Hospital and M*A*S*H (TV series) are within the scope of the Project, but although the Battle of Borodino is, the artistic work that pays it tribute, is not? Seems rather strange to me.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(od) Thanks for all the input, gentlemen. I don't entirely agree with either of you but you've provided plenty of food for thought :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special Projects

I'm waiting on the two people who volunteered to talk to their profs about structuring World Wars I & II; except it's taking a loooong time. I want to have a good solid structure agreed before we proceed. I'll wait for another week or so and then nudge them again. Hope your wikiemail inbox isn't too overflowing with mundane articles concerns. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worklist C

Is up. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jarama

My interest in the song is obscure. I first saw it in a used Sing Out! that I bought about 1966. I'm actually trying to trace the origin of the tune. I know it is "Red River Valley" Reasonable explanations for the song are "Bright Sherman Valley", probably Shermansdale, Pennsylvania, settled by "Scots-Irish", or a Canadian version, attributed to "Ulster Scots" (actually the same ethnic group) fighting on the Canadian prairies. Then comes Jarama, written by a Scot. Maybe the Canadian and US versions have a common ancestor. The line "as you sit in your home by the ocean" does not apply very well to Canada or to Pennsylvania west of Harrisburg, but might apply very well to Scottish border clearances, where people were cleared out of the valleys and settled along the ocean to collect kelp. Anyway, do you know of any Scots Gaelic versions with the same tune? Pustelnik (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't. The people to ask perhaps are the English Folk Song and Dance Society. They are very helpful and I'm sure they'll be able to give you details of the equivalent Scottish organisation if you get in touch with them. They may even have information on it themselves. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VNQDD

I've read the notice, but could you take a quick ce look at this? Tony's dropped a w/o. Thanks again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you don't have to worry about this anymore. It's already been copyedited. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Verrieres Ridge

Hi Roger, Battle of Verrières Ridge is going for FA-Class, & any comments are highly appreciated. Just to let you know. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: India Drive

I'm running so behind schedule lol - only yesterday I noticed the first paragraph identified it as Milhist Drive!! Yeah, putting the roundel would be good...I see you've uploaded quite a few of the images for the awards...perhaps I could ask you for a little favour in relation to those 3? :D I've fixed the project award for 2000. Importance and taskforces I'm still thinking about - but will fix that up soon. Cheers for the note :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW!! I was thinking that the emblem would be good on it somewhere...but you've gone so much further. They are AWESOME!!!! And you made them so quickly too!!! Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.... They are the bestest!!! Cheers! 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Awesomeness

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill ^(prof) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Wow - unexpected! I really appreciate that, thanks :D EyeSerene^talk 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar

Hi Roger. Sorry to bother you but unsure of what to do with this. We have a user (MEGV) who brought up some valid concerns which, after being dealt, were expanded and expanded again. Now he is pushing for an earlier compromise (where sovereignty should be avoided in the lead) to mean that the fringe theory he prefers (That Britain never gained sovereignty, a view not even spain puts forward) should receive equal footing to the generally accepted view that Britain controls the sovereignty of the rock. There was a second user with incredibly similar name and a similar writing style whose IP originates in Spain as well. The second user (JCRB) went quiet and then when MEGV ran into a wall, JCRB comes out of the woodwork again to back him up with similar styles and language. The suspicion is that this is sockpuppeting to try and create an artificial disruption, though we are trying to address MEGV's concerns, though it is all a bit tl;dr ATM. If you have time, could you please take a look on Talk:Gibraltar and point us in the right direction? I'm fast running out of ideas on how to keep it productive and also on how to handle the concerns. Narson (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. It goes on a bit, don't it? It hasn't erupted into an edit war, and it doesn't look as if it will, so there's little that needs doing. You've voiced your objections and there's clearly no consensus for change, so I'd just leave it be as none of you have to reply point for point. If you think there's sockpuppetry going on, you can file a request for checkuser here but you will need some evidence to support your request. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, judging by the IPs used there was an attempt to disguise, but, there isn't the evidence there for RfCU and the disruption of the article isn't there for WP:SSP. I think that leaves making it very clear we won't play this game of 'push the fringe theory' and hope he takes that. Narson (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May reviewer award

		The Reviewers Award
		To Roger Davies, For your excellent work at Featured article candidates during May, thank you for the solid reviews of articles this month and for your thorough work towards helping promote Wiki's finest work. And an extra thanks for your help with withdrawals and in keeping the FAC page on track! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

You were highly recommended to me. As an especially wiki-capable individual.

I'll be co-coordinating a major collaboration, the "Around the World Competition", at the WP:AWC July 15th.

The problem is, I don't have any co-coordinators yet, and time is rapidly running out. I'm looking for a couple skilled and dedicated Wikipedians.

It will entail 1) preparing for the event, and 2) overseeing the actual event.

The competition may run for several months, or even longer. There's no need for you to commit to the whole thing, I can find others later after it's started if you should get pulled away or burnt out.

But I need some help getting this up and running, through mid-August at least.

The competition, a fun way to frame a collaboration, will focus on the development of a set of 200+ pages to be transferred to article space when they are completed (some of them are complete enough that they are in article space already, and those are included in this project too). It would take a single individual years working full time to complete these by himself, so it is necessary to seek the community's help. And we might as well make it fun, to attract as many people as possible.

Each contestant will be using advanced tools like AWB and Linky to improve a single information item at a time across the entire set.

That will allow the building of skill with respect to tracking down and presenting each data type, which should improve the overall efficiency and quality of the project. And it's a novel approach which presents the World itself as a sort of race track for the contestants to compete on.

This is going to be a blast.

When completed, each page will be a profile/outline/(web)site-map of a country of the World. The set will be a valuable reference aid and a showpiece of Wikipedia.

Once it begins, co-coordinators will need to be on hand to help answer participants' questions on the talk page, and to dole out the assignments. Also, I'll be dividing the responsibility of presenting the awards, amongst the co-coordinators. One per award type.

This project is the largest wiki-collaboration I've ever attempted. Bigger than the main page redesign, bigger than the Tip of the day project, and even bigger than the help system overhaul.

I'm in the process of writing up the instructions for the contest, and I've been working with graphics designers to create the awards that will be given away. And I've been working on the pages themselves, because there needs to be enough quality content there for participants to easily envision what they will be working to complete. The AWC's newsletter is being used to promote the event, but the event also needs to be promoted far and wide on Wikipedia itself (on relevant pages) when the time comes (after the awards are ready). I've contacted the editor-in-chief of The Signpost, but have not received a reply, so I'll probably have to start visiting their newsroom on a regular basis.

As you can see, I have my hands full, and I could sure use some help.

Please think it over.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist    22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)