Any thoughts on how we want to proceed once the worklists are filled up? Do we want to try and do this within the project, or solicit support and assistance from the broader community? The recent WPBIO drive was able to assess about 45,000 articles in a months time - is that a reasonable goal for us as well? Do we want to give out awards? Or do we want to run it on less formal basis - not really a "drive" so much as an ongoing project? Carom 00:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it'll end up having to be a mix of an initial, highly advertised drive with an ongoing effort to wrap up the remaining work afterwards. I don't know whether making that drive public would be helpful, given that a major point of it—determining whether each article is in our scope or not—may not necessarily be something non-members would be comfortable deciding. Perhaps a public effort to clear out the likely backlog of tagged-but-unassessed articles that would result from people only tagging stuff in the worklists may be a more suitable approach. Kirill Lokshin 00:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. As it stands now there are only approximately 3 or 4 people that do any assessing of articles. There is no way you will get 45,000 in a month. If you are going to let a bot run loose tagging articles for WPMILHIST than it may not be a bad idea to see if it can at least assess articles that have Stub listings at the bottome of them. Anything we can do to help will be appreciated.--203.10.224.60 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be better to keep the initial effort in-house. I think we can probably muster more than three or four editors to help out with this, as WPBIO (which has less centralized activity than we do) was able to recruit 42 editors (by my count) of whom 23 assessed more than 500 articles (again, by my count). Kirill, you have the best (and only) idea of when we might be able to start this - is May 1 too soon? Or should we aim for mid-May? Carom 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 1 might be doable, I think. There are really two separate things this is tied to:

1. Compiling the worklists. I still have to make some changes to the code; once that's done, I'll need to do a complete run (which takes a long time) and post the results onto the worklist subpages. I think May 1 will give me enough time to get this together, though.
2. Preparing the rest of the procedural infrastructure (i.e. working out what awards, if any, we need, fiddling with the instructions, etc.). This doesn't need to be synchronized with the actual worklist generation, and can be done more haphazardly from now until the beginning of May.

In either case, though, we can delay the start of the drive if needed, as we won't really be making the plans for it public until (shortly before) it starts. Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think infrastructure will be a problem - we can use existing barnstars (Original, Working Man/Woman's, Tireless Contributors, Diligence and the WikiChevrons, not neccessarily in that order), and tweaking the instructions is easy enough. We can tentatively pencil in May 1, and then reassess if that's feasible as we get closer (and like you say, no need to announce until everything's actually ready to go). Carom 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more concrete thoughts on how this might actually work:

1. We start with a highly publicized, in-house tagging effort, with a run time of, say, one month. Editors have the option of posting their running totals to the drive page, low-level contributors recieve the original barnstar, high-level contributors get the WikiChevrons.
2. At the end of the month, if there is a large backlog of unassessed articles (which I suspect there will be), we follow up with a public assessment drive, similar to the one conducted by WP:BIO (perhaps also a month long). Again, we can use barnstars as a carrot, with the original barnstar for low-level contributors, the barnstar of diligence for mid-level contributors, and the WikiChevrons for high-level contributors.

Obviously, I don't anticipate that a month-long drive will clear the entire backlog of untagged articles, so we'll probably want keep the worklists prominent for a couple more months, until the've been reduced considerably. Carom 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments (<!--Commented out-->) on each of the ones I've struck out, to explain why I don't think they belong under the scope. Given the massive number of articles we have to go through, and the variance in personal styles, I don't mean to imply that we need to make it a rule or anything, but I think it may be a good idea, a good suggestion, to try to leave such comments. It may be quite helpful for anyone going over it a second time or whatever, since we each have slightly different ideas in our minds as to what is and is not relevant enough, not to mention actual knowledge of the subject.

Speaking of scope, do we have a straight policy on whether or not individual places should be included under the scope of the project? I came across the article for Fallujah recently, and while it's a location that's certainly most well-known (outside of Iraqi studies specialists, I suppose) for the recent conflicts there, it is still a city with a longer history and broader identity. The same could be said of Israel, Vietnam, and Hiroshima - that they are most well-known perhaps for conflicts or military events but that there's actually a lot more to it. Thoughts? LordAmeth 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably avoid tagging places that aren't primarily military in nature, going by the same reasoning that says we don't tag countries just because they have a military. ;-) Kirill 12:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We don't need to tag articles that are only tenuously related to our scope. Carom 13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would it be helpful to start a list somewhere of categories which cause problems? It would seem that since the categories for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc are all sub-cats of Category:Confederate states (1861-1865) and therefore sub-sub-sub-sub-cats of Category:American Civil War, everything within those state categories, from sports clubs to natural history of the location to buildings and people of that state, will have been captured by our script. (Actually, I haven't seen the script, so it may be finer than that, but a lot of things are still getting into the worklists). LordAmeth 10:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only real benefit of such a list that I see would be if the script were run again; and I'm not sure that this would provide better results than simply feeding the list of excluded articles to it in that case. Kirill 12:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Alright. Just letting you know, that's one thing we're definitely going to have to contend with, and fictional military topics being another. LordAmeth 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming across this concern as well, and while taking all the strikeouts and marking them as "Ignore" in the next script run (non-computer-expert mumbo jumbo), the script will still pick up any new articles in these categories. If the script is run in the future, we should have a peek at what category levels are bringing in false drops. Subcats of the American Civil War filtering in through the individual state categories is one (if I see another episode article for a Cartoon Network franchise I'm gonna scream), while some subcats of Category:Incapacitating_agents (trance music albums or cigarette papers) would also be worth considering. -- saberwyn 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it mindboggling to read through all the information related to assessments. It seems you can read through endless links regarding how to make assessments and all the intricate details to do with ratings, etc. Maybe I need a few years under my belt around her to finally understand Wikipedia.--The Founders Intent 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not that difficult once you get the hang on them :) There are only three levels which can be made by an individual: stub, start and B-class. Working backwards, the {{WPMILHIST}} has a built-in checklist for deciding B-class (click on the [show] button of the banner, in show preview mode):

<!-- B-Class checklist -->

<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->

|B-Class-1=

<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

|B-Class-2=

<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->

|B-Class-3=

<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

|B-Class-4=

<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

|B-Class-5=

This then leaves stub and start. Broadly, stub is a brief or blatantly incomplete article and start is an article which fails B-class on just one or two points.

I'm sorry you've had to wait for a reply. Is there anything else on this I can help with? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to burn myself out on assessments, but I'm curious. What are the standard minimums for a WPMILHIST template in each of the below sections?

1. Stub - I take this as an unstructured, little to no content, un-referenced page. That some people use for place holders, some use for definitions with the hope it will be expanded.
2. Start - I see this as, an article that has some structure, but is missing 1 to 3 of the items in the B-class check list. Anyone can assess at this level? We seem to have a ton of articles that only need inline citations.
3. B-class - I see this one as, articles that have all the B-class checklist addressed even if not complete or stylistically pleasing. Anyone can assess at this level?
4. GA - A peer reviewed, high quality B-class with all the style and aesthetics covered. Assessed by specific editors?
5. A-class - Way above my paygrade?? I have no theories on this one.

From what I've seen, we (as editors) seem to be able to obtain minimal B-class, work together pretty well for good B-class, sometimes get a GA after a long waiting period, but it seems to be hard to maintain at GA. I've seen more demoted GAs than GAs. Anything above that I haven't run across in the couple of thousand articles I've read. --Colputt 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're explained here. Basically, anyone can assess on Stub / Start and can assess B-class on the basis of YES answers to the five questions. How are you doing them, by the way? Are you working through a range and, if so, which one? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the List of military aircraft of the United States article by article. Adding WPMILHIST and updating the ones that were allready there. I wanted to stick to article types I actually had experience with. I burned out soon after being told I rated some helicopter too high. I am just trying to find out if I was doing anything incorrectly. I'm back to editing now. --Colputt 23:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your work so far. It is highly appreciated and exactly the input the project needs. I've had a look at some of your assessments and they seem spot on. There are areas of grey between ratings and different editors simply take slightly different views. I wouldn't let take this too much to heart; you can't please everyone all the time (you should see my talk page some days!). Good luck with the editing. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 00:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I don't rank anything as B unless it actually meets all 5 assesment criteria for B rank. I draw my dividing line between stub and start along simple principles: if it has at least two solid references or a table or several distinct sections, its a Start; otherwise they are usually stubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromdog (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we assess a list of something like Battleships, or Ships launched in 1941? Or do we not tag them at all? (I'm back) --Colputt 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as articles, mostly; any requirements dealing with prose can be ignored, but they can still be assessed on completeness, referencing, layout, etc. Kirill 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about ship indexes and disambiguation pages? I've run across two so far, I just skipped them. --Colputt 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are there to aid the navagability of wikipedia - so they don't need assessing. If an index is a list then it should be assessed as a list - if it appears to be definitive (eg, list of boats that took part in the Battle of Jutland), and the list is referenced properly and it isn't to cluttered then you can rank it as B straight away. Maybe if I come across a really good list I would nominate it as article for featured list status. RichyBoy 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is the NA parameter which can cover non-article pages like lists, dab pages or templates since the list and template parameters aren't currently supported by this project. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not supposed to be used for lists; those are meant to use the regular levels (albeit going towards FL rather than FA status). Kirill 21:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ultimately not fussed about these, a bit of harmless fun really. I think I may have cleared 60 or so to date - I'll stick to my suggested sand box now and do a running tally from this point onwards. However it could be a bit of a discouragment to some people - maybe one of the boxes could be 'open' for anyone of the sign-ups to use - not everybody will want to take responsibilty for a whole section of 500 articles. RichyBoy 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and you mustn't feel pressured to do more than you feel comfortable with. You can always take your name off the range once you're through. However, there's a major Tag & Assess drive coming soon for which we're hoping to recruit editors from all over Wikipedia. A similar drive by WP:BIO had some editors tagging 4,000 or 5,000 articles. So we're aiming high :)))) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. When does the drive end?
2. Awards criteria. I'd like to get some clarification on this as I participated in the WP:Bio summer drive and the awards issue ran into some difficulties there due to ambiguities by the organizers.

• Are the awards progressive or only based on the processor's final total at the end of the drive? I.e., say I process 600 articles - do I get the 1 stripe once I reach 250 and later the 2 stripe once I reach 500 or just the 2 stripe to cover all the 600? I've tried to figure this out based on who's signed up and is award eligible as to what the intervals are for award distribution, but this isn't totally clear.
• Do the top processors get the bronze/silver/golden Wikis on top of any existing awards or just the Wikis?

BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers:

• End of the year (or when the articles are all tagged if sooner).
• Awards are accumulative. i.e. One stripe for 250 articles; one stripe PLUS two stripes for 500.
• If people want their awards as they qualify, I'll arrange it. (I'll sort a flag for this on the sign up page.)
• The Wikis are IN ADDITION to the other awards accumulated.

I'll clarify all of this on the Tag & Assess page.If you think of any other ambiguities, please let me know. We want people motivated, not puzzled :))

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 22:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for clarifying. Personally I prefer one distribution vs. several, kill all your birds with one stone. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising it. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 23:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of the year is coming up, and there's still a ways to go. Does the drive end at 00:00 January 1, 2008? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The drive proper, yes. We're planning to keep the lists open until the end of January for anyone that wants to earn more individual awards, but the 1st/2nd/3rd place trophies will be awarded on January 1. Kirill 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Assessment Drive, I have 2 questions:

• Should War Museums be tagged? They're not exactly memorials, which fall under MILHIST's scope, but a lot of them they're like quasi-memorials.
• Should Disambiguation pages which link to articles under WP:MILHIST's scope be tagged? (e.g. Boer War, which has links to the two Boer Wars)

Thanks! This should help me on my assessments! --Patar knight 01:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, war museums are part of our scope (as are historians, etc.).
• Disambiguation pages can be tagged with class=NA if desired, but there's no great need to do so, since they're not actually assessed beyond that.

Hope that helps! Kirill 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! --Patar knight 02:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that the script went down the route of going to all these Georgia cats and then identified 1996 Olympians from Atlanta under teh MILHIST suspects? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it tagged a lot of people with CBE, MBE, knighthood as MILHIST. did it presume that "knights" and "commanders" meant literal military officers? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I commented on something very similar a few weeks back. By that time, the drive was too advanced to do much about it other than create all the lists again with a modified script. I didn't notice the CBE one though. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 02:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also includes every notable somebody from the former Confederate states. Just strike them out. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It also throws up radio stations. I haven't worked out why. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The small text after each entry should tell you how it wound up on the list; that might not explain why the categories are set up that way, though. ;-) Kirill 13:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done 50 so far and there are more that are not in scope than in scope - and the ones in scope have mostly already got the project assessment - pity the script couldn't have excluded these. I have probably only added about 6 MILHIST templates, but I have updated a few stub-class to start-class that I presume were automatically tagged Viv Hamilton 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the luck of the draw. I've had a couple of sections where only one or two aren't new milhist articles. The existing milhist articles shouldn't have been excluded as their assessments needed reviewing.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Maybe 15% of the articles listed actually need tagging. And a lot of them are so far out of scope it's ridiculous (every member of any psychadelic band... any musical group from a Confederate state... any comic book character (?!?!)... any athlete or coach from a Confederate state...). Feels like it's a bit of a waste of human time to spend combing through quite so many articles that are so far out of scope, not to mention the already-tagged ones. Is there any way to get a bot to narrow it down a bit further? -- Avocado 02:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way-out ones are easily identified and struck through (I don't even bother opening most of them). --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat surprising that there is nothing in sight about why it is important that this work is done. If you are recruiting volunteers to do a certain task, surely you should try to convince the volunteers of the importance of the work. Since this drive involves a very large amount of work, there must be a very compelling reason. Right now I find it difficult to determine if my time is well spent if I participate in this drive. Arthena^(talk) 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main objective is the improvement of Wikipedia quality overall. Tagging improves the possibility of editors cooperating as it makes target articles easier to find and easier to process (ie consistent categorisation etc). --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I seldom see any responses to my comments. I'm new and want to help, but no one seems to care to talk to me about it. They blabber on as though no one else is here, so why sweat it if they don't want you.--The Founders Intent 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't reply to your message of 2 November. I mistakenly thought it didn't need a reply.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is that this WP is broad in scope and many articles get created and "lost" due to lack of tagging. Since WP:MILHIST is one of the most active Wikiprojects, we'd like to "find" them and get them assigned to the appropriate task forces for improvement. Since it's an extensive exercise, we've invited anyone interested in helping out with this administrative task to do so – just as is done for a variety of other such admin tasks on Wikipedia. If you're willing to help, we're glad to have your assistance! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The broad idea is to ensure that military history articles are brought into the project and can then be worked up/improved in a systematic way. Although the drive will yield thousands of new articles, we have a large motivated membership, with many specialist task forces, and we cooperate with other wikiprojects.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it would nice to get a bit of assistance in figuring out what to do. Some "how to" help would be useful.--The Founders Intent 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your message of 2 Nov here this morning. Does that help? I am thinking of writing a brief FAQ on this so typical Qs would be good. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the edges of the project scope are a little blurry, especially for someone without a background in military history or the WikiProject. I've got the project's scope section bookmarked, but it's not especially helpful with edge cases (are pirates part of military history? modern books about terrorism? a book about a fictional Vietnam vet? an anti-war protester?).

I'm trying to err on the side of including them (it's easier to remove the tag from a mis-tagged article than to re-find an article that should have been tagged, right?), but any tips would be appreciated. :-) -- Avocado 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: pirates, no (unless there's a strong navy component, in which case they belong in the maritime task force); books about terrorism, yes (in the task force of the country targetted); fictional Vietnam vet, no; anti-war protester, yes (in the task force of the country they're protesting about). Hope this helps. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. Any blanket guidelines for making judgments about future edge cases? (And I take it that erring on the side of over-tagging rather than under-tagging is acceptable?) -- Avocado 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The worst that can happen is that it has the wrong tag. If you bring future edge cases here, it will help inform others. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's another specific one... where does the Cold War fit in? -- Avocado 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the task force/s of the country/ies involved. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more... how do we handle the 20th C. conflicts in Northern Ireland and members of the IRA? Thanks again. -- Avocado 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Task Force. (British=yes) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Wasn't sure if it was in scope at all! -- Avocado 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this article belong to any task force? -- -- Avocado (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; we don't have any task force covering the Carribean at the moment. Kirill 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also... Would this article be in scope at all? -- -- Avocado (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Given the discussion of historical accuracy in the article, I'd say it's probably in-scope for us; that's one of the main things we were trying to get at with including "cultural depictions" at all. Kirill 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or this one? -- Avocado (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say not; it's not a substantially military topic, and, being just a link-list, contains no real military-related material to boot. Kirill 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Avocado (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would an article such as spall, of which only part is of military significance, be within the project's scope (Technology task force)? Cplakidas (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's in two military-related categories, for instance.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oh, and, which task force, if any, do war artists belong to? Cplakidas (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography=yes plus the task force of whatever conflict they were depicting.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another.... Is Minimum Credible Deterrence in scope at all? THanks! --Avocado (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one more: Is a person accused but then cleared of espionage charges within scope? Thanks. -- Avocado (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to participate to the drive (indeed, I am participating). I have a question about the procedure for the assessment. After tagging (some of) the articles in the list, I mark (a bunch of) the list itself like this. The question is: should I delete the WPMILHIST-tagged articles from the list before the mark? --gala.martin (what?) 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --gala.martin (what?) 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when someone reaches this threshold? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party at my place! :) seriously though, I think we agreed informally to award the chevrons for 5,000 edits. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cash would be nice. --Bedford (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cash would be wonderful.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who ponies up the money? The Wikimedia Foundation? =0 BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a few doubts on whether to include or not:

1. Forts - What is the criteria for including a fort or a castle in MILHIST? Does it have had to be the scene of a famous battle?

'No, just have have (or had) fortifications. ("Fortifications=yes" for task force)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

2. Disambig pages (for Eg. HMS Battleaxe - do we include them?

Yes. ("maritime=yes", class=NA)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

3. Spies - Do they come under the MILHIST?

Yes. Under the task forces of vthe countries they were spying on and spying for.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

4. Should Ships be included into |Weaponry-task-force ? Coz there is nowhere else ships are added into except maritime.

Maritime is fine. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

5. Films - Only films based on actual wars? What about The_Dancer_Upstairs_(film)?

Yes, and with a high accurate technical content (depictions of correct armour, aircraft etc). Few films qualify.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

I'll add more as I go along, or think of new doubts. Thanks. Sniperz11^talk|edits 12:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. (And welcome to the drive!) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for answering the questions... really cleared up a lot of doubts.

I have another query - Muhammad_Zaki, which is part of my list (#s 23000-23500), redirects to Pakistan Army. Now, what shall I do? strike off the entry, and consider it not a part of the MILHIST Project? Thanks. Sniperz11^talk|edits 14:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike it. Redirects aren't tagged.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion... I think we need to create a task force to manage different battles. Right now, most battles are very dispersed and vary widely in content and format. Having a common area where they can be improved is ideal. Sniperz11^talk|edits 12:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Ships ought to love us, as we are practically doing a major assessing job for them, or at least myself and Tom are.--Bedford (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then maybe we will be among the first to recieve the new WP:SHIPS barnstar, which they are currently dicussing on the project talk page. I don't mind, the two projects are close enough to share a butload of articles and every little bit counts :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done a good few too.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I started assessing articles through their assessment drive back in September and migrated to this one. Just a friendly reminder, WP:Ships uses importance ratings which follow these guidelines: Top = Ship type, High = Ship class, Mid = Individual ship, Low = Incomplete ship or canceled ship. -MBK004 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote to this, the current frontrunner is Helm + Barnstar (#13), which was one of the ideas I was playing with for a naval star within MILHIST. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or has anyone else realized that there are 1000 articles in a worklist, not 500, as said in the introduction. Sniperz11^talk|edits 11:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!? Each sub-page contains a 1000-article list. The worklists section breaks these down into two listings of 500, sub-divided into two worklist sections of 250.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah... ok. Coz I panicked when I saw 100 sub-sections in the page. :-) Thanks. Sniperz11^talk|edits 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 of my first 5 assessed have already been tagged. Does anyone know why? Are these freebies, as in they count to my total (not that it matters, but its a bit frustrating to see them already done :-p). Let me know, thanks! Apartcents (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some like that as well. SInce no one claimed the range, and usually did it haphazardly, I go ahead and count them while making sure whether they deserve to be tagged. Besides, its easier to bookkeep if kept in pockets of 10.--Bedford (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep so I figure I'll keep doing it. It does seem like its A LOT of them. Going back to Feb 07 when they were tagtged. Apartcents (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. The worklists do contain some previously tagged articles as there was no simple way to remove them. They do count towards your tally :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video games about war are not a part of this project right? Apartcents (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a borderline case. Some of them may qualify for inclusion under #8, but it's not really a big deal if they're not tagged at this point. Kirill 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So like, Gears of War, YES, but Wolfenstein, NO? :-) Apartcents (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I wouldn't include either of them; I was thinking more along the lines of something like Battleground 5: Antietam, which is actually (intended to be) tied in to real military history. Kirill 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think these got lost further up on the page. Could anyone please advise me about whether the following items are in scope?

• Minimum Credible Deterrence

• Yes. (Indian=yes) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

• A person accused but then cleared of espionage charges

• Depends on the circumstances but ordinarily if a civilan, no. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Also, I tagged Epic Cycle, but the tag was removed and replaced with a Classical Greece / Rome wikiproject tag.... Is that an article that belongs under both projects?

• The argument was that it is mythology rather than history so I'd leave it untagged. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help! -- Avocado (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's an odd one... Should we tag a school whose main building was erected as a memorial to local soldiers who fought in a war? -- Avocado (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Tagged {whichever country}=yes and (memorials=yes)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

OK. Some questions from me...

1. Do we include civilian firearms, ie Guns built specifically for the civilian market, eg Benelli Nova? If so, what about the following cases:

- Civilian Variants of military weapons. FN PS90 for eg.

- Civilian weapons, but may be used by Some Militia or soldiers (as a matter of personal choice)?

- What about Civilian Firearms safety and use instructors, for eg Massad Ayoob

1. No. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk
2. Yes. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk
3. No. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. Since many of them involve military situations. Its surprising, since many such forces aren't even tagged under MILHIST. I think we should have a coherent and standard policy on these pages. For more pages, see Category:UN Peacekeeping Missions.

I agree. Tag by [whichever country] and [whichever conflict] if applicable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More as and when I think of them. Thanks in advance.

Cheers Sniperz11^talk|edits 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested that Wikipedia Signpost cover this Tag and Assess drive. You can see the request at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history_Assessment_Drive. I do hope it works, and this drive gets publicised. Sniperz11^talk|edits 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read about the drive in the Signpost and thought that I want to do it. And I am :) Ouro (blah blah) 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Outriggr/assessment.js is great for assessing articles. You guys doing the assessment drive could use it--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't work for me but my set up may not be standard.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quickest is to use scripts but there are other workrounds.

Part of the time goes waiting for pages to open, and for saves. Easiest is to use this Firefox add-on: Linky. It opens links in tabs on your browser. This means you can have the sub-worklist itself, plus all ten articles in it, plus their talk pages, open at once. This also saves on mouse clicks!

Also, don't strike through and save articles as you go. Delete the tagged ones from the list as you work through, then strike the remainder at the end before saving. You can strike the sub-worklist and preserve its autonumbering by putting the <s> after the first # in the list.

Happy tagging and assessing, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would East Lake (Atlanta) be appropriate for the WP, as it has a tiny mention of a Civil War era home? Cricketgirl (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. In cases where the topic has only a trivial or insubstantial relationship to military history, it's probably not worth including; there's really nothing for us to do with such articles. Kirill 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks! Cricketgirl (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about terrorism-related subjects? Notable terrorists, such as Steven Vikash Chand? Thanks, Cricketgirl (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (Taskforce: Canadian=yes)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... another one - intelligence subjects like Norwegian Intelligence Service? Cricketgirl (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, (Taskforce: Nordic=yes)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the IRA and pages related to their...stuff, for lack of a better word. Should those fall within our perview or not? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, (Taskforce: British=yes)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If spies are included in the project, would books about spies be included too? E.g. The Life of Ian Fleming or, say, the Mitrokhin Archive? In addition, do we include coup attempts, even when they did not result in an actual military conflict? Lastly, what about Guantanamo Bay inmates or former inmates? Cplakidas (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books about spies are military biography task force (biography=yes) plus the TF of the country they were affiliated with.

Actual coups are cut and dried. Attempted coups are trickier.

Guantanamo is (US=yes)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I adopted a range the other day and I saw there are 10 articles in a small block. I counted and there were 100 blocks. Now if my maths is correct then there would be 1000 articles in a range. But on the worklist it states only 34501–34999. Now I calculated it and it turned out to be 498 articles. The heading of the worklist states also the same. "250 Done" and "500 Done". Now I would like to know how many articles is in a range and whether I should state that I had finished 250 articles, and also what if I finish the 500 that is in the worklist. Should I carry on down to 1000 in the range, also will I get a reward for that? What should I do now. Thanks Fattyjwoods (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually two sets of "ranges" for each subpage: the first one (sections 1 to 50) and the second one (sections 51 to 100). The total for a page is indeed 1000 articles; but, to make it a bit more manageable, we've allocated blocks of 250 articles in the main table. Kirill 05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so I have to wait till I tag & assess 500 articles before I can add the "Done" template in the table right? Fattyjwoods (talk)

Each column represents 250 tags (see below). You've done 262, so the first column can be marked "done". When you complete the second half of the range, mark the second column. I noticed by the way that the range you've working on isn't the range you've claimed (you're not the first to do this :) so I've moved your name tag to the right one.

Range adopted	Editor's name	250 done	500 done
34001–34500	Fattyjwoods	Done	Doing...

You get awards for 250, 500, 1000, 2000 etc articles. So you're entitled to your first wiki-stripe! Keep up the good work! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you guys helped a lot. Fattyjwoods (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could anybody answer the question I have rised here? Thanks. --gala.martin (what?) 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished as much as I could do for the drive (2000). Do I need to do anything to indicate that I am finished? Or do I just "walk" away? Thanks. Jacksinterweb (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there's no paperwork or anything. Thank you very much for all of your hard work! Kirill 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question. Does one have to be a member of WPMH to assess articles for this drive? Green451 (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not, because I'm not a member, and I'm helping! LOL, seriously though, they're pretty much looking for anyone who is willing to help. Have fun! Fleetflame (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's no requirement to be a member; we're very grateful for any help we get! Kirill 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Imperial_Munitions_Board be included in the project? It seems to me like it doesn't say why it's important, which means it shouldn't even be an article....right? Help! Fleetflame (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that the board was created to alleviate a shell problem, and the article does have references. I say tag it for the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your help! Fleetflame (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to know, when will this tag and assess thing officially finish - because if I have enough time I will try and go for another section. Thanks Fattyjwoods (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the year, officially. The lists will still be around after that date if you still want to do more, of course. :-) Kirill 04:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This morning I noticed that NA classification was replaced with DAB classification - or something to that effect. In any case, I tried to put a class=NA into my usual tag, and it didn't work. So, will all articles currently assessed as NA have to be reassessed as DAB or will this be done bot-omatically? Oh, by the way - was this change announced anywhere at all? Cheers to all, Ouro (blah blah) 12:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On WT:MILHIST, yes. As far as the conversion: anything outside the article space (categories, templates, portals, etc.) will retain the NA tag automatically. The only pages where a change will need to be made are (a) actual disambiguation pages, which are showing up as unassessed, and (b) real articles mistakenly tagged as NA, which needed to be changed anyways. (The latter category is, unfortunately, the reason we can't have a bot do this; there's a fairly large number of "hidden" articles that need to be pulled out.) Kirill 15:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't look there, sorry. I didn't know, and was confused, but I got it now. Shame you didn't do it before the drive began though. Okay, thanks for the info. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I do around 500 or 750 (or not quite barnstar level), would I still get a barnstar seeing as though I only started today? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}• 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! We're giving existing editors until the end of January so they can accumulate barnstars. The Top Three wiki-awards though will be based on tallies at 31 December and awarded on 1 January. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if someone gets to three thousand articles after Dec 31st, are they eligible for another one if they've already gotten one? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Someone who has done 2000 before Jan and who does an extra 1000 tags after Jan 1, will be entitled to one set of barnstars on the full 3000. The barnstars for up to the 2000 being awarded on Jan 1, and the extra barnstar for the extra 1000, taking it up to 3000, will be awarded at the end of Jan. I hope that's clear? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, sir. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so pleased :) It seemed like incomprehensible waffle when I wrote it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, clear enough then :) As a sidenote, I think it'd be of use to leave the lists here until all the articles have been tagged, not only until Jan 31st. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, good good. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}• 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about military high schools? They seem quite fuzzy to me, and I'm leaning towards "no" because I don't see any tagged so far; however, I'd like another opinion. UnDeadGoat (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno. We include military colleges, certainly, as well as paramilitary organizations; so an argument can be made for including other military schools. I suppose the deciding factor would be the degree to which the school functions as a "military" institution. Overall, though, this is borderline; I doubt anyone will really care one way or the other. Kirill 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also: port security? Specifically, this. UnDeadGoat (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a Coast Guard program, so technically a military undertaking; but it's pretty borderline. I'd leave it untagged, since its military significance is basically only the USCG sponsorship. Kirill 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I know places aren't properly under our scope, but what about places whose articles are entirely military in nature? UnDeadGoat (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substantially military sites can be included, I think (cf. weapons test sites, battlefields, etc.). Kirill 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escutcheon - I am stumped on this one, it could go either way, although I tend to think its not within our scope. A second opinion would be nice. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo! That's a hard one... i would say no, as it has no direct military significance Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a no, and follow Gaia's reasoning. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting, but no. :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you use it to defend yourself. =D Trekphiler (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't units be dab'd "4h UK Infantry", per convention, rather than "4h Infantry (UK)"? Trekphiler (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion at WT:MILHIST#What's in a name?. Kirill 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's past midnight on January 1, Greenwich/Wikipedia time, I assume its over now? Or are we going by a different time zone, say Eastern Standard Time/New York City Time?--Bedford (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so, I asked this question a while ago - and kiril replied saying that the drive will continue until 31 Janurary 2008 for registed taggers. So you'll have a month to add a few more barnstars - but you've probably already collected all of them. :)Fattyjwoods (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this question above (Clarifications):

End of the year is coming up, and there's still a ways to go. Does the drive end at 00:00 January 1, 2008? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The drive proper, yes. We're planning to keep the lists open until the end of January for anyone that wants to earn more individual awards, but the 1st/2nd/3rd place trophies will be awarded on January 1. Kirill 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's officially over but already registered taggers can continue building their tally until the end of Jan. You (Bedford) have already come first and therefore won the very-well deserved Gold Wiki and I'll sort that out first thing tomorrow (if you don't mind waiting). I'm just home from Thames-side revelry, and I'm cold, wet and tired :) Happy New Year, and thank you very much for your wonderful efforts. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Here's hoping you wake up without an hangover. ;-) --Bedford (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you expect more articles to be tagged? Is this drive considered a "success"? By the end, did Marcus do the right thing, or was it better to pillage? (I am referring to [1]). --gala.martin (what?) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please:) It's still open until the end of January for existing participants.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That picture was so fun to me. Who did choose it? gala.martin (what?) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on Commons. Glad you liked it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we have the next drive, will it build on all the work we've already done? Can someone write a script so that all of the crossed out entries are automatically excluded (assuming that they aren't already excluded by having a more sophisticated script recognising that they are categories such as sports people etc)? Viv Hamilton (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New improved script. See (and please participate in) the discussion at Workshop. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already started putting together some feedback. It's pretty extensive, so I just threw it on a page in my user space: User:Maralia/MHA07. Maralia (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a category in the workshop for suggestions about the next drive, other than false positives or signing up to lists, and scope support. I found the slow bit was getting the right task-forces on each one (including articles already tagged). Maybe the next drive should be split into 2 - basic assessment of articles that are not currently tagged and might or might not be in scope (script should exclude all tagged articles), and task-force assessment of already tagged articles (script should only pick up tagged articles). Viv Hamilton (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how HstryDr hasn't been on since November 13, is there any problem with me acquiring Worklist 144? Besides, I think he missed a few that he striked out that look like MH to me.--Bedford (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it. People are very thankful for all your work. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered several articles for the tag & assess drive dealing with parmilitary/insurgent groups (ex: Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade), and I was unsure whether they fit under the scope of the Military History project. Basically, is any armed force or conflict under the project scope or just official national militaries?--Heno (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The former. The concept of true national militaries is a fairly recent one; much of say, medieval military history has to do with "unofficial" armed groups. Kirill 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now after Jan 31st? Can we still continue to assess and tag, or will this be finished, and all pages closed? If existing members wish to continue to tag after, can we do that? If not, is there any reason for that.

Well, since there are still quite a few pages left, I thought maybe this could be left open for tagging for some time, or maybe even till the next drive.

Cheers Sniperz11^talk|edits 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll still be "open", but the current plan is to stop handing out awards at the end of January. If people want to keep tagging regardless, that's fine. Kirill 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there plans for another drive in 2008 to mop up the remnants? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably sometime in late spring or early summer (and hopefully with fewer false positives). Kirill 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that... just wanted to know if we could continue editing. Cheers. Sniperz11^talk|edits 01:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]