Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

/archive1

Doubts and questions

Please raise anything you'd like clarified here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Is this basically organized the same way as the last drive? Like, if an article isn't within the project's scope, then strike it off, or if it is, then remove it completely from the list? Green451 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the detail will be explained in the instructions. We'll put these up more or less simultaneously with the worklists. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Broadly, every range needs to be signed off. You don't need to strike or remove individual articles. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2. The pile I'm working on appears to have a lot of aviation weapons that are used by many countries...how many do I assign to the task force? The one I'm looking at now could be listed under more than a dozen countries! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that would be overkill :) Just the main ones? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

3. As I posted below, what do I do for articles that do not seemingly belong in any task force? For example, Guides Regiment. We have a French and Dutch task force, but this is Belgian and technically belongs in neither. It is a recently created formation, and therefore has served in no wars for which we have a task force. Should I make up a task force, and put it in national militaries, or French or Dutch? It's only one regiment in a military, so it doesn't really belong in national militaries, and I already explained the problems with French and Dutch. I'm also considering putting it in WWI - apparently one of the units that merged to create it served there. Again, a stretch. Help would be appreciated both specifically for this article and for other articles like this, about a part of a country's army that we don't have a task force for and hasn't served in any wars. I have come across this problem several times before. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's no applicable task force, then just don't put any task force tags on the article. There's no requirement that every article wind up with a task force at this very moment. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 03:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thank you very much. Borg Sphere (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

References for a bibliography?

I just ran across American Civil War bibliography, which is, well, a list of references.  :-P Does a bibliography require additional citations to pass B1, or only for statements in the lead? Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Scope Questions

Please look at Kurt Blome, this article illustrates something that has sort of bugged me. The man was obviously guilty of working at Concentration camps in WWII and perhaps worked on Nazi bio-weapon development. I have seen several articles where if the person is German and lived during WWII they were lumped into Military History and I don't think this is correct. I'm not sure the Kurt Blome article qualifies as notable for Military History as he was a scientist who may or may not have actually be involved in Military Research. --dashiellx (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO Kurt Blome is notable in Military History for his (alleged) high level, long-term, involvement in development of biological warfare and conviction for War crimes. Albert Einstein, on the other hand, is not classified in Military History, despite his brief influence on US atomic weapons development. - Canglesea (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts about backlogs

It would be nice if you did something to address maintenance backlogs on your articles. Assessment for it's own sake is really a low priority in my mind. You are one of the most organized wikiprojects yet I consistently come across articles with your tag in the oldest of the backlogs. What do you think about a y/n field for if the article has maintenance tags? Or maybe a no/yes/>6mo/>12mo ?--BirgitteSB 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. However, the overall problem is being addressed, albeit it in a slightly roundabout way. We have huge numbers of articles needing attention in one form or another. To break it down into manageable numbers, we are aiming to deal with it at task force level. This current drive focuses on ensuring that task forces are assigned. In a separate initiative, we are looking at empowering/energising the task forces. Once, we've got a handle on specific numbers we can look at modifying the template but as we've just had one major template overall, I'd like to leave it a while for the dust to settle before embarking on another. Thanks for the comment, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

B-class

Should we add b-class checklists to articles or not? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been adding the b-class checklist, when needed, and checking the easier criteria, structure and supporting materials. -Canglesea (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The last i did this type of dive was before B-class checklists were created. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Advertising this T&A campaign through summary section notation

In order to get the word out to RC patrolers, I've been using these summaries:

• On article's talk page:

Tag & Assess update for WP:MHA-T&A08 (you can help!)

• After completing block of 10 on my worklist:

another section done for WP:MHA-T&A08 (you can help!)

• After updating block of 50 progress on the main Worklist page:

Worklist update @ WP:MHA-T&A08 (you can help!)

Any other ideas out there? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it working? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to assess that. While new editors joined Tag & Assess this week, and there are lots of subsequent edits to the articles I tagged/assessed, no way to know for sure if these are a consequence of an RC patroler following an edit summary. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We're holding a workshop at the end of the drive, I'll ask the editors then :) It's a good idea and I appreciate the initiative! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

worklist Limit

should we have a limit to how many ranges/worklists you can have "adopted" at once like we did last drive? We've got a few editors who have 4 or 5 worklists adopted simultaneously (not counting those they've already completed). Just a thought Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The limit is one. There's no point at all to reserving several upfront as new worklists will be added as they are actually needed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Task Force Question

I have come across the following articles which do not fit into any of the defined task forceses as I see them:

• Georgian-Abkhazian conflict (I put the tag for the Russian task force as they at least supported one side<br\>
• Georgian-Armenian War 1918<br\>
• Georgian Civil War<br\>
• Georgios Grivas<br\>

I'd hate to think we need another task force, but if someone could advise. Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Grivas can go into the Biography Taskforce , but I agree some of the articles do not easily fit into any present taskforce. Eire/Ireland is another country that has no taskforce. Afghanistan is another (with a lot of articles from the "War on Terror") Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I added the Biography tag to Grivas article. --dashiellx (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this many times in articles that I have done. A couple I have fudged, putting, for example, Second Sino-Japanese War Articles in WWII, but there are others that have none, for example, I recall a battle in the Mexican civil war? There's no Mexican or Latin American task force, it wasn't naval or airborne, and it wasn't in any of the time period TFs either. I ended up leaving it blank - was this wrong and should I have picked a random task force to stick it in? Borg Sphere (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although some articles do not yet a TF, they do end up in a special category (Category:Military history articles with no associated task force), from which they can be extracted relatively easily. That category is currently huge but it will drop sharply in size as this T&A drive progresses. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unchecked

Many of those articles claimed to have been checked against the b-list checklist have not been. I'm particularly taking about user Maralia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.79.168 (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make an easier shortcut

What kind of shortcut is WP:MHA-T&A08? Who wants to type all that? Would it be okay to redirect WP:MHA08 here? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my working shortcut from when I set up the drive. I forgot to change it for something more memorable. Happily someone else has fixed this now. Do be bold about this kind of thing i future :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who fixed it [1][2]. Fleetflame 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

LIVE FOR FREE!

I HAVE REMOVED THIS FROM THE TALK PAGE OF MacDill Air Force Base , BELIEVE ITS AN ADVERTISMENT AND AGAINST WIKI ? IF I AM WRONG COULD SOMEONE PLEASE REVERT IT . Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

<redacted by Woody (no point in keeping it here)>

Yes, you were right, it's WP:SPAM. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

C-class?

How will the implementation of the new C-class come into play in this Tag and Assess drive? Is this project going to implement them or just stick with Start class and B class? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Until the coordinators and the rest of the project decide if we are going to utilize C-class, it is a non-issue for this assessment drive. Just continue on like you did before you even knew about C-class. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Catch and good answer, respectively. I have noted this in the instruction section, since I am sure its occured to others as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(od) That's a very good question :) C-Class isn't yet implemented in the Milhist banner so adding "class=C" doesn't do anything in the template. We will be starting a Milhist-wide discussion very shortly to determine whether there's consensus within Milhist to adopt the new class and your participation in that will be very welcome. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger that, keep doing the grunt work. Gotcha. ;) --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment Drive

What does the Assessment Drive Table mean? I mean the one with 50,100,200, on top; 10001 to 10200 on the side, and so on. I would be happy to help, if I can understand how the table works.--LAAFan 18:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's to help keep track of what's being done. The articles to be tagged are listed in the first column, 200 to a page. The column, 10001-10200 etc, links to an actual page of articles. You sign up to complete a page (range) by putting your name in a blank space in the first column. This tells other editors that it is reserved for someone who is working on it so they can leave that page alone. The row headed, 50, 100 etc, refers to the number of articles in the page and acts as a progress report: you fill the row in as you complete articles. Tag 50 articles, put [[tl|done}] in the "50" column, tag 100 mark the "100" column {{tl|done}] etc. I hope this helps. If have any other questions, just ask --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

End date Question

I´m confused about the ending of the drive. It says that it is closed to new participants, but that people who are already signed up will get barnstars for the work we do between the fourth and the end of the month. However, since the top three were announced in the newsletter, is what I said in my previous sentance correct? To confirm: the competition for the top three is over and new people cannot sign up, but if we continue working, we can continue earning up to barnstar of diligence? Sorry if this is a stupid question - this is the first of these since I joined the project. Borg Sphere (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a silly question. The winners stay, as of July 4, but you can continue tagging up to any amnount you like between now and the end of the month. And, in fact, if people want to contunie after that, they're welcome to though it starts getting complicated to administer barnstars. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. Thanks for the help, I´ll continue working till at least the end of the month. Borg Sphere (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)