Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 CALLING ALL CARTOGRAPHERS! 2 Worklist 2.1 Importance ratings 3 Member list maintenance 4 Maybe move the guidelines? 5 Criteria for the creation of Task Forces? 6 Battle of Nisbis 7 Last stands? 8 Article statistics

CALLING ALL CARTOGRAPHERS!

Soldats et camarades! Our Cartography Department needs you...well one or two of you, to serve as its Cartographer General/Director/Head Librarian/Numero Uno/Give it any name you wish. If accepted, your mission will be to oversee and maintain our growing map collection. This mainly involves keeping track of the maps, updating the lists and seeing that everything is tagged and sourced properly (which disqualifies me unfortunately:). The perks include; being able to choose your own job title, as per above, and appoint any assistants you deem fit. Additional perks may also be uncovered as a result of a job well done. In seeking out suitable candidates, I have been authorized to conduct auditions, use bribes of beer or even employ Press gangs if necessary. But, please let's not have it come down to that...YET:> R.S.V.P.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If only I had more time, I'dd take the job on the spot, or at least draw up some maps. Dryzen 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And, for anyone interested: Daanschr, a Dutch historian, has graciously volunteered to head up the cartography department. He should be getting started in a few weeks; please welcome him and give him any assistance he needs :-) Kirill Lokshin 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Worklist

The Worklist has now been marked as inactive. I'm not sure this is a good idea, it serves a useful purpose in identifying our key articles and highlighting those that need work to be brought up to standard. Neither of these purposes is fulfilled by the assessment system. I had thought we would be operating these systems in parallel. Leithp 07:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I had thought we would be using the assessment systems automated worklist for that, no? Is there some reason we would need one that's compiled by hand as well? Kirill Lokshin 11:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That list identifies all military history articles, not just the key ones. Looking at that list you see that Roy Marlin Voris is a GA and that Ferdinand Foch is rated Start. What you don't see is that one is a peripheral figure, albeit one with a well written article, and the other is a key figure without whom modern history might be very different. If we're moving to 1.0 we need to identify the articles to focus on, which is where the worklist comes in. Leithp 11:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the empty importance field. Would that fulfill the purpose and how is that going to be implemented? Leithp 11:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what it's supposed to do. I've asked about how it will be generated, but I haven't gotten a good answer as to whether we'll need to fill it in directly on the worklist, or if we can use some sort of category/tagging system and get it put in automatically as well. Kirill Lokshin 11:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Importance ratings

Brief update: apparently reading the importance directly from the talk-page tags is possible, and should be implemented shortly. There doesn't seem to be a standard scale for the various importance levels, but the Chemistry and Mathematics tables seem to use a four-level breakdown: Top, High, Mid, and Low. Could we make this work for us?

Some inital thoughts:

• Top: basic topics that really must go into a hardcopy version (e.g. War, Battle, World War II, Tank)
• High: core topics, major wars, very significant battles, generally notable units and people (e.g. Napoleonic Wars, Praetorian Guard, Battle of Stalingrad, Luftwaffe)
• Mid: mainly of interest to students of military history, but some general interest; obscure wars, most average battles, better-known units, most military commanders (e.g. Burgundian Wars, Battle of Austerlitz, Turenne, Albrecht von Wallenstein)
• Low: really of interest only to students of military history; minor battles, unremarkable units and people, and so forth (e.g. Siege of Tournai, Legio XII Fulminata, Cesare Hercolani)

Thoughts? Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This could be difficult to judge. Most people have a particular focus for their interest and will tend to view articles on their area as more important. I for example would rate Georgi Zhukov as high but Michel Ney as Mid. Someone more interested in the Napoleonic era, and less interested in WW2, might do the opposite. Similarly the description "obscure wars" is very subjective. Is the Falklands War obscure? Not if you live in the UK or Argentina, but maybe if you live in Idaho it is. We'll need to produce very clear guidelines for this. Leithp 07:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure what criteria we could base guidelines on that would be the least subjective (and wouldn't pander too much to systemic bias issues). Any ideas? Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use two scales-One, as you suggest, based on a topics' interest to the widest audience. And the second based on the article's state, using the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment scale. Anything which scores high on the GI (General Interest) scale, but gets a low grade by the 1.0 criteria would be high priority. Those with high grades on both, are basically "done" or nearly so.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's the current plan (if you check the generated worklist, it has a quality rating and an importance rating for every article). The real question is how we determine an article's importance rating. Kirill Lokshin 18:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me there's two roads to go down as far as determining importance, both of which can be defined in a fairly objective fashion. The first method is to rate importance based on how likely someone is to be looking for the topic; to find this, we'd probably want to look at something like the numbers Google gives out for how often search terms are used. The other method is to set standards based on things like the size of the armies and the states involved (easy to define) and how much of an effect the result of the conflict had (somewhat harder, but not impossible to define; a battle or war which results in a major shift in the balance of power is more important than one that doesn't. I'd tend to favor the second approach; I think the thing that will make it work, more than anything else, is that people tend to have a fairly reasonable estimation of how important the subjects they work on are. I'm perfectly aware that most of the stuff I right falls into the low or mid classifications, and I think most other people are similarly "self-aware," as it were. --Robth^Talk 19:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I fear this sort of ranking could only perpetuate systematic bias. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 21:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Conversely, we obviously need some ranking if we're going to be selecting articles for a hardcopy release of limited size. Better that we do this within the project rather than just letting the 1.0 group pick for us, in my opinion. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. All due deference to the good, well-meaning folks at 1.0, but this project is about the only part left of En:Wiki which still functions the way it is supposed to IMO;>. So let's start with the topic at this project's core, namely WARS. Then, based on this, work our way through to related topics which grow from them (campaigns, battles, commanders, units etc.) How should we determine the importance of a war? Here are some basic criteria to consider:

• Scope-How widespread was the war? Was it intra or international? Did it spread across a region, continent or the world?
• Scale-How big was it, in terms of the numbers of troops involved and the casualties?
• Intensity- High or Low intensity? How violent, vicious and bitter was the fighting?
• Duration-How long did it last? Wars of comparatively limited scope and scale have often become much more important due to their duration (Vietnam and Afghanistan for instance).
• Repercussions-What was the war's aftermath and its impact upon history? Did it resolve the issue(s) leading to it, or leave room and wounds open for future conflicts? This is, argueably, the most important, yet also the most subjective, of the criteria.

Again, once we rate the wars, the rest can flow from there. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to rate them separately for each of the major eras; Antiquity, Medieval, Early Modern and Modern, as a way of avoiding our biases towards certain time periods or making "one size fits all" comparasions which simply do not apply equally to all epochs.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is two different rating categories: Importance to "world" (as known to combatants, e.g. Mediterranean basin and surrounding areas for most Rome areticles) and importance to combatants. Or would that be too difficult? UnDeadGoat 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Might be going too far the other way; a war between two neighboring principalities in the Holy Roman Empire may have been very important for both of them, but that's not very relevant from a "What articles need to be included in a small set?" viewpoint. Kirill Lokshin 21:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that sort of thing could be a judgement call. And we don't necessarily want to exclude things just because everybody doesn't know about them already. Maybe the most important "military thing" or two to modern countries substantially described in Wikipedia? Or something. And there could be a judgement call about which historical combatants are "significant" enough. With recent stuff, especially, it may be hard to judge "world impact". UnDeadGoat 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 's guidelines seem to be ample. I also concure on the division of timelines. As for UnDeadGoat's proposition for scales, this also has merrit but as Kirill Lokshin pointed out this will be leading to a plethora of articles that might undermine the value of some battles that apply on a world scale. One major point to take into consideration is what is the amount of space we will be alocated on this hardcopy? This for me would make the dissision. Should we have only 25 articles to choose, I would want those battles and wars that truly did achieved a world class level of importance. With 1000 to choose, then we'll have more room to maneuver with smaller scales.

Of course when thinking of importance: repercussions sometimes outweigh the actual intensity, duration and scale of the conflict. Other times it is these very attributs that produced lasting repercussions. Overall, is by far an easy decission to make and will surely be plagued by all sorts of problems. Leithp brough up the main source of difficulty this task will face, knowledge. Wars that have had massive media covrage are to the general populace more important than wars that have achieved less lime light. This will signifigantly lopside wars that have affected the english speaking world in our case. Hopefully this catergorisation will be done in house, to curb the possibily of bias. We might not be the utmost objective but I believe that we do have the background to make an enlightenent dessision. Dryzen 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Member list maintenance

Looking over the member list, we seem to have a number of the following:

• Members that have never edited Wikipedia (not sure how their names wound up on the list)
• Members that haven't edited Wikipedia for a substantial period (I noticed one that's seven months, but I haven't gone through the entire list)
• Members that have been indefinitely blocked

So, the question: would it be worthwhile to remove (or move to a separate "Inactive members" list) any of these groups? Kirill Lokshin 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the idea of an inactive list for those who haven't edited for months. I suggest deleting the two other groups - (1) those who have never edited and (2) those who are indefinitely blocked. —ERcheck @ 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm . . . an "inactive members" list would certainly cut down on scroll-time. However, people might have a very good reason to be gone that has nothing to do with being "inactive", and of course some people may not have edited Wikipedia if their accounts are new. But mostly supportive, I guess. UnDeadGoat 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't acutlaly forgotton the definition of "inactive", I'm just tired. I suppose I mean that being moved to an "inactive" list would probably mean things like no newsletters, and some people might want those to keep coming. But then, I suppose they could probably say so. UnDeadGoat 02:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt much to have a separate "inactive members" section, it doesn't mean they're off the team, so it's not gonna create an outrage or anything. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What if the "Inactive members" section were on a subpage, rather than directly on the main project page? Would that cause an outrage? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting the inactive list on a separate page would reduce scrolling, as mentioned by UnDeadGoat. I support this idea. —ERcheck @ 03:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning out the blocked would be a good idea and a separate list for the inactives too. Putting them on a subpage will probobly get some backslash from those inactives that actually read the page. That could end up being a way to see who's still paying attention. As to those who have never edited, we get new participants every day and its not inconceivable that many are new and are still learning the law of the land. For this group going in the inactive list seems like a good compromise. Inactive might be taken harshly by some participants but the list of synonyms is not that nice either and its callign it as it is.Dryzen 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like a three-month mark for inactivity; I'd be surprised if many people who haven't edited for that long keep up with developments here enough to complain. (And if they do come back—even if they're briefly annoyed at having their names moved—all the better for the project.) Kirill Lokshin 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, If we have substancial among ot innactive I support moving that list on a sub-page. In summery this would be

• Blocked are deleted
• three months of innactivity and your in the innactive list ?

Dryzen 15:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good (should we delete the blocked ones outright, or move them to a "Former members" list, though?). I'll try to go through and get a count of how many people would qualify as inactive using a three-month threshold. Kirill Lokshin 17:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of keep a good archive puting up the former members subpage is very good idea. How do you plan on looking through the list?Dryzen 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to go through by hand and check the date that everyone last edited (unless someone has a better idea?) Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just went through the list, using a three-month mark from today. We've got 10 inactive members (plus about twice that who'd meet the criteria in a month), 1 indefinitely blocked member, and two listed names that don't actually match any existing Wikipedia account (no idea how they got there). Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, going by the raw list, we just hit 200 members! :-) Kirill Lokshin 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading here that we were the third or fourth largest Wiki-Project a few months ago but I can't find the thread or a list anywhere. Maybe we're the biggest now? Leithp 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was this one. At that point, WP:COMICS was in first place with 209 members; unless they've lost people, they're probably still the biggest. We might be in second place now, though. Kirill Lokshin 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So, should we go ahead with this, or does anyone have any objections? Kirill Lokshin 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good.Dryzen 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Would you please summarize the final proposal that will be the go-ahead plan? Thanks. —ERcheck @ 20:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It'll involve the introduction of two new sections:

• "Inactive members" will list those who have not made an edit to Wikipedia in the past three months.
• "Former members" will list those who have been indefinitely blocked.

Both of these sections will be on the new member list subpage. They will not be fully visible on the main project page, however; instead, there will be a link to them with an explanation of what active/inactive status means. Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there don't seem to be any objections, I'm going to go through the list and split out the inactive members to their own section (probably later tonight). I'd be grateful if anyone could check over the explanations I've written here to make sure that they're (sort of) understandable to the first-time reader. Kirill Lokshin 14:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the list and moved out eleven inactives. Notes are available here, for anyone curious. Kirill Lokshin 23:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to changing the list to use {{User}} rather than a plain linked name? I think it would make things a bit more useful. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've converted the list to the {{User|Name}} format. Could someone perhaps take a look to make sure I didn't seriously break something? Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe move the guidelines?

Only they're sort of really really long, and you have to scroll all the way through them to get to information about the project. I think it might be simpler for all concerned if they got their own subpage, because I remember when I found this place I got a bit intimidated by the scrolling down . . . UnDeadGoat 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If we move them off the main page, nobody will read them ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but they could at least be moved further down -- it's quite intimidating having to scroll past all that when you don't really know what's going on, and it's also a little annoying to not be able to open separate guidlines in separate windows or tabs. I suppose it's possible as it is, but you'd always be scrolling into different things anyhow, and you need to go all the way back to the top of the page to get the links out of the table of contents. UnDeadGoat 02:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely recall this same discussion a few months ago, which resulted in moving the guidelines up to the top; they were further down, originally. At the time, the argument was made that for casual visitors to the page—the ones not interested in joining, but rather arriving here because we advertise the guidelines—would want the general reading material more prominently placed.

We could easily go with either of two obvious orders:

• Intro - Announcements - Guidelines - Organization - Templates & Resources
• Intro - Announcements - Organization - Guidelines - Templates & Resources

In any case, we should probably wait for a few more people to comment before moving things around again ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats a tough call. Aestheticly, Intro - Announcements - Organization - Guidelines - Templates & Resources, gets my vote. But what most poeple probobly use are the guidelines, therefore less scroll time is better.Dryzen 13:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, could we add another sidebar thing during the guidelines? And maybe that should include links to specific areas of the main page, like guidelines and organization and templates, so that they're one-click from more places? UnDeadGoat 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We wouldn't even need another sidebar, necessarily; if we use {{TOCright}} and {{TOCleft}}, we can have as many copies of the table of contents on the page as we need. I'm not sure whether the extra clutter would be worth it, though. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant, I just didn't know the official terminology. UnDeadGoat 01:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for the creation of Task Forces?

Hello. I was wondering what is the criteria that the project is using when it comes to creating Task Forces. Does it have to do with the number of articles that Wikipedia currently has related to a specific topic (e.g. articles dealing with, say, the Polish or the Canadian military)? I ask this because one could always point out that specific topics that have been very well covered on Wikipedia (say the Roman Empire, or World War I), lack their own Task Forces. --Andrés C. 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we've turned down a serious request yet. The main criterion, though, is not the number of articles but the number of active editors who would be interested in participating. Obviously, it's not really worth the administrative overhead to have a separate task force if only one or two people would join; they're not likely to need a separate task force, nor to be able to do administrative things (like adding task force tags) that are necessary to keep one running smoothly.

The Roman Empire, incidentally, forms the cornerstone of the Classical warfare task force ;-)

Was this a general question, or did you have some specific task force you wanted to create in mind? Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply (and sorry for the reference to the Roman Empire, you're totally right). Well it was kind of a general question, as some task forces seem to be more active than others. On the other hand, I was indeed wondering how come there was no WWI task force...It wouldn't be a bad idea seeing a task force covering the military history of the period 1870-1918. Then again, you are right, we would have to know first if there would be enough volunteers to take part in it. --Andrés C. 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably because we have too few experts/knowledgeable people in that field. Me, I'd love a Chinese milhist task force, but don't have enough people. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Nisbis

Could the authors of the (stub) article please provide a source, proving that this battle actually took place? The main source on the byzantine-sassanid wars doesn't give ANY information about a battle of Nisibis between the battles of Dara and Callinicum, but a battle of Satala.

--139.11.6.203 14:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

cf.

• Procopius bellum Persicum XIV to XVIII
• Greatrex, Geoffrey: Rome and Persia at War 502-532, Leeds 1998.

The only mention of Nisibis I could find in Norwich referred to the surrender of the city to the Persians in 363. Maybe this is an alternate name for some other battle? Kirill Lokshin 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nisibis (there is no Nisbis but I'm not quite sure if this is an alternative transcription) is located in higher Mesopotamia, whilst after the Battle of Dara Sassanid attacks were concentrated in Armenia. I guess, whoever changed the article to "Battle of Nis[i]bis" misunderstood Procopius, who indeed mentioned the 4th century capture of Nisibis only, in order to describe the geo-political background of the byzantine-persian frontier. There indeed had been skirmishes around Nisibis, but 1) before the Battle of Dara 2) without actual battles; the Romans/Byzantines simply crossed the border and caused some trouble. --139.11.6.207 09:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Last stands?

I notice that there is an explanatory article containing a list of last stands, but no category. If nobody has any objections, I would like to go ahead and create Category:Last stands under Category:Battles by type. Any thoughts before I do it? Humansdorpie 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, but do we have a working definition of "last stand" to go from? Kirill Lokshin 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

looking at the list, two things stand out - the defending force loses the battle, and is either almost wiped out before capture or killed to the last man as the phrase has it. That the battle takes longer than expected given the dispropionate numbers of troops on each side may also be a factor. GraemeLeggett 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Anyone can make the point that deciding what is to be considered a last stand will always seem problematic. Was Stalingrad a last stand for the Germans in the same way that Sevastopol was for the Soviets? For most members of the VI Army, the last stand took place not among the ruins of the city, but in the Soviet POW camps. Then what about Verdun 1916? It was definitely a last stand for the two French divisions and the couple of chasseurs à pied which where on the receiving end of the German assault on Feb 21, 1916, and which where indeed wiped out. Still, how many military historians would refer to it as a last stand? Those are some random examples of inherent problems that a list of last stands can face. Regards. Andrés C. 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If the battle fits the description then is goes in the pile. I'dd consider the destruction of a trapped army to be a last stand the same for divisions anihilated while trying to hold a front. Dryzen 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the problem will come up with larger-scale modern battles, sometimes spanning significant time and geography. Was the Battle of Kursk a last stand? It probably was, for some smaller units; but not for the main bulk of the forces involved. I would presume that we would not categorize it as a last stand, in that case; is that a valid assumption, or are we going to use some more complicated metric? Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Problematic. If Waterloo was a last stand for Napoleon's Imperial Guard, then you'll have to say the same thing for the Newfoundlanders on July 1, 1916, or for the British airborne troops around Arnhem in Sep. 1944...instances of troops making a last stand while on offensive operations. Then you have the Tawakalna Iraqi Republican Guard Division, entirely destroyed in a matter of hours on Feb 27, 1991: a clear case of a last stand, but without the abovementioned prerequisites of numerical inferiority or a battle taking longer than expected. Andrés C. 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A last stand could be seen as a recognition by the majority of those involved that the chances of victory (or survival) are slim or even non exisistant, but that they would still fight on, a commitment to stay and die? A last stand seems to me to have an element of choice. This could remove some of the larger battles like Kursk or Stalingrad where there was little or no choice for the majority? Tristan benedict 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What choices were available to the French paratroopers, the Légionaires, and the auxiliary Vietnamese troops at Dien Bien Phu? Not that Custer's troopers at Little Big Horn had a plethora of available choices. Come on guys, finding a working encyclopædic definition for a last stand may become a difficult exercise in abstruse metaphysics. Andrés C. 17:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And we can't go by pure casualty counts either, I suppose; otherwise, every medieval siege will qualify as a "last stand". It might be that the definition is vague enough that a list (which can have explanatory notes for questionable cases) is more suitable for this than a category (which boils things down to a straight yes-or-no question). Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe battles typically referred to in at least one language/by at least one combatant as a "last stand"? Although that does beg for explanation and as such the category may indeed be moot. UnDeadGoat 00:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Article statistics

Since our project tag is now feeding the various categories appropriately, Mathbot can generate some nice statistics for us; the current set is visible at right. Two obvious points:

• We need to assess more articles.
• We need to tag more articles. I would guess that there are at least 10,000 military history articles on Wikipedia; we have only about 3/5 of them tagged at present.

On the other hand, the sheer size of our worklist is beginning to dwarf the other WikiProjects involved ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If one is lazy, where might one click to look at other projects and laugh? (Also, I have need of procrastination, so I shall wander off and categorize some stuff . . .) UnDeadGoat 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Links are available here. There's only four projects that have fully converted to this scheme so far, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

At this size, the term dwarf seems to lack some strength. To tag article we simply need to put them in a military category and have a project banner in the discussion? As for assessment we enter the data within the confinds of the table?Dryzen 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both the tagging and the assessment are done directly through the project banner on the talk page; the exact syntax is here. There's no need to edit the table directly (and the bot will overwrite the changes if you do). Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)