Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive

message: 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?
#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.
#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.
#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?
#GA - A peer reviewed, high quality B-class with all the style and aesthetics covered. Assessed by specific editors?
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Standards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Assessing lists? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scores 

message: #When does the drive end?
#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?
::BrokenSphereMsg me 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thanks for clarifying.  Personally I prefer one distribution vs. several, kill all your birds with one stone.  BrokenSphereMsg me 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising it. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 23:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It also includes every notable somebody from the former Confederate states. Just strike them out. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It also throws up radio stations. I haven't worked out why. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Script 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: why?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oh, here's another specific one... where does the Cold War fit in? -- Avocado 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the task force/s of the country/ies involved. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: British Task Force. (British=yes) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  Wasn't sure if it was in scope at all!  -- Avocado 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Would this article belong to any task force? -- -- Avocado (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope; we don't have any task force covering the Carribean at the moment. Kirill 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text:  Or this one? -- Avocado (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you! Avocado (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Thanks! Oh, and, which task force, if any, do war artists belong to? Cplakidas (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biography=yes plus the task force of whatever conflict they were depicting.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: 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  <Small>(what?)</Small> 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Question about assessing

message: What happens when someone reaches this threshold?  --BrokenSphereMsg me 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cash would be nice. --Bedford (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cash would be wonderful.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who ponies up the money?  The Wikimedia Foundation?  =0  BrokenSphereMsg me 17:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5000? 

message: 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. Sniperz11talk|edits 12:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force Suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:Ships]]

message: Is it just me or has anyone else realized that there are 1000 articles in a worklist, not 500, as said in the introduction. Sniperz11talk|edits 11:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: !? 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)
replies: text: Aah... ok. Coz I panicked when I saw 100 sub-sections in the page. :-) Thanks. Sniperz11talk|edits 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in Worklist 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Someone Tagged Deez Already 

message: Video games about war are not a part of this project right? Apartcents (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So like, Gears of War, YES, but Wolfenstein, NO? :-) Apartcents (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Video Games are NOT kosher 

message: 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. Sniperz11talk|edits 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Signpost 

message: 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)
replies: text: This wouldn't work for me but my set up may not be standard.--ROGER DAVIES talk 13:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speeding up assessing - script

message: 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  after the first # in the list.
Happy tagging and assessing, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speeding up tagging & assessing 

message: could anybody answer the question I have rised here? Thanks. --gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please...

message: 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)
replies: text: Nope, there's no paperwork or anything.  Thank you very much for all of your hard work! Kirill 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Project question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, thanks for your help!  Fleetflame (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When does this drive finish? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NA -> DAB = possible confusion 

message: 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?  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Clear, sir. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so pleased :) It seemed like incomprehensible waffle when I wrote it :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I see, good good. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started today 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Some questions of scope 

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

text: Tempting, but no. :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you use it to defend yourself. =D Trekphiler (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Within our scope? 

message: Shouldn't units be dab'd "4h UK Infantry", per convention, rather than "4h Infantry (UK)"?  Trekphiler (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion at WT:MILHIST#What's in a name?. Kirill 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's in a name?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Drive over

message: 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 ). --gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please:) It's still open until the end of January for existing participants.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That picture was so fun to me. Who did choose it? gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found it on Commons. Glad you liked it :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the drive?

message: 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)
replies: text: New improved script. See (and please participate in) the discussion at Workshop. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The next drive 

message: 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)
replies: text: Take it. People are very thankful for all your work. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worklist 144 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Project scope? 

message: 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
Sniperz11talk|edits 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are there plans for another drive in 2008 to mop up the remnants?  --BrokenSphereMsg me 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably sometime in late spring or early summer (and hopefully with fewer false positives). Kirill 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that... just wanted to know if we could continue editing. Cheers. Sniperz11talk|edits 01:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What now?