Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 59

message: The A-Class review for Ironclad warship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 09:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Ironclad warship]] now open 

message: There is currently an edit war going on at World War II - which, unbelievably, has several users trying to add the USSR to the axis because of their 1940 non-agression pact. I could ask people to please keep on eye on this page. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Soviets did invade Poland, just like Germany, so it is possible to say that they switched sides. However, despite their invasion and killings, the UK and France didn't declare war on them. Wandalstouring 06:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't there always an edit war of some sort going on in that article? This one sounds pretty silly though - the USSR didn't sign the Tripartite Pact. --Nick Dowling 10:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not to add them as a member of the Axis, it was about them being listed as a co-belligerent in 1939.  Quite a difference. Oberiko 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I doubt that there are any arguments against it. Wandalstouring 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few, primarily revolving around finding a documented source which specifically calls them "co-belligerent", much  in the way that Finland is usually referred. Oberiko 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World War II]] edit war 

message: This article needs you attention. Can anyone take a look and advise, or better still, lend a hand? Aditya Kabir 15:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a section needs expansion, feel free to shuffle there more materials from the main articles. Else source a few parts for verifiability. Wandalstouring 11:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess a little explanation is necessary here. The main articles generally talks more about the subject in general, as the Burma Campaign talks mostly about the land operations. But, for a better perspective you need to cite the main articles. On the other hand, the specific articles that bifurcate from the main articles deal with a lot more specific stuff. Wikipedia has never been as easy as shuffling a few things around, and that's why the article needs "expert" attention. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 11:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One more thing - the help expected out of this wikiproject is not a generalized re-edit or something in that line. Particular help on "World War II military aviation" section is really needed, which involves the Burma Campaign very much. But well, if you want to help in general, please, go ahead. Thanks and cheers. Aditya Kabir 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ask the respective task force if they are maybe interested. We have 15,000 articles with similar problems. So I strongly suggest a do it yourself approach or that you pinpoint your problem. Wandalstouring 08:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of aviation in Bangladesh]] 

message: The A-Class review for Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident]] now open 

message: Is there a good reason why some military history articles (e.g. all D-Day beach articles but Juno) do not display the project banner in their talk pages? --FactotEm 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; the most likely explanation is simply that nobody has gotten around to tagging them yet. Kirill Lokshin 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Tagging has been pretty unsystematic up to this point. Although we would like to get all (or virtually all) the articles that fall within the scope tagged at some point, we haven't made a concerted effort to accomplish that yet. Carom 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excluded articles? 

message: The A-Class review for Victoria Cross is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Victoria Cross]] now open 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ironclad warship; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Ironclad warship]] needs attention 

message: This article needs bringing into line with project guidelines, it was mentioned on an admin board due to a long ongoing dispute over the articles title. Hypnosadist 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Military history of Goguryeo]] needs help

message: Hi over on the WikiProject DELSORT talk we are discussing merging the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp sort list into a more general list.  Comments are welcome either here or there. John Vandenberg 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  delsort changes proposed 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A-Class review for [[Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident]] needs attention

message: The article Matt Sanchez may fall under the purview of this project.  I'll leave it up to project members to decide whether or not to tag it.  The article is somewhat controversial, with much of the dispute from the subject himself, and has had mediation requested.  In any case, it could probably use some fresh eyes peeking at it. Aleta 22:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Matt Sanchez]]

message: ...the (mostly Commonwealth) executions for desertion during the First World War. There's bits scattered here and there - articles on some individuals, and even a :Category:Military discipline and World War I, but no article on the topic as a whole. Anyone feel up to writing one? Shimgray | talk | 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it. I've been toying with the idea as I did some research on this a few years ago and have most of the literature as well as a very comprehensive database collated from the main sources of who was shot and where they were buried etc. A related topic is British Army Mutinies 1914-1921. Again I have material for this so I suppose I'm volunteering for that too.  I have already done a short piece on French Army Mutinies (1917) and it'll go with that.  ← ROGER →  TALK 08:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muahahah. I noticed mainly because I just wrote The Secret Battle and was quite surprised to find nowhere to clearly link it to! This is a rather interesting article on the development of "shot at dawn" as a popular concept, tracing it through the fiction it was used in and noting how it was substantially less common than usually percieved. Definitely material for a good "in popular culture". Shimgray | talk | 12:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that.  ← ROGER →  TALK 13:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have no article on... 

message: I've just discovered the recently created :Category:Warfare by genre.  As far as I can tell, this is just a copy of :Category:Warfare by type with a stranger name (as I've never seen "genre" used in this sense), so I've listed it for merging here; if anyone has other ideas for what this was intended to be, though, please feel free to propose them.  Thanks! Kirill 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been to broadly categorize the more common warfare types; looking at the genre category I find gurrilla warfare, psyops, and electronic warfare, of which only psyops are listed on the type category. I concur that the the former should be moerged into the latter. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be merged, as they are both about the same topic. It will also be less confusing to readers and users not familiar with Wikipedia. --Patar knight 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warfare by "genre" 

message: I can't help but notice that we don't have a ribbon for our chevron w/oak leaves award; not that recipiants wouldn't want the actually chevrons, but IMHO it would be nice to see a ribbon for the oak leaves version too. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with the requisite graphics skill (i.e. not me) should feel very welcome to create one! ;-) Kirill 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevron ribbon 

message: Since the anniversary of the Operation Barbarossa some editors sterted inserting the "Outcome: Axis tactical victory" into the infobox. I find this quite improper to see this in the infobox without any corresponding text in the body of the article.  Please comment in Talk:Operation Barbarossa#Modifications. `'Miikka 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Operation Barbarossa 

message: In my updating of the US Iowa class battleships I have repeatedly come across a unit designated Battleship Division 7, yet I can find no information about the unit on google. Does anyone know anything about this group or its composition? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will certainly look into that. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battleship Division 7

message: I saw this article among the articles needing attention. I've posted some comments at talk:Battle of Abu Ghraib#Where to start? and I'd very much welcome feedback from editors here.  ← ROGER →  TALK 08:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Abu Ghraib 

message: Anyone know what this is?  I took a picture of this at an old, abandoned National Guard camp.  The camp was operating from 1949 to about 1974 in New York State. 
Could it be a spent anti-tank round or a flare?
Thanks for all of the help.
thumb
Truthunmasked 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordnance pic - Anyone know what this is??

message: This may be out of place, but we need some fresh commentors, as most of it is the same people going back and forth. There is currently a Request for Comments going on at Talk:Korean War. The more neutral commentators we have, the better. Thank you. wbfergus 16:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Korean War 

message: The A-Class review for HMS Ledbury (L90) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[HMS Ledbury (L90)]] now open 

message: A discussion has come up about whether House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should exist as a detailed spinout of House demolition, where the issue is currently addressed in summary form. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - independent views from editors without political axes to grind are badly needed in this debate. -- ChrisO 15:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for input 

message: Recently a User:Robert K S added "including Free French General Leclerc" to the surrender of Japan section on the article USS Missouri (BB-63). Having never heard of the guy before, I reverted back to the original "High ranking diginataries from the Allied powers" line, omitting his name, but now I see that the Free France guy is back in there. I am sorely tempted to revert, since this sort of thing screams "edit war" (like as in "your guy is listed here, therefore mine should be too"), but before I do anything drastic (or stupid) I would like an opinion from a third party since I recognize that I have a tendancy to protect my edits on page, and this one in particular is special to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On one side you can argue that if you put one allied military official, you must put in all allied military officials and that is obviously a bite too much detailed for this article. Another argument is that Leclerc of France and Thomas Blamey of Australia should be mentioned because they are the only allied military officials that are somewhat notable. Leclerc commanded the 2nd Armored Division that liberated Paris and Thomas Blamey is Australias only Field Marshal, they other is fairly unknown. Carl Logan 23:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for outside Opinion 

message: I moved the article Wound Medal to Wound Medal (India) and am revising the Wound Medal page for disambiguation among various countries' medals called Wound Medals (Austria-Hungary, Syria, etc.).  In checking the links to the old page, I see there are four to project talk pages that I can't fix:
* Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality/45 
* Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Indian military history articles by quality
* Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Articles/Page2
* Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/India articles by quality/56
Can someone qualified fix these links?  Airbornelawyer 18:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix to redirects

message: I am with the Illinois project, and two of us are going to start doing some work on Ogle County, Illinois. We were hoping that we could get some assistance in getting this article cleaned up, and hopefully go for GA in the near future. If any are interested in helping, we would gladly accept it. You all of the military minds would prolly be much better at this than I. Thanks for any assistance.--Kranar drogin 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheees. Instead of helping out at the Battle of Stillman's Run i went on expanding the Economy Ogle County, Illinois! I was wondering why you came here to seek help for a county article! It is only now that i realized that you were refering to the military-related topic instead. This happens only in wikipedia i believe. I'll try later to help out the battle article. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I meant the battle. Oh my, I really goofed that up! Thanks for any help with the battle that you can provide. We do appreciate it.--Kranar drogin 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Stillman's Run]] 

message: The A-Class review for 37 mm Gun M3 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 15:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[37 mm Gun M3]] now open 

message: Battle of Savo Island will be the Today's Featured Article tomorrow (July 5).  I usually "watch" this article to help protect it from vandalism, but I'll be away tomorrow on a family vacation.  If others could "watch" it, since Today's Featured Articles usually draw a lot of vandalism, that would be very helpful.  There's one controversial claim in the article that a U.S. ship accidentally helped sink an Australian ship and this may especially draw the ire of some of the article's readers.  Thanks in advance. Cla68 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's Featured Article

message: The A-Class review for Sukhoi Su-25 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Sukhoi Su-25]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Structural history of the Roman military is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Structural history of the Roman military]] now open 

message: Could somebody comment on what I could do better here? thank you. Mr. Killigan 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, find a uniform size for your pictures; variations in picture size can be distracting. My other suggestions would be to see if there are any infoboxs you could use for information purposes on the system, expanding on the use of Aegis in other navies (for example, were these nations offered the U.S. Aegis system? Have any of the other nations Aegis ships been involved in notable incedents? Have they improved the system any? etc) looking into finding how many people are needed to operate the system, and locating shooting statics (I would presume that, like the patriot missile system, there are numbers out there somewhere that report on the succsess or failure of the system under fire. In the case of the patriot system, that info is here). You may also want to cruise through the Government Accountability Office papers, you can find a lot of interesting information pertaning to cost and implimentation and effectiveness with regards to the development of military software. Hope that helps! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The 'Possible Aegis-like Systems' could be expanded to include the similar European designs which are now entering service - the Royal Navy claims that the system in their Type 45 destroyers is superior to the Aegis-AN/SPY-1 combination. The article also reads a bit like an advert for Aegis, when the system surely isn't without flaws. --Nick Dowling 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a bunch. Mr. Killigan 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help at [[Aegis combat system]] 

message: The A-Class review for Cannon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 23:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Cannon]] now open 

message: Feel free to comment and help improve the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)]]

message: There's now an miscellaneous pages for deletion discussion underway at Wp:mfd#Portal:Military_history_of_the_Christian_West. No doubt it'll be added to the deletion portal here. ROGER TALK 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal: Military history of the Christian West - update

message: Can we split the "commanders" tab in the template Infobox Military Structure into two seperate groups, one for the current commder(s) and one for notable commander(s)? For bases like Fort Bliss, who have had both types of Commanding Officers, it would help simply logistics (IMHO). TomStar81 (Talk) 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kirill 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a miracle worker, Kirill. Never let anyone tell you otherwise :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Military Structure

message: I created this as a subcat for . Should this actually be ? Happy to go with either one myself Kernel Saunters 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what system is used for the "normal" categories, but we had a similar discussion on WP:WSS and most stub categories now use "United States ..." to avoid confusion. I'd suggest the same system here. Valentinian T / C 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we've (yet) settled on a single form for military personnel categories; for the time being, going with what WSS is using seems as sensible an option as any other. Kirill 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{cl|United States naval aviators}}

message: I've noticed a trend of overstating performance and/or abilities of an aircarft model, in the articles concerning Japanese aircraft of WWII.  For example, in Kawasaki Ki-100, I removed the statement that claimed that, in 1945, a group Ki-100 was able to wipe out a flight of Hellcat without losses.  Now, I'm sure that someone can find an IJAAF Japanese report confirming it, but those same reports claim the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot resulting in the sinking of a dozen US carriers.  Is there a policy for dealing with this, or I am going to get reverted if I start removing claims that Oscars regularly downed Corsairs. Burzmali 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already fixed the problem yourselves. You've just removed something unsourced which has been there since Feb.07. It would be just nice if you could leave a comment at the talk page so other editors may bring a source and restore it. For now just get rid of all unsourced stuff especially which are older than a few months. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I fixed that one, and it is the worst offended that I've come across, but the majority of problems seem to be WP:CRYSTAL related.  Lots of, "this plane would have made all the difference if the Japanese had managed to build enough", and "it would have shot down bunches of B-29s, if it had been given the chance". Burzmali 15:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and break that crystal ball. Otherwise let us know about where they are so we can deal w/ them. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work Burzmali!  There is a lot of hype by fans of some weapons.  --Kevin Murray 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese bias in WWII aircraft articles

message: The A-Class review for Easter Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Easter Offensive]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 02:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision]] now open 

message: I started an article on rubber ducks, the fake rifles used in US Military Basic Training. Since recruit training falls under the scope of this project, I think rubber ducks probably should as well. Please review the article and tag it accordingly. Thanks. Equazcion 12:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Wandalstouring 12:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Equazcion 12:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubber ducky

message: Without further ado: we are now running a major article tagging and assessment drive.  The full instructions are duplicated (many, many times!) on the drive's pages, but the short version is this: we've used a script to parse through all the categories descended from :Category:Military and :Category:War and collect all the untagged articles there.  The total number of candidates is ~165,000; obviously, this includes a lot of false positives.  What we have to do now is to determine, for each article, whether it's actually in our scope, and, if it is, to assess it.
Please do drop by and help out when you have the time!  Even if you can only go through a few entries, every little bit will help! Kirill 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been working from the bottom up, dont know why, but anyway if a page is a duplicate such as Swiftsure class submarines and Swiftsure class submarine, should we just leave it? At the moment i have just left a note on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive/165 page and merge tags on the article. Thanks Woodym555 13:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've noticed a couple of these as well. Carom 15:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect this is the usual problem with category listings not showing all of the category contents; I was making the "untagged" check based on whether the article was present in one of the assessment categories, not by examining the talk page directly. This could probably be mitigated if direct talk-page checking were added to the script; but, given the already massive numbers of false positives, I suspect simply filtering those out in the course of the normal worklist processing would be the easier option. Kirill 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's a good idea; please go ahead. :-) Kirill 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging and assessment drive 

message: This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Abu Ghraib. ROGER TALK 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Abu Ghraib]]

message: An anonymous contributor changed the value of the mobilized Norwegian Defence Force to 270.000. The same ip-address also updated the Dutch wiki on this point. A quick google search gave no results. Could someone pls check? TeunSpaans 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a link to the NDF's own web page on this to the talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Norwegian Defence Force]]

message: Template:Infobox Military Australia, Template:Infobox Military China, Template:Infobox Military Azerbaijan, Template:Infobox Military Austria, Template:Infobox Military Armenia, Template:Infobox Military Antigua and Barbuda, Template:Infobox Military Angola, and  Template:Infobox Military Algeria have been nominated for deletion. All editors are invited to comment on the deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Up for Deletion

message: Please discuss at Talk:Recruit training#Proposed split of US Army Basic Training
Equazcion 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *US Army Basic Training is now a separate article. Equazcion 01:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split of [[recruit training#Army|US Army Basic Training]] from [[Recruit training]]

message: I would like to draw your attention to the merger proposal for Theodore Penland, which has been open for a long time. You will find the discussion here. --B. Wolterding 18:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: Theodore Penland 

message: The A-Class review for Walter Model is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Walter Model]] now open 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision]] needs attention 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Walter Model; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Walter Model]] needs attention 

message: There's been some bizarre shuffling of articles among the several categories used for them here, so I've bitten the bullet and nominated :Category:Battles and operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict for renaming to :Category:Battles of the 2003 Iraq conflict (with the idea that the higher-level :Category:Military operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict, created under the new scheme outlined in WP:MILHIST#CONFLICTS, can be used to collect the non-battle-type operations without the need to lump them all together).  Comments on the nomination would be very welcome! Kirill 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Does this have something to do w/  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Abu Ghraib? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not directly, although I suppose it may be helpful depending on the outcome of that AFD. Kirill 13:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War battle category rename 

message: This article seriously needs help.--Tutopotamus 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Laupen]] 

message: It has been proposed by me (SpecialWindler) that a new bot go through and assess certain articles. These certain articles are categorised in the Unassessed category but also in an Assessed category (either as FA, A, GA, B, Start or Stub). However there are many articles which have been assessed as one thing while another project has yet to assess the article. The bot's proposal would be to assess the unassessed article as the other projects assessment, which would save time for that assessment.
Take Talk:Shane Perry as an example, it is rated as Start for the WikiProject Biography but unassessed for the Rugby league WikiProject. Would it not save the time of the Rugby league assessment team to have it assessed as Start by a bot. However the problem is that various WikiProjects have different assessment criteria. While most projects base it of this , some may not and wouldn't like a bot to do that.
If you would like to make a suggestion about this bot proposal you may want to add a suggestion at this page under the section "Comments from WikiProjects", in which you should state which WikiProject you come from. You may also want to look at the background of this proposal at Bot requests (under "WikiProject assessing" section) and then Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (under "bot" section).
This message was substed from this page to alert some WikiProjects whether this bot is a good idea, to see if it can be run. It is planned that some WikiProjects will not like the idea and can be excluded from this bot, if it does go ahead. Thankyou. SpecialWindler  talk 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our system is quite simple. Anything longer than a stub is a start and you can have a bot tagging them. The B-class, A-class and FA assessments are done manually. Wandalstouring 11:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal