Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Fortifications task force/Archive 1

WP:Castles
Is WP:CASTLES going to be subsumed into this TF? It seems to be moribund. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's currently being discussed, yes. ;-) Kirill 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Military bases
I'm wondering if maybe military bases and airbases wouldn't fit under this category. I'm coming across quite a few of them in the tag-and-assess effort and these military installations don't seem to have a natural home. Thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd hesitate to stretch the scope of this task force quite to include all military installations; it was pretty much intended to deal with fortification rather than mere geography.
 * (For the examples you list, the more obvious locations—to me, at least—would be the associated national/regional task forces, as well as the aviation task force for airbases. I don't think that all military installations have enough common editorial interest that a task force covering all of them would really help that much.) Kirill 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Absorption of WP:CASTLES
I've completed the merger of the inactive Castles WikiProject into this task force. One point is worth noting: to save some time, I've turned WPCAS into a transclusion of WPMILHIST that passes through the assessment class and tags the article into this task force. In the long run, though, we need to convert all the old tags to use WPMILHIST directly, since the other parameters don't pass through correctly (and some pages now have two redundant tags). Kirill 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tidy like this? As you indicated, the nested parameter didn't work in the WPCAS transclusion. If I've got it right, I'll do what I can, as and when. Is the Technology tag now redundant when Fortifications is used? Folks at 137 (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's it. As far as Technology is concerned, it's not currently automatic when Fortifications is set, but it would be easy to do so if that's what people would prefer. Kirill 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been marking for WP:CAS all night. I only found out because I went for Castles, and instead of the Castles banner, I got Mil Hist instead.--Bedford (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article collaboration
I think we should have a special collaboration for FORT related articles in this task force. Because it is a small task force the collaborations would have to be indefinite; going on until it is judged to have reached a certain level of quality, but I think it would be useful. Is anyone interested in starting this with me? I know that I would be a frequent contributor.

In fact I think I will just be bold and implement this right now, if anyone thinks this is a bad idea then revert and discuss.-Icewedge (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest a somewhat more broader article than an individual (and fairly obscure) castle, as that's likely to appeal to only a few editors; something like castle or fortification might be a more reasonable item to work on, as would some of the more visible structure articles (e.g. Great Wall of China, etc.) Kirill 04:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, I wanted to pick a rather smallish article so expansion would be relativly easy. -Icewedge (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress now open
The A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon now open
The A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress now open
The A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Fortifications
A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team, SelectionBot 20:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question...
If I were looking to link to an article about "crossbars", that is the bar across a gate of a castle, where would it be?  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  01:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe we have one, actually. Based on my searching, the whole area of pre-industrial locking mechanisms seems pretty deficient. Kirill (prof) 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Ok then. Thanks!  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a disambiguation page on crossbar though. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A minor question about project scope
Hi all. I just tagged belt armor and torpedo bulkhead for WP:MILHIST, and was wondering if they were within the scope of this task force. I've already tagged them as such, but if I am in error, please let me know. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This one is more about castles, defensive lines, trenchworks and so on. I've tweaked the stubs to change to the technology task force, which may be more appropriate. Feel free to revert if you disagree! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 00:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I was thinking. Thanks for your quick answer. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)