Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history | Coordinators

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Donner60 (talk | contribs) at 04:17, 31 May 2024 (moved discussion topics from January 2024 through April 22, 2024 from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62

Template:Archive-nav

ACR to-do list for January 2024

I've done a slightly eccentric image review. The kind where I search out the originals so better copies can be used. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This appears to now be the oldest one now pending. I will try to get to it before the end of the month if no one else reviews it earlier. Adding that I may put John Bullock Clark ahead of it since that one is now far along. Donner60 (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


Seriously, if stuff needs image reviews, ask me. I've worked with images long enough. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 07:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Napoleon and A-class status

Napoleon was promoted to GA in July 2008, and received A-class status a month later. In 2021 it was demoted from GA status, but still retains its A-class designation. When an article is demoted at GA, should it still be listed as A-class here? Does an A-class reeassessment have to be opened to discuss its designation? Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: As A-class criteria differs to that of GA-class criteria, a separate reassessment is needed. (@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I don't know if this is something we should be looking into? I remember discussions relating to this happening before but believe that the aforementioned requirement is still the status quo. Seems a little absurd to keep B (or worse) articles as A class when we generally consider A class to be higher than GA, despite the differing requirements). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we don't automatically demote an A-class article that's lost its GA status but I think such a situation is a prima facie reason to look at conducting a formal review of the article's A-class status. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Possibly we should watch for similar GA (and FA?) demotions in future and automatically list them for A class review? Maybe a bot could do it for us? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I found eight other examples of delisted GA articles that are currently still A class: Johann Mickl, Jean de Carrouges, Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot), Hans Philipp, Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), Keith Miller, Arab–Byzantine wars, Home Army. Only Waldmann and Philipp have survived A class reassessment after a GA delist. Schierbecker (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. The rules at FAC and GA are that demoted articles revert to their project status. We had an issue with FAs and GAs being demoted on ideological and political grounds unrelated to article quality. So the project determined that demoted articles retain their A-class rating pending an A-class reassessment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. The project has a section in articles for review about FA reviews and GA reviews. The question may be if no one from the project is participating or closely following the reviews, does anyone know the outcome so that there can be a follow-up? One reason given for demoting articles recently is that they are too long. I think this should not be a hard and fast rule (15,000 words or some number of bytes or something like that), at least for demotions other than FA. I suppose there is a concern that long FA articles won't be read in entirety. I am not sure if that is always merited. From only the quickest glance, Andrew Jackson is an article up for review that appears to have ideological objections, as Hawkeye noted. Perhaps other objections are thrown in to make a case. I did not take more than a glance at the already long review. Donner60 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Mickl (commander of a German-Croatian division that operated in Yugoslavia) is still listed as A-Class, I wrote it ten years ago, and I certainly have learned a lot since then. My view is that very odd rationales were taken by a group of editors during the GAR, especially about sources, and even extending to generic images used in the article. I acknowledge some flowery language needed trimming, but along the lines Hawkeye mentioned, most of the criticisms were not based on policy but some weird ideology that the man was being glorified because he had an article that mentioned anything other than the war crimes of his division. This was widespread across many articles about the German war effort at the time and coincided with the ArbCom case. The article needs some work due to the unjustified deletions, but (for example) the idea that a biography co-written by the historian Heinz A. Richter (who was selected to write Mickl's article in the Neue deutsche Biographie) is unreliable, is utter nonsense. Both sources that were challenged as unreliable were listed by Richter as sources he used to write the NdB article on Mickl. If they are good enough for NdB, they are good enough for WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a list made a couple years ago of older A-Class promotions to check for those that may have deteriorated or been under poor standards. A few from that have been delisted. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a long debate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John von Neumann/1 that was mostly about whether a GA can be stricken based on WP:TOOBIG. I strongly believe that an article is as long or short as it needs to be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat related. Did anyone else notice that the new banner shell is reverting some FA-class Milhist articles to A class? Thirteen examples listed here. Schierbecker (talk)

@Hawkeye7: Is this not the issue you brought up several days ago? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I thought it had been corrected and a bot run to repair the broken template. Is it still occurring? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Qwerfjkl says, Schierbecker, thank you for bringing my attention to this. I've fixed it now. There was a flaw in my logic for detecting opted-out wikiprojects. I will revert and rerun the bot on the milhist pages with issues. Schierbecker (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
To avoid duplication let's continue the discussion here, not at my talk page. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Qwerfjkl: Hi, thanks for fixing that! Greatly appreciated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I've fixed the FAs. Let me know if there are any other pages that need fixing. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Cewbot made the same error on William T. Anderson, Ulysses S. Grant and Fatimid conquest of Egypt on January 2. I just fixed them. Is that what Pickersgill-Cunliffe was talking about earlier? Schierbecker (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Schierbecker, I've only looked at the first one but it wasn't caused by Cewbot. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Oops, Cewbot only caused the error on Talk:Fatimid conquest of Egypt. Sorry, going error blind. Schierbecker (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

BT-13 Vultee Valiant - N67496

Hello!

We see that you have our Vultee Valiant listed at Florida Keys Int'l Airport (information pulled from FAA). Just updating that this aircraft is not only airworthy but has the original crankshaft start mechanism. It is owned by Island Warbirds (https://islandwarbirds.com) located at Florida Keys Flight Academy in Marathon, FL

1942 BT-13 Vultee Valiant - N67496

Sincerely,

Island Warbirds Islandwarbirds (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Please be sure to add a citation and not add any promotional or advertising material to the article. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: no edits were made to the article after these posts up to the date of this comment. It appears it will be left to a project member to amend the article, with citation, as may be needed. Donner60 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Effect on assessment of "too many primary primary sources" template

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Does a too many primary sources template prevent an assessment of B class, or even C class, if sufficient citations are provided. In the case of the article that has raised the question for me the primary sources are mainly US Army publications, which are verifiable and adequately credible sources for the topic Sapper Leader Course. Does that make a difference if the answer generally is that the assessment must be no higher than start or C? Thanks.
I may be offline for more time than I have been recently if setting up a new computer and a few other tasks that I need to work on take more time than expected or if a family member, who unfortunately has just tested positive for covid, gives me another infection. I have been online most days. This is as info if I have a sudden longer period of absence. Donner60 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A "too many primary sources" template does not prevent an assessment of B class. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES: articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. The covid infection in our household is worsening. Paxlovid has been prescribed and started. Donner60 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's hoping everyone makes a swift recovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. All testing negative now. I now have some catching up to do. I'll be changing my user box to show I have survived two covid infections. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

ACR backlog

We've got 7 ACRs still open from 2023:

This one is ready to be closed. Zawed (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be moving soon and will be time-limited but will see what all I can review. An organized effort to keep ACR running may be necessary because this has been backlogged for most of the past year or so. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for February

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

(discuss) 06:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) :Reassess as start class with this edit summary: "reassess bot assessment for military history project and in banner shelll as start, fails b1 due to sources failing verification and otherwise suspect, fails b2 for incomplete coverage." Donner60 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

ACR for Crusading movement ready for closure

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I have completed a third review for this article and the points raised have been addressed. The previous two reviews and responses were so thorough that I had only a few comments. Nonetheless, since no other third reviewer commented in whole or in significant part, I think it is proper for a completely uninvolved coordinator to close this one. Donner60 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Project Scope: (1) crimes on military bases; (2) terrorist attacks on military bases

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I recently removed the project banner from an article that was about a mass shooting by a soldier at a military base (1999 Tempe military base shooting). It was not a foreign base and had no military event or operation connected with it. I considered this simply as a crime that happened to have been committed on an air base. I ask that whether there are contrary views or precedents about this being within the scope of the project.
I have just assessed an article as within the scope of the project with the note that I would give further thought and inquiry as to whether this too should only be within the crime and, in this case, the terrorism projects Mianwali air base attack. I think this is a closer call but possibly different enough for a different result. The event was an attack by nine jihadist militants against a Pakistani military base. Three aircraft were damaged and the article states that "The Pakistani Armed Forces repelled the attack, killing all nine attackers during the security operation." Are the additional facts enough to bring this within the scope of the project or is this still simply a large crime committed by terrorists? I will appreciate your help in defining the scope of the project in such situations. Donner60 (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I lean towards including it since we broadly define anything related to the military to be within our scope, so it passes that criteria in spades. You're also talking about soldiers attacking other soldiers (in the former case), which broadly fits the definition of a battle. As for the airbase attack, that's an attack on a military installation which by western definition would come under the "war on terror", so it could be reasonbly included. My two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Big Black River Bridge

Fully reviewed. Promoted to A class. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

New academy page

I have documented our procedure for creating an A-Class review or reappraisal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In relation to A-class reviews, any thoughts on creating a separate heading on the review page for them? I think it would be useful to split the re-assessments out from the actual reviews. Just a new level two header either above or below the extant "Current reviews" slot. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this would be a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I've split out the reassessments, but don't know whether this will upset the bot? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
It should be okay. Unlike FACBot, it does not sort the entries chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is something the bot could do, but it might be useful if the bot could automatically identify a-class articles that have lost FA or GA and list them in a particular section for reassessment. As it is now articles will be falling through the cracks, as we rely on editors noticing an article has lost its status and manually putting it up for review. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The could be done by the bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for March

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Awards

I have approved all the quarterly awards except my own. Note that with the promotion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort McKavett State Historic Site at A-Class, Vami IV has been posthumously nominated for an A-class medal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_62&oldid=1226519265"