Talk:Tiger I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links[edit]

Per WP:EXT, the external link should provide accurate information that for some reason cannot be included in the article.

Could the editors please explain how these links match the criteria in WP:EXT?

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Some, if not all provide interesting additional information about the Tiger I. I don't see a reason to doubt the accuracy, as I think each site provides it's own sources. The main reason not to include all of the information on them is the size limitation of this article. (Hohum @) 20:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tiger I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


The section "Notable 'aces'" uses two non WP:RS sources: for the statement:

Patrick Agte (please see Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte) for the statement:

  • On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharführer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon, 13th Panzer Company, 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler engaged a group of about 50 T-34s around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used all his ammunition and claimed the destruction of 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For this, he was awarded the Knight's Cross.[2]


  1. ^ Tiger Aces
  2. ^ Agte 2006, pp. 103–105.

I suggest removing these two passages as coming from non WP:RS sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with first source as it's just a list of kill (claims). While the second author may be problematic in this case he's just desribing an action for which the tank commander was awarded a Knight's Cross. --Denniss (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
This content (actions of a tank commander) belongs in the article about the soldier, no? Even there, it would still be a non WP:RS source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Denniss: to close on this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I have never really seen the point of the entire section, having worked in improving this article for some time. Irondome (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree. "Panzer ace" is pretty much a myth and/or romanticism. Pls see List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's been a couple of days; I will go ahead and remove the rest of the section. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

English Variant[edit]

Hi there all, This article was obviously started in American English, and even had a holdover example in the article someone forgot to switch over to British when they moved the article to british english, 10 years after inception. Anyways, I moved it back, as obviously this article has no significant ties to British English (pretty sure the Americans fought in ww2 as well...) and it started in American English. If you disagree, please leave your rationale here. Someone was Bold, I Reverted, so let's go ahead and discuss!

By the by, that edit for Bold moving was in one of the previous archives. They boldly moved it, as I said. No problem. I reverted. :-) Have an Awesome day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:297D:A4E2:3407:434F (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The article has been using onlyprimarily British English since at least July 2009, per the archived discussion at Talk:Tiger I/Archive 2#British vs American English, and no one has objected until now. Given that it has been stable that long, you really need a clear consensus to make a change now, as it's really far beyond the scope of BRD at this point. - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • British English. The morphing IP is a disruptive troll and vandal who began by pushing POV ENGVAR changes at Potato chip (see history there and the edits by their other 2A02:* IPs). Now they're obviously stalking my edits to an eclectic range of other articles, looking for somewhere to behave similarly. It's ANI time. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Any relation to the issue at Talk:Tiger_II#wholesale_changes_to_spelling_on_this_page ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It has more to do with their edits at Doughnut and Potato chip. Tiger II is going in the opposite direction and I think you'd have to ask Weslam123 about that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)