Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members

HNoMs Otra[edit]

I've upgraded HNoMS Otra (1939) to start class, as it was clearly not a stub. would an independant editor assess it against the B-class criteria please? Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: What's a "2. class gunboat"? Should it be a redlink and have the period? Shouldn't the ship's builder, keel laying, and launch dates be mentioned in the text (in addition to the lead)? Why so many short sections? Otherwise I think it looks short, but not unduly so for a small ship with that kind of service life, so I'll give it a B once my concerns above are addressed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Manxruler is probably the best person to ask. Mjroots (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@The ed17: Hi. It's been a long while since I wrote that article, so it's really not all that good. The lead needs a complete rewriting, for one. As for the questions, as far I can remember "2. class gunboat" refers to a number of 19th century gunboats that were rebuilt in the 20th century for mine-related duties. Will have to check that. Yes, the building data should definitely be in the text, and I'll fix that as soon as I can find the time (it's very busy at work now). I'll also cut the number of sections, as you are right in that there are too many right now. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/April 22, 2015[edit]

Does anyone have a better image for this TFA than File:SM UD 3 port.jpg? That's too grainy. Images are helpful for pulling in Main Page readers. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv 101II-MW-4384-28 - if you can figure out the download/licensing. (Hohum @) 09:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Start with this, it should eventually lead to the answer you're looking for. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dank, Hohum, and TomStar81: that's ... not the same ship or time period. This is the First World War's U-66. ;-) @Tom, a better page is commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany, but given the time frame, the ship's reused name, and it not being a capital ship, I'm going to wager that it will be really hard to find a photo. That being said, I did manage to find a PD (in the US, at least) image of the submarine's engine. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hohum's seems to be WWII. Mine seems to be WWI ... the date given for the photo is 17 August 1915. I like the engine pic, Ed, but I'm following Crisco on images, and I'm pretty sure he won't take it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops. (Hohum @) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Dank, I shouldn't have tagged you there. I was referring to Hohum's and Tom's comments. No worries on the engine, I just wanted to list the only thing I found. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Glad you did ... I've been wondering what they looked like for years. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Darned shame, really... it would be nice if someone could dig up an image of the sub... or even a sister ship. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyone: what are the odds that the image I linked above, the one from the article, could be sharpened and repaired, at least sufficiently for TFA purposes? - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Zero to none. I can't even be certain it's free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional citations needed to create an article about the last US ground commander—a Marine—to depart the Vietnam War[edit]

Can anyone please help me find info about an obituary in a local newspaper at Cape Cod? Regarding the following obituary of James Hamilton Kean (a.k.a. Jim Kean and James H. Kean) I would like to know:

  • Name of the newspaper and date of publishing
  • If possible, also the name of the person that wrote the obituary.

I am trying to cite the following from the obituary (of an unnamed local newspaper at Cape Cod: "He personally supervised the evacuation of approximate 1000 Americans and several thousand Vietnamese in advance of approaching North Vietnamese force". If there are other sources, please say so. --20yardsaway (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Barnstable Patriot?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A google book lists the likely article as a reference. Cape Cod Times ( is the likely source, but I can not find any articles on Kean there. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Now I can rule out the Barnstable Patriot. (Kean died in 2008; none of the other local papers can be ruled out.) --20yardsaway (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Lancaster B III JA914[edit]

The remains of Lancaster B III JA914 are displayed at the German Museum of Technology. Where was this aircraft built? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

According to [1] (which may not be reliable), it was built by A.V. Roe and Company at Chadderton. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WT:Today's featured article/requests#8 May[edit]

There's a question at TFAR on how best to mark V-E day. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: The Mark Oliphant article might be a good candidate due to his work with the Manhattan Project. It's currently under review as a Featured Article candidate. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgive the statement of the obvious, the Manhattan Project has nothing to do with V-E Day, other than in the most distant "if they'd finished it a bit earlier, the A-bomb may have been deployed in Europe" sense. – iridescent 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Germany MILHIST articles - assessment[edit]

WP:WikiProject Germany uses a similar B-checklist as WP:MILHIST. When MILHIST-members assess a Germany-related article anyway, please consider adding a copy of the checklist to the Germany banner template as well. The criteria are similar enough (in fact MILHIST requirements are a bit stricter), and such assessments can be done by any interested Wikipedian - this would help to avoid unnecessary backlogs. I try to fill out both banners anyway - being in both projects :). Many thanks for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a bit more formal but similar relationship with Wikiproject Ships. We could formalise it if there was consensus at Wikiproject Germany to do so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, and it could certainly help to reduce a bit of workload for article maintenance. I could check at WP:GER, how other project members think about such an idea, when other MILHIST editors have no objections. Generally, assessments by other Wikipedians for WP:Germany are not restricted - as of now anyone can already do them. One minor practical problem would be the mentioned difference between MILHIST- and GER-criteria: especially C-level requirements are more strict at MILHIST. Do you have a link to the MILHIST-SHIP discussions about this topic by chance (or a date to search for it)? GermanJoe (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Can't find any clear discussion, but whatever happened, it happened before June 2007. Instructions on the very first incarnation of Template:WikiProject Ships/doc state "If the article has an existing quality rating by WP:MILHIST, or on its own, initialize the value of class to the current rating, otherwise leave it empty". [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Archive_of:_Assessment_status_report_talk This September 2007 discussion] about an assessment drive states that "assessments by MILHIST are implicitly accepted by WPSHIPS", while [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_5#a_plea this post] promoting said drive suggested that drive-by assessors should only mark SHIPS articles B-class if MILHIST had already done so. -- saberwyn 02:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I was around at the time, but don't recall a specific discussion - my sense is that most of the members of WP:SHIPS were (and still are) also members of MILHIST, so functionally there wasn't much difference. In addition, the SHIPS project was pretty heavily modeled on MILHIST, including taking the B-class criteria wholesale. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Stub-, Start- and B-class are fully compatible between MILHIST and WP:Germany anyway. All MILHIST C-class articles are also WP:Germany C-class "automatically", as MILHIST requirements are stricter. Only original C-Class WP:Germany articles may need a closer look, as those C-Class requirements are not fully compatible with the stricter MILHIST C-class. I'll post a brief request for feedback at WP:GER as well to get more input. I haven't seen any completely false assessments in both projects, so relying on each others' judgement should be relatively uncontroversial. GermanJoe (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fokker Scourge[edit]

Fokker Scourge the relevance of the infobox added to the article has been questioned, does anyone know of a better one? thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it needs an infobox on the Fokker E.I as a link would suffice, IMO. WWI aviation really isn't my period, but there should be a overall campaign box for the aerial campaigns during the war that can be broken out into articles, which would be more appropriate than the current one. That would include the carrier air raids like Tondern, plus the strategic bombing efforts by the Zeppelins and the Gothas and their Allied equivalents. I don't know enough about how the air war over France/Belgium played out to suggest how that might be covered, but there should probably be regional ones as well covering Italy/Austria-Hungary, Salonica, Dardanelles, Palestine/Egypt, and Mesopotamia. It would probably be worth doing even with a mass of redlinks. Perhaps they'll attract some air-minded editor who can at least start the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree about the infobox, it is probably confusing because the Fokker Scourge is about more than just the E.I. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I'd rather have something but I bow to the majority.Keith-264 (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Texas Rising preview from The History Channel[edit]

Regarding THC Texas Rising that has some of us upgrading the Texas Revolution article, here's from the from the History Channel: Preview of Texas Rising. FYI, Mdennis (WMF) — Maile (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. The article is looking fantastic. I have tried reaching out to the History channel contact again about the matter and am hoping to hear back soon. They've fallen a bit quiet. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It should reach Featured Article status very soon (it's only waiting on someone to do a spotcheck for close paraphrasing - any reviewers want to go take a look??), so I'm pretty confident it will be able to be on the Main Page for the premiere of the show. Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp FAR[edit]

I have nominated Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Mauthausen-Gusen_concentration_camp#FAR_needed, there's not much of a meeting of the minds at the moment ... the question is how best to proceed. There's a current FAR open; also, I don't see any evidence of A-class, so we could run the article through A-class. I've handled the dashes; the rest of it isn't stuff I usually tackle. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Assistance requested[edit]

An IP editor is attempting to insert content using user generated content sources at the article Xiong Yan (dissident). I am coming up to the third revision rule and need others to assist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just following up, I put the article on my watchlist to monitor after you left your message here and that IP seems to have gone quiet since then? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Cambodian Civil War[edit]

Cambodian Civil War is currently an A Class article belonging to your project but it is lacking in citations in a number of areas. It seems has fallen into some disrepair over the years. Perhaps someone here could go through it and bring it back up to standard? I've done what little I could. (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Input would be welcome. Srnec (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible hoax[edit]

In the course of a bit of work involving Cousinot's Chronique de la Pucelle I happened on the wikipage for the book itself. This is sound but at some point in 2013, an IP editor added a paragraph apparently refering to a fantastical tale included by Cousinot. Intrigued (it is Munchhausen-esque), I tried to locate it in the online edition with no result. I suspect it is an unspotted hoax. I've put a little more on the talk page but would welcome hoax-spotters to take a look Monstrelet (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)