Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 59

Archive 55Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62


2021 Contest

I have wrapped up the article improvement contest for 2021 and reset it for 2022. All that is left is for someone to award the first place chevrons for September, the November and December second place barnstars and the 2021 Military History Writers' Contest Cup. I'll write something up for the Bugle. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

ACR backlog IV

The twelve above are all of the ACRs more than two months old, and could use a bit of TLC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

ACR backlog update

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thirty Years' War has attracted a lot of comments but, I think, only one support.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikephoros III Botaneiates has enough reviews. Waiting for the nominator to come back on them.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ivo Herenčić needs image and source reviews.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia: the nominator has not edited for five weeks. I suggest giving it another two to three weeks to see if they come back.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named) needs a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ho Chi Minh trail could do with further comments and/or work.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Breteuil just needs a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Glasgow, Missouri just needs one more general review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Léon Degrelle needs a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tom Eastick also needs a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Brazilian military junta of 1930 just needs a source review.

That's all of those that are more than eight weeks old. We seem to be staying on top of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for December

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

MilHistBot (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 Bugle

Hi, Could someone please add the contest results to the 'project news' section of the upcoming Bugle edition? The link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2022/Project news. Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Gog has attended to this. Zawed (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for January

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

MilHistBot (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Remaining items

January 2022 contest

The January edition of the contest needs to be wrapped up; I've dished out the prize for second but my entries need to be verified and the prize for first place awarded. I've done the write up for the Bugle as well. Zawed (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Zawed. I have done the remaining bits. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

ACR backlog latest

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thirty Years' War Reopened per this discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It is possible that this has achieved a consensus to promote. It seems to have Catlemur, Hog Farm and Palastwache; an addressed image review; and Catlemur's "ref errors" section seems to meet the A class source review criterion. As I have previously failed and then reopened the nomination I consider myself involved, but perhaps a non-involved @WP:MILHIST coordinators: could have a look? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikephoros III Botaneiates has one support and one oppose. Nothing from the nominator for five months. I have given them a nudge. Withdrawn at nominator's request. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ivo Herenčić needs an image review. I have prompted the nominator.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ho Chi Minh trail could do with further comments and/or work.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Brazilian military junta of 1930 just needs a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Raymond needs a couple more general reviews.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer) just needs a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kirk–Holden war needs a source review and a further general review.

That's all that's outstanding from nominations six weeks or older. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The person the instructions here say to ping has been indeffed-blocked and TPA-revoked. It would probably be a good idea to update the instructions in some form. Hog Farm Talk 20:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Are they actually still relevant to anything? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I frankly don't know; I've never seen or heard of anything related to that contest outside of seeing that one paragraph there. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I am minded to boldly delete it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Same, especially since Planespotter is the person who added it in 2018; I'm not sure that it's ever been widely used. Hog Farm Talk 21:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
At various times, I have had thoughts to try to dig through the older project documentation/templates and see if there's anything that needs updated/removed, such as this or from a few months back when we updated the assessment examples. Hog Farm Talk 21:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
And gone. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Military history articles with no associated task force

Could someone have a look at category:Military history articles with no associated task force? Normally our Bot assigns task forces to articles for us, based on their categories, but over time a small number (ie a dozen or so) (ignore the draft articles) have accumulated that it cannot assign task forces to, often because the articles have no categories. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The last holdouts are:
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I think I have covered them all except the first two. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I have cleaned up the remaining two. There seems to be three things that confuse the Bot:
  1. Articles with no categories, or with categories that it cannot associate with a task force;
  2. Redirects marked as MilHist to articles which are not marked as MilHist; and
  3. Articles with talk pages with multiple MilHist banners.
I will have the Bot handle (2) and (3) automatically in the future. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for February

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

MilHistBot (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Remaining articles

Upcoming Bugle

Hi, could someone please add the February contest results to the Project News section of the upcoming Bugle edition? The link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2022/Project news. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, and dished out the first and second place awards as well. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for April

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

MilHistBot (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability Question

I agreed to do a GA review of the Vito Trause article. I believe this fails notability guidelines (WP:BIO), but I'd appreciate your comments. The subject of the article was an American WW2 private who got captured by the Germans. He survived the prison camp and lived a relatively uneventful life after the war, dying at age 94. I'm sure there were literally thousands of other veterans who had a similar experience. The author did a lot of work citing the article, but the citations are all from local newspapers and not histories. At one time it was nominated for deletion, but the decision was to Speedy Keep. Before I rain on someone's parade and do a quick fail, I'd like to know what other editors think. Please comment. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article was speedily kept at AfD after a user made a argument that was similar in substance to the one that you are making here. A quick look through the article's sources shows multiple bylined obituaries in mainstream WP:NEWSORGs, international coverage of when the individual graduated from high school at age 92 (not all from local newspapers as you incorrectly stated above), and multiple in-depth articles on who he is as a person while he was still alive as well as the various honors he received later in life. There is significantly more coverage than the WP:GNG threshold of multiple independent RS that provide non-trivial coverage of the article subject. If you think the subject is non-notable, you can take it to AfD, but AfDing an article that was speedy kept in the past 5 months without introducing new arguments doesn't seem like the best use of editors' time. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping to get a comment from one of our editors, not the author/submitter. I will await a comment from a WPMILHIST editor. Djmaschek (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Every article needs a basis for its notability. It appears to be the case that "well-known community figure in New Jersey" is central to the claimed notability, as nothing else is in any way notable other than one event in his life (his graduation from high school at 92). In the lead his claim to being a "well-known community figure in New Jersey" is cited to three sources (two citations are to the same source, different dates), two of which are obviously local papers. The Bergen Record covers four counties, and the The Pascack Press (and its various other iterations) appears to be a small town paper. The only international citation to this claim in the lead is to The Economic Times of India. When you examine that article you realise that it is based on Twitter posts. It hasn't even been picked up from a wire service. The New York Times citation is just to a list of casualties, the New York Post is unreliable (see WP:NYPOST), as noted, the Fox News story is classic WP:BIO1E, the rest is county or multi-county level newspapers or news websites or local authorities or radio stations. If these arguments weren't properly ventilated at the previous AfD, they should have been, and I would support its nomination and deletion and mentioning him in the Bergen County, New Jersey article, including a few salient points from this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The basis for notability is that he easily passes WP:GNG. The WP:BIO1E claim makes no sense, since he's clearly covered throughout his life in the context of multiple events. And, The Economic Times is running a Press Trust of India wire story, so I have no clue where it hasn't even been picked up from a wire service comes from—but it is certainly not from a careful examination of the sources. The Record being framed as a small newspaper is bonkers; the paper's circulation in 2013 was about twice that of Israeli paper of record Haaretz in a U.S. state that about the same population as the State of Israel. That Trause has been repeatedly covered over decades shows that the public interest in the individual was not some sporadic thing limited to one event. If you're going to nominate it, I can't stop you, but I think that doing so would be a tremendous waste of time in light of poor arguments for deletion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

ACR latest

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thirty Years' War Reopened per this discussion.

It is possible that this has achieved a consensus to promote. It seems to have Catlemur, Hog Farm and Palastwache; an addressed image review; and Catlemur's "ref errors" section seems to meet the A class source review criterion. As I have previously failed and then reopened the nomination I consider myself involved, but perhaps a non-involved @WP:MILHIST coordinators: could have a look? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Does this still need attending to? I see that the ACR is currently closed as of 20 March 2022 (four days before the above); would you like a possible re-open and pass? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
It needs reopening. I thought I had done so. I suspect that it has passed. If not, perhaps you could lay out what still needs attending to? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The talk page has been corrected - but the most recent MILHISTBOT edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thirty Years' War needs reverted, and it needs to be re-transcluded to the ACR noms page (I think it goes below my Raymond nom). Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I've done both of these steps. Hog Farm Talk 17:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Passed. ––♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Raymond needs two further general supports.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kirk–Holden war needs a source review and a further general review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gallic Wars needs most things, and may have bogged down.

Withdrawn. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia needs both source and image reviews.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Johnston (DD-557) needs most things just a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/CSS Baltic needs two more general reviews and a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Blacks needs one more support and a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gisco (died 239 BC) needs one more support and a source review.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sayfo has two general supports.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Oswald Boelcke needs the works a source review.

That brings us to the end of February, nomination wise. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

G'day Gog. Has anything left over above not been moved to the new thread? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
No. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for March

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

MilHistBot (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

B Requests

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Hey all I just realised some of our fellow Wikipedians have added some requests here. Some of these noms are waiting almost a month or even longer so can we take a moment to tackle these? Thanks. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

One-sentence lead

Okay @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , it's May and the MilHistBot's monthly autoCheck report is coming and we barely finished the February autocheck. We only need to check 29 articles for February and 141 for March. A lot of the past articles we reviewed have a one-sentence lead, is it possible to let MilHistBot know that no leads and one-sentence lead is not B? That'll remove a lot of articles we shouldn't take time to look into. CPA-5 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was answered fairly promptly. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop. Before I archive this, is it done @WP:MILHIST coordinators:  ? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The prompt answer referred to was a “no”, so I assume not. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The MilHist bot reports on the articles that it has processed over the course of the previous month. So nothing could be done to affect the April report. Changes made will be reflected in the May report, which will appear in a few days time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Hawkeye! Great to add a few tweaks here and there to reduce the impost on human eyes to check. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that Hawkeye, it will help a lot. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

April contest

I have done most of the routine stuff for April and will write it up for The Bugle once the space is available. Meanwhile, perhaps someone could check my entries and take care of the runner up award?   Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Consider it done. Zawed (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

ACR to do list for May

I'll take this, this weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Will take care soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

And that is all of the current ACRs. (Bar two where the nominators seem dormant.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability of German Type UC III submarines

I've done a lot assessments for the German Type UC III submarines. Most of them do not seem notable at all, or not warranting their own articles. None of those completed during World War I went on any patrols for Germany. Typical something like this : boilerplate design information (same across all the subs), date ordered, date launched, date commissioned, "As with the rest of the completed UC III boats, UC-96 conducted no war patrols and sank no ships", date surrendered, broken up etc. A few had some events once given to the Allies as war prizes, such as SM UC-97, but treaties required them all to be destroyed by 1921, apparently. It seems it would be better to put these all into a table on the parent class page. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Stuff like SM UC-112 there's really basically nothing that can be said outside of the class description; these are probably better off merged into tables in the class article. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, but I agree - in general, ships that either weren't finished or had no active service generally don't warrant individual articles (there are, of course, exceptions, but these are fairly rare). Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 Bugle

Hi, Could someone please fill in the awards and honours and contest department sections of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/May 2022/Project news? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks! Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for May

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

MilHistBot (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The first two I checked today both had single sentence leads. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

ACR to do list for June

And that is all of the currently active ACRs. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Do demoted FAs keep their A-class status?

The previously featured article Finnish Civil War was recently demoted following a WP:FAR/WP:FARC. It was then marked as A-class in this diff. While WP:GACR clearly states that demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality I haven't seen any similar verbiage for the A-class status. In this specific case, I'd highlight that 1) the ACR was done in 2006 and 2) given that none of the FAR concerns were addressed, an A class reassessment would presumably be pretty much just a redo of the FAR. What's the procedure here? Cheers, Ljleppan (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: MILHIST A-Class is unconnected to FA stayus, so a ACR reassessment would be needed to remove A-Class status. I did this not too long ago with War against Nabis. Hog Farm Talk 17:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Or see this current removal discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check these out. - Ljleppan (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)