User talk:Donner60/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 23 starting with closed talk page threads after January 30, 2024 through April 12, 2024. A few earlier barnstars still on user talk page. I delete old Books & Bytes and Bugles since they are available from the publication's archives.

List of World War II aces credited with 100 or more victories

Thank you for your constructive comments. I found a statement in the book by Edward H. Sims which I reworded and added to the lead. Let me know if this resolves your concern. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That works. I have just assessed the article as BL for military history, B for aviation, list for lists. That appears to be correct for the other projects. I will strike through the listing now. Donner60 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for assessing Flameless ration heater! Hope you're feeling better. Mokadoshi (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment but...

Thanks for the assessment of Henare Wepiha Te Wainohu but I think you forgot to update the talk page? Zawed (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed it. I have done enough of these now that I should remember to take each step. Never hurts to be reminded once in a while, though. Donner60 (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've done that myself a few times TBH so all good. Thanks for that! Zawed (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: Tempe

I'm kind of curious why you removed the military history assessment on Tempe. Of course, I'm not a member of that project, so I won't push it, but it was my interpretation that it did fall under their scope? The crime itself did not, but the resulting inquiry into the state of SA's armed forces seems to be quite relevant to "military history", hence why it was added. If that doesn't fall under it, what does? Only battles and biographies? I'd seen other crimes on bases/by soldiers be tagged with the project before, including a featured article, so that surprised me. Should I remove the MILHIST tag on every article that is tagged with crime? What counts?

Also, it was assessed by a member of the Crime WikiProject. So reverting it to that instead of just, removing the project, is strange to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an inquiry into a crime, even by the military since it took place on a base, as military history. I suppose that the location is the main reason the bot put it into that category. It was not assessed by a person. If another coordinator or experienced user wishes to overrule me, I would not get into a debate about it. I think it is certainly a case by case judgment. I assume your question is rhetorical but from my point of view if the cases were similar the result would be similar. Since you are not a military history project coordinator, if your question is serious, I would not pursue it. Since I do not know who evaluated other, how they fit into various projects and whether I would agree, I cannot comment on other articles. You do cite one that had ramifications well beyond just the crime and an inquiry. I see it as quite different.

I thought that the removal of the military history project put any previous review back in its place. I checked that and I see a B assessment is still in place. Note that my action has no bearing on the quality of the article in general. It is well written and I do not quarrel with the B assessment by another project. In the final analysis, I don't see what the problem with the removal of the military history project inclusion in the project made by the bot is here given the scope of the article and the assessment remaining the same. Donner60 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I chose to add it to the project manually when I made the page, as I thought since it had a significant effect on the overall military of South Africa due to the recommendations instituted after it, and is cited as an example of how race relations impacted their structure, it fit under the scope of "military history" (as a significant event in South Africa's military history). The inquiry that resulted was primarily into racism in the SA military, not the shooting, and the Setai Commission was as a result.

The bot assessment was one of class. I re-added the B class assessment since another editor also put that. You left it as start when you removed it, but I don't really care about the class, my question is one of scope, since when I added it I believed it was in scope. If it isn't there are probably a lot of pages I should untag that I added that to. In all fairness I probably wrote it more as a crime-type article than a military type one, but the topic itself had impacts on the military - a facet I may have neglected in my writing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the assessment. I think it is justified. I think you do not need to untag the articles unless you are quite sure that the situation is the same. As I wrote, I think the military history project is a proper project in the Okinawa case so this is not an all or nothing situation. Let the military history co-ordinators deal with any assessments that the bot rates as B. They come up for review every month. Unless requests are made for assessment at the project assessment page, I think that any tagging as military history and any review by a user at a lower assessment is not worth the advance work you would need to do on untagging articles where the distinction is not clearcut. While a user could come along and rate it manually as B for military history, I doubt that it would happen much, if at all, and would either come up for further review at some point or would not be a big problem or blaring inconsistency if it did. Keep up the good work. Donner60 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have left this conversation utterly baffled as to the scope of the MILHIST project (when assessing articles or reviewing them I assumed the scope was "things that are historically relevant to the military": but suffice to say I was wrong and will no longer tag unassessed/AfC articles with MILHIST), but alright. Have a nice day! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Montjuïc (1705), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neapolitan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

About an Assessment.

Hello! Ive been wondering if you could assess some of my works, cause ive put a request on the military history byt its yet to be responded with, so could i politely ask if any of these can be B-Class.

1- Hadj Ahmed Chabane

2- Talkata

3- History of the Aurés

Id be grateful for you to Assess them, and maybe suggest some changes so i can improve them. Thanks! ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably better if someone who is able to read the language(s) in the sources, or who can have someone look at the sources for them, review them. The bot may get to them this month and then they would get a further review. Donner60 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not but all 3 have been created for months jow and yet to have an assessment thats why i called for you. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

Thanks for the heads up, I will have a look. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I had a first look, I corrected and added references where possible. However, the article requires more work both in content and referencing. I am not sure if I can address them all. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. It is up for GA reassessment. Maybe someone will try to save it at that level but if not, it isn't going to affect the general reader. My guess is that most readers don't even know about assessments and will probably appreciate the article even with a lower assessment. Thanks for your efforts. Donner60 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge Page

Hello, sorry to bother you out. I was confused wether to merge this article 1961 Batmalai raid into Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes because i was unable to find much detail about it, so i approached you wether this article should be merged or not ? Rahim231 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The raid article is well written but I would favor merging it. As near as I can tell, the main points other than the brief description of the raid itself are already in the skirmishes article. If you think there are any important facts other than those about the raid that are not in the skirmishes article, perhaps you could fit them into the skirmishes article as well. If there are not redirects for raids that aree more than routine skirmishes or are of greater notability because they are identified by a consistent name in several sources, you might want to add a redirect for them. I hope that helps. If I have not answered your question, or not done so clearly, let me now and I will try to rephrase or add to my reply. Donner60 (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree excerpt from the raid and aftermath section should be copied to the skrimishes in the Background of the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes the rest can be deleted. Can i copy excerpt without merge discussion, just like normal edit? Rahim231 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. When you delete the article, add a redirect from the title of the article to the skirmishes article; otherwise you will likely be questioned about deleting an article without going through a deletion process. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231: If your are not familiar with redirects and the template to use to replace the text in the raid article, see Wikipedia:Redirect. It's detailed but the info is in there somewhere. Donner60 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Done 1961 Batmalai raid, did i do it correct ? Rahim231 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It worked. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, I wanted to inquire about the peer review process for the article i created Battle of Pandu. Another article submitted later seems to have already begun review, while mine hasn't. Is this normal? Rahim231 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. Reviewers may be users, presumably experienced, from any project. They can choose whatever interests them when they look at the list. There is no priority for earlier postings required of reviewers. You will find the same thing for "Did you know" reviews. I am not sure how many experienced users from military history do such reviews regularly. I don't do such reviews because I have as much as I can handle with the B and A class reviews.

I think one way to get attention would be to post a section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I suggest a title of "Battle of Pandu peer review." The text might be something like: "I posted Battle of Pandu for peer review on (date). I will appreciate if an editor from this project will review this article."

This is is a general request but trying to attract someone more knowledgeable by writing "experienced users" or writing anything much longer might put off some adequate reviewers. I think this page is mostly visited by experience users in any event. Coordinators look at the page as well as the coordinator talk page with some regularity. But I would be surprised if any coordinators are doing peer reviews right now. We are three short of the usual number of coordinators and at least two of the current ones are not very active as well. Quite a few A and B class review requests, as well as GA review requests (which I rarely have time to do), come our way.

Best of luck on getting a prompt review. I know a long wait can be frustrating but someone is likely to get to it sooner or later. I think a battle article is likely to get the attention of a reviewer sooner than some other types of articles might get. I think it is a good guess that there are more requests than the number of active peer reviewers can handle right now is a big reason for the delay - and as I wrote, they aren't required to take them in order. Donner60 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I have put up a general request in the Military project discussion. I have noticed that most of the peer review section is not much active compared to GA reviews, so for next time i should directly nominate it for GA instead of getting a peer review. Thanks for guiding and sorting this out i really appreciate it :-). Rahim231 (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If you have a B class review by a person from the military history project, rather than from the bot, it may be close to a peer review already. A GA review after a B class review also is not much different from a peer review, at least from a careful or stricter peer review. This is probably a reason why many editors, after they have done a few B class articles, go directly for a GA review. They also may considered the backlog shorter or at least more quickly turned over. GA reviews also get backed up but reviewers of other topics sometimes step in to do a GA review for a military history article that interests them. It would be fair to say, however, that here again reviews may not be done in the exact date order that they are posted. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

yep understood,Thanks alot. Rahim231 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23