Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Runaway Scrape/Archive1


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Runaway Scrape

 * Nominator(s): Maile66 (talk)

I completely rewrote this article from scratch, because of concerns expressed on the talk page thread. Now I would like to see if this passes A-class muster. This is an important aspect of Texas history, but I think it is probably not known to many outside of Texas. Some notes on terminology used: In Sam Houston's time, it was correct to say "Texas", but anyone who lived there was referred to as "Texian" with the "i". I have used the American plural of "cannons" instead of "cannon" when referring to two of them. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, just a couple of minor comments from me at this time. I made a few c/e tweaks also: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * in the Battle of Gonzales section, there is a dab link to "John Henry Moore" that should probably be repointed;
 * ✔️ Taken care of. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * is there a reference/citation that could be added for this: "However, Houston had no doubt that Fannin's company were taken as prisoners"?
 * ✔️ Reworded and cited. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * in the Twin sisters artillery section, this appears to be a sentence fragment: "to prevent the Mexican army from crossing". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Oops! Removed. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits also. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "twelve hundred fifty to fifteen hundred" --> I think this should be presented as "1,250 to 1,500" per WP:NUMERAL;
 * ✔️ Corrected. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think "File:Braches House and Sam Houston Oak.JPG" and "File:Twin Sisters, San Jacinto.jpg" will need a US freedom of panorama licence/tag added to the image description page. More information can be found here:
 * "File:Come And Take It Mural.jpg": not sure about the licence on this one. It seems to be stating it is PD because it was published before 1923, but from what I can tell it was published in 1938 (see the inscription on the bottom right hand corner). Are we certain it is PD? Can you please check this licencing and adjust if appropriate? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the images altogether. I know nothing about images. The mural is hanging in a museum in Gonzales, and I think you are correct in questioning that date - it does say 1938. The tree is just a tree that's been there for more than a hundred years, so I'm not sure why it needs a tag. And the cannons are replicas, but I don't know when they were installed.  But I take you at your word that you know what you are talking about.  It was easier to just remove the images than for me to try and figure it out.  — Maile  (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you mean the house, not the tree, is the need for the tag. Taken care of.  Now that this has come up, I bet a lot of NRHP photos don't have that tag. — Maile  (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , the Twin Sisters cannons was uploaded at Commons by you, and has an OTRS tag under "Permission". Can you please comment here as to the licensing? — Maile  (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am no longer on the OTRS team, but IIRC the photographer Ernest Mettendorf sent in a good number of photographs, all of them released to the public domain. — howcheng  {chat} 05:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding., as instructed on the image "Permission" line, I have posted an inquiry on the OTRS noticeboard Here.  Will let you know the response. Thank you for being so thorough on the images. — Maile  (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , per Commons OTRS Noticeboard, the Twin Sisters image is now nominated for deletion at Commons. All issues you mentioned so far have been taken care of. Thanks for being diligent about this. — Maile  (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite the result I was hoping for, but thanks for following it up. I've added my support now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It wasn't the result I wanted, either.  I sure did like the image of the Twin Sisters. — Maile  (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The deletion request is incorrect. US copyright law does not apply to the design of utilitarian items (see Commons:COM:UA). — howcheng  {chat} 08:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! You are on the ball, .  I have posted on the Deletion Request page.  Hopefully, we can keep the image and stick it back in the article. — Maile  (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , and  I have a question about a different image since we had to delete a 1938 museum banner from the Gonzales section of the article.  Over on Commons is C:File:Gonzales cannon 2005.jpg.  Now, I know this cannon has to be a reproduction because the original was most likely melted down by Santa Anna at the Alamo. However, over at Deletion requests/File:Twin Sisters, San Jacinto.jpg. Lupo makes the argument that a replica does not create a new copyright.  Is it possible we could use this image of the Gonzales cannon in the article in the section re the Battle of Gonzales? — Maile  (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The image description page states that the cannon is indeed the original, but even if it were not, the same logic applies. So yes, you can go for it. — howcheng  {chat} 23:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added it.  I figure the photographer saw something at the Gonzales Memorial Museum that says it is the original brass cannon.  In reality, it went to the Alamo and Santa Anna melted down all brass found inside the mission after the battle.  There's no way to prove either situation. Either way, thanks for letting me know I can use the image. — Maile  (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , The Twin Sisters image is back in the article. The decision on Commons was "Keep" and it's properly licensed. — Maile  (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, that's good to hear. I still believe that it needs a FOP licence due to the building in the background, though. I'm not going to harp on about it, though, but please note that the issue of a FOP licence may be raised if you take this to FAC. Anyway, I will leave it up to you. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I just stuck the FoP-US tag on the image at Commons. Seems like a good idea. — Maile (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , I would like to withdraw this article from A-class review at this time. Close it down now, please.  I see nothing in the instructions about how to withdraw the nomination, but that's what I'm doing.  There is a valid statement on the article's talk page about not enough emphasis on the civilian side.  However, I do not have access to the book mentioned, nor am I ever going to have access to that book.  But this isn't going to pass A-class because of that.  Thanks for your help. — Maile  (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, that is something that the Milhist co-ordinators do. I will ping them now and see if someone can close it for you:  can someone please close this as per the nominator's request? Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 