User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Piemonte & cylindrical boilers

I think that someone had pointed it out to us earlier, but the technical name for a cylindrical boiler is actually Scotch marine boiler. I just noticed Brook or Gardiner using it while working on Piemonte. It's not worth specifically going back and fixing, but it's probably worth doing if we're working on the article anyways.

Brook had a ton of material on the ship and I'm overhauling almost the entire description section and have added more background. We might be able to run it up the flagpole once I'm finished as you've got a lot of stuff on her career-wise. I would suggest adding a class section to the infobox for all the Italian singletons, just like you did for the French armored cruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, now that you mention it I remember that.

Looks good to me - I'll get around to the class section for Piemonte at some point, and we can put it up for ACR once we're finished with it. It might be worthwhile to try to put together a list of these sorts of ground-breaking ships and try to get them up to snuff. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian cruiser Vesuvio

The article Italian cruiser Vesuvio you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Italian cruiser Vesuvio for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian cruiser Ettore Fieramosca

The article Italian cruiser Ettore Fieramosca you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Italian cruiser Ettore Fieramosca for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill

Hello Parsecboy,

I'd like to ask two requests of you: (1) Can you please do a page merge for User:Ceradon/Malvern Hill and the mainspace article Battle of Malvern Hill please? I've spent some 600 edits on that article (wow!). My main interest lie in building the mainspace. I's like it if my edit history reflects that :D (2) Can you please review the Battle of Malvern Hill GA? (somewhere here, probably at the bottom). The article is somewhat sizable though (9000 words. Wow again!) so I understand if you don't have the time. In any event, cheers. :) --ceradon (talk • contribs) 09:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I just merged the two pages - I can probably get to reviewing the article tomorrow - I don't have much time here today and I have a few GANs of my own to address first. Thanks, Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Woot! Thank you very much. I'm trying to get it to featured article before July 1 so I can put it up for TFA when the day rolls around. . Thanks, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's always nice to have a target like that to shoot for - I think my next project is getting SMS Dresden (1907) to FA by March to run on the centenary of her sinking at the Battle of Más a Tierra (it being the centenary of WWI, I have plenty of opportunities like these :D ). I must admit I was amused to see the cartoon of McClellan - a friend of mine from grad school (who specialized on the Civil War and the Army of the Potomac in particular) kept that on his desk - he was no fan of Little Mac, to say the least ;) Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian cruiser Stromboli

The article Italian cruiser Stromboli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian cruiser Stromboli for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian cruiser Ettore Fieramosca

The article Italian cruiser Ettore Fieramosca you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian cruiser Ettore Fieramosca for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mahan

I’ve been looking to clean up anything in the article that I can before nominating it. One of tings yet to done is the cropping of the last image. You may recall you were working with others to have it digitized. Would you be able to help me sort this out? Thank you. Pendright (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do recall - @Adam Cuerden: was working on restoring the images, but I don't know where he is on that project. He might be busy right now, as I think the WP:WIKICUP has started and he usually competes in it, though I'd suggest that a restored Mahan photo would be another source of points for the competition ;-) Perhaps he can let us know what his plans are. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not competing in the Wikicup, and would encourage noone else to. They've been on a kick for the last year of attacking pictures as worthless. More importantly - the images are very difficult to restore (LOTS of damage; it's at least a 40-hour job), so I put them aside a bit. I should finish them, though. I'll try to get at least one this week. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ouch - 40 hours doesn't sound much fun. And that's too bad to hear about the Wikicup - it's unfortunate that it's become such a problem (my only contact with the Wikicup was several years ago, and it only lasted long enough for them to tell me I couldn't use the Reichskriegsflagge as my flag ;-) ). Anyway, thanks for letting us know where you're at with the photos, and for having another go at one of them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for the reminder - I tend to do the really difficult images in several spurts spaced out a bit, as it can get annoying after a while, so I needed a reminder. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand that - I've left SMS Kaiser Friedrich III after having rewritten the articles on her four sisterships ages ago - at some point I'll get back to it ;-) Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to you both! Pendright (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian cruiser Vesuvio

The article Italian cruiser Vesuvio you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian cruiser Vesuvio for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

On the GA assessments. However, you are the one in violation of OWNERSHIP and you are the one ignoring the discussions on the talk pages and at your pages' DYK nomination, as described and linked at Talk:Italian cruiser Umbria. I certainly won't violate 3rr but, then, I'm not even close to it and you are the one reverting the consensus of at minimum 4 other editors and risking your GA status. Go read your talk pages and stop with the blustering threats very much in violation of AGF. — LlywelynII 13:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As a side note: it may have just been part of your general ill temper and own poor faith, but I'm curious what error you thought I was introducing to the pages. There certainly aren't any I'm aware of, but let me know. — LlywelynII 13:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If I have "ill temper" and "poor faith", it's because you and others have been continually degrading the articles without an apparent interest in discussion, apart from your boilerplate posts to talk pages.

As for your errors, I have pointed out on the pages that you have apparently ignored since your initial post. You would know what your errors are if you read them or my edit summaries.

Lastly, there is no consensus anywhere that matters over the content or formatting of the articles in question. And while you have certainly skirted WP:3RR, you are very clearly edit-warring. Hence my report. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your thorough review of Battle of Malvern Hill. Cheers, ceradon (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ceradon! Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

December 2014 MilHist article-writing contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the project coordinators, congratulations on placing second in the December 2014 MilHist article-writing contest, with 31 points from 3 articles. Well done as always! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fuji-class battleship

Hi Nate, I know you reviewed this at ACR but MilHist comments are a bit thin on the ground at the FAC, so just wondering if you could give it the once-over there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a look now. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well done!

		The Military history A-Class Medal with Diamonds
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Diamonds to recognise your great work developing the SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse, SMS Kaiser Barbarossa, and SMS Cormoran (1892) articles to A-Class status. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing 7 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 18, 2015

Hi Nate. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before hitting the Main Page? I had to squeeze the summary down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I had seen that when the TFA Bot protected the article - I looked over the article this morning for anything glaring. It could probably be expanded a bit with Hildebrand et. al., but apart from that, it's in pretty good shape. I'll try to get to checking Hildebrand for anything worth including over the weekend (but I'll have family in town so it might have to wait until next week). The blurb looks fine to me. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, the article should be up to snuff now. Parsecboy (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Think so, looks great, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ps: I can't help melancholy though, thinking of the Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda - I was pleased to see that not much dust had gathered in the few years since I wrote it.

And yeah, it's a shame how things ended up with Jack. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Torpedo Cruisers

I think you might be over-reacting to the "stealth torpedo" aspect and have missed the key distinction. The IJN concept appears unique in that they developed relatively heavy warships to deliver a massive spread of torpedoes at long range. I have not been directed to a precedent for this. Cruisers and even some battleships carried torpedoes through WWII, but nothing approaching the IJN's plan. Your edit doesn't indicate that Italy in any way equaled this. Unless it does so it should be removed as irrelevant.

The "long lance" torpedoes indeed operated as a sort of stealth device as they were able to strike imperceptibly from ranges that the USN (and allies) did not anticipate. The effect was devastating in various actions. These torpedoes also created tactical vulnerabilities that would prove fatal to various IJN cruisers, but they carried a threat to their opponents, particularly in night actions. Allied radar provided control of the night in the latter half of the war, so that torpedo warfare no longer held the same promise for a decisive battle for Japan. Red Harvest (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not overreacting to anything. The concept of a cruiser armed primarily with torpedoes as an offensive armament was not limited to Japan during WWII. That the Long Lance was far and away superior to anything earlier does not make it fundamentally different from preceding types; it would be akin to saying the Yamato class were the only battleships, because they were the largest and had the most powerful guns.

From a doctrinal role, the Japanese "heavy torpedo cruisers" had the same task as any of the Italian or German ships - to close with enemy forces and disable them with torpedoes. Which is of course distinct from other cruiser tasks, such as trade protection/commerce raiding, scouting for the fleet, defending against enemy torpedo forces, etc.

And moreover, there are plenty of sources that describe the Italian cruisers as "torpedo cruisers". You are of course free to split off the Japanese ships into a sub-article, but Torpedo cruiser should describe the general type. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are mistaken on several points. The article actually was originally the "sub-article" you describe. Discussion led to a name change dropping the "heavy" because these were light cruisers with a very heavy torpedo armament. It was a translation issue. So you've changed the entire thrust of the article without understanding that, and minimized what it was written for in the first place. While it is good to expand the article to include an earlier philosophy largely abandoned before WW I, the lack of appreciation of what made these IJN vessels different is problematic.

Take the Yamato strawman: The IJN torpedo cruiser differed fundamentally from the use of torpedoes on other cruisers of the period (or battleships...which in several cases still employed them in WWII.) These ships as converted were so different from anything else, that they indeed appear to be a different class. The concept was abandoned before being fully developed and employed. Now, if the Yamato had half its primary armament removed and 40+ torpedo tubes added as its primary weapon...then it would be a much different beast than any contemporary battleships as well. That is the sort of difference involved in these vessels. Japan relied heavily on torpedoes in other light and heavy cruisers, but that doesn't make them "torpedo cruisers."

And the "stealth" part was not "nonsense" as you put it. Stinks heavily of POV. Red Harvest (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not mistaken at all, and I did in fact read the article talk page - if there are any misunderstandings, they're not on my end. "Torpedo cruiser" is a general term that refers to a cruiser whose primary armament is the torpedo. As I said, you are of course free to start a sub-article, but I would also argue that two ships that were converted into this role for lrss than a year, and never saw operational use, don't merit an entire article unto themselves (and indeed one apart from their own individual ship and class articles).

Frankly, they weren't fundamentally different from their contemporaries. The only difference was range, and that was only for the initial salvo - after that, they were expected to close and launch further attacks, just as any other light cruiser or destroyer would. Should we assume that because dreadnoughts (generally) dispensed with intermediate caliber guns and were intended to fight at long, rather than short range, that they marked something fundamentally different from earlier battleships? But no, your Yamato example is the strawman - the Kumas were not to other light cruisers as the Yamatos were to other battleships.

Yes, the "stealth" bit is nonsense. Frankly, it's amateurish commentary one would expect from dilettantes - we could call the bullet fired by a sniper a "stealth bullet" but that would just as nonsensical. "Stealth" does not simply mean that something is not detected. I am curious though, so please enlighten me - what is my POV? Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Year In Review Awards

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your outstanding contributions to the Featured Articles SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II, SMS Emden, SMS Wörth, Andrea Doria-class battleship, and SMS Scharnhorst, all of which achieved FA status in 2014, you are hereby awarded this Featured Article Medal. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Featured List Medal
		For your outstanding contributions to the Featured Lists List of light cruisers of Germany, Battleships of Germany, List of unprotected cruisers of Germany, and List of cruisers of Germany, all of which achieved FA status in 2014, you are hereby awarded this Featured List Medal. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		In honor and recognition of your outstanding contributions to ship articles during 2014, you are hereby awarded this Ships Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		In honor and recognition of your outstanding contributions to ship lists during 2014, you are hereby awarded this Ships Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For your collaboration with Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) on the article Andrea Doria-class battleship you are hereby awarded the Right Half of the Half Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your outstanding contributions to Featured Lists in 2014 you are hereby awarded this Tireless Contributor barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian cruiser Giovanni Bausan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Giovanni Bausan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian cruiser Giovanni Bausan

The article Italian cruiser Giovanni Bausan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Italian cruiser Giovanni Bausan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

U.S.S. Utah 1928

My Dad, Milton Omer Lynn, was a signalman aboard the Utah and served as aide-de-camp to President-Elect Hoover during his Good Will Tour of South America. I have a nice close-up photo of Dad and an unknown Navy buddy. Dad was in his dress blues with "U.S.S. Utah" on the band of his cap. I would love to know who the friend was and imagine the friend might have left a child or grandchild who'd love to have a copy of the photo. If you know of an appropriate place to publicize the photo, please let me know. Thanks very much. Annlynn9 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You might try the USS Utah Association or Vet Friends, and there's a Facebook page for the ship. There are probably other places to try as well, and maybe people at one of those sites can point you in the right direction. Good luck! Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Peyk-i Şevket

In section Design of the article Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket it reads; Peyk-i Şevket, classified as a torpedo cruiser by the Ottoman Navy, was also sometimes referred to as a torpedo cruiser. Excuse me for my ignorance, but I couldn't understand the repeated torpedo cruiser links in this sentence. Can you please be a bit more specific ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It should have been linked to torpedo gunboat - thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Von der Tann

You'll probably be interested in what I just added to the article. Please feel free to cut and modify as necessary, particularily the long/flowery quote and the citation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that - I've been meaning to go back to these early articles and bring them up to recent standards (and also add material from HRS) - the Von der Tann article in particular needs quite a bit of work. I don't know about the quote - it is a bit long, but I don't know exactly where I'd trim it. I do wonder if "protext" and "attack ed" are typos in the original or in your transcription ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to come back to this. Definitely not typos! ;-) I need to go back to my early articles too, but I just don't have the time right now, e.g. I submitted a thesis prospectus for scholarship applications today! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please fix the citation. I don't know how sfn works! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What's your thesis on? Don't tell me some kind of South American dreadnought race nonsense :P

Read the template instructions, my good man! They're not too difficult, but my fingers have been typing the old html ref code for so long I don't usually use them (that, and it fits nicely with my crotchety old man persona - you whippersnappers and your templates!) Oh, and I assume Times is The Times? Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't look at me! I've eschewed those templates. I've been dropping "The" per Chicago 14.210.

Current working thesis topic is ... you partially guessed it. I'm looking at the minor naval powers in the global dreadnought race,, particularly the international reaction to the acquisition of dreadnoughts by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Greece, and the Ottoman Empire and the resultant potential changes in the European strategic context. So I'm looking at a lot of newspapers, journals, and British/English diplomatic cables. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting topic - the Greek and Ottoman ships I think would be particularly interesting since they'd have been a much greater factor in European planning than the South American vessels. I wonder what, if anything, the British would have done in response to the Greeks getting Salamis and Vasilefs (and probably more importantly) the Ottomans getting Reshadiye and Sultan Osman (of course assuming that war was avoided in July 1914). Hmm...now I'm thinking about that counter-factual class I took, and if that wouldn't have been an interesting scenario to play out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Priority of concern would definitely have gone to the European ships rather than the South American ones. They might have forced the Brits to deploy some BBs back into the Med to counter them, rather than just the 3 BCs to defend against the Mittelmeer Division ships. OTOH, if war had been delayed long enough for the French to finish the Normandies the Brits might not have needed to send anything there at all, depending on how tight cooperation between the French and Brits had gotten by then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at the effect the South American ships had on Europe, and although I agree that the Greek/Ottoman race was more worrisome, they intersect with the ridiculous story that is Rio de Janeiro. Rumors ran rampant around the continent, theorizing that the first two Brazilian dreadnoughts would be sold. The UK, in particular, was worried about a German purchase. The Greeks, for their part, offered cash for the later Argentine dreadnoughts (which would have netted the Argentines a 50%(!) profit). There were also rumors that the Russians, Italians, and Ottomans were all looking into purchasing them. Then there was Rio at the end of 1913, which had all of the same players involved.

As for the Greeks/Ottomans, the French were actually far more invested. If I'm remembering my read of Halpern, they wanted to (a) stop Italy from acquiring them and (b) balance the sides, so they were working hard to get Rio de Janeiro to Greece. That didn't work out well.

@Sturm, Halpern and (more recently) Hendrickson (Crisis in the Mediterranean) talk about a secret alliance between the Italian and Austro-Hungarian navies. Think about that nightmare scenario for the French, who needed to transport troops from North Africa! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: moving British BBs to the Med: add to that the fact that the Grand Fleet wouldn't have Erin, Agincourt, or Canada and the margin of superiority of the Grand Fleet starts to become rather narrow.

As for delaying the war long enough for the Normandies, you'd also have to factor in the Italian Francesco Caracciolos and the Austrian Ersatz Monarchs - at least on paper, the Italians and Austrians were allies. And of course, you'd have to try to figure out what the British would have built with Battenberg instead of Fisher as First Lord - certainly there'd be no Renowns or Courageouses.

Heh, I went to school with Hendrickson - still haven't read his book though (apart from brief scans in Google Books while I've been working on the Italian cruisers). Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Which Halpern book are you talking about, Ed? You make a good point about the Italian and Austro-Hungarian BBs, Parsec, but I'm not so sure that the absence of the 3 requisitioned BBs does much to hurt the Brits. They've got 5 QEs and another 5 Revenges already under construction when the war breaks out while the Germans only have Lutzow, Hindenburg and 3 of the 4 Badens laid down at that time and the British ships were generally further along in building than their counterparts. AFAIK, the Brits were tentatively planning on improved QEs for their next class of BBs as they'd mostly decided that fast(er) battleships were the way to the future. Given that the Italians and Austro-Hungarians were formal allies, I'm not sure what you mean about a secret alliance. Those two countries would have had a total of 18 dreadnoughts if their announced building programs were completed while the French would have had only 16 when the Lyons class was finished. And the French had no ability to build ships faster than the Italians and Austro-Hungarians that they could to use as a rationale for a smaller building program. Without British assistance, they would have been up the creek without a paddle if war had begun around 1919-20 and the Italians remained in the Triple Alliance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mediterranean Naval Situation, but a re-read of him shows that my recollection was off. By secret, I was talking about the naval plans to combine and defeat the French.

As an aside, one that I'm sure neither of you will be surprised by, sometimes worries spring from areas that aren't very worrisome. In the British case, MPs started referring to the potential total number of dreadnoughts that Germany could possess, rather than the actual total then building. Their numbers, then, started to get uncomfortably close the the British, even if only in appearance rather than fact, and the potential addition of two or three battleships could swing the (perceived) balance of power. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian cruiser Giovanni Bausan

The article Italian cruiser Giovanni Bausan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian cruiser Giovanni Bausan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've completed my review at Talk:Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet/GA1. Once these comments have been addressed this article seems fit for passage to Good Article status! Thank you for all your hard work on this one! -- Caponer (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet

The article Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket

The article Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet

The article Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket

The article Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was M2 light tank declined?

Why was the article M2 light tank declined from GA? Can you list me some reasons? Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it was - probably just a glitch when the page was moved. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Fiume

The said rule states "largely not acceptable as sources". Moreover, regiamarina.net is linked as a source in the Battle of Cape Matapan page; I do not think that it is a "personal website". If you make a quick search, you will find that Fiume's casualties are always mentioned as 813 or 814 men. Moreover, the books you mention are plain wrong in quoting Italian casualties as 3,000: according to varying sources, they were between 2,303 and 2,331. I would like to know why a book which states such a notoriously wrong number should me a more reliable source than the complete crew list of this ship.--Olonia (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, largely not acceptable, because there are cases where the individuals publishing the material are qualified experts who have been published elsewhere by reputable publishing organizations. For example, Ise-class battleship cites several self-published papers by Hans Lengerer, who has also published books through reliable publishers like Conway Maritime Press. Some random person's website do not meet that threshold. And just because another article here cites it is only evidence that that article needs to be corrected. Regiamarina.net is run by Salvatore Romano, Marisa Quattrocchi, and Cristiano D'Adamo - are they published experts? Trentoincina is produced by F. Melotto, who describes himself as a songwriter. The third website was created by "Constantine Couclelis to honor the memory of his grand-father Admiral Gregory Mezeviris". None of these are acceptable to use. Now, if you have Italian sources (preferably books) that discuss the figures, we can work with those. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, looks like the four guys from Regiamarina.net (who, again, posted the crew list of the ship) and the songwriter Melotto know more about Matapan than your book 'experts'. However, as you want books, here they are. "Struggle for the Middle Sea": 812 casualties (http://books.google.it/books?id=exOT4ONB-OUC&pg=PT78&lpg=PT78&dq=destroyer+Alfieri+matapan&source=bl&ots=1l3l6M70Rg&sig=b7Y2XZ8CQ30RvYmCyDAa2NK4JkM&hl=it&sa=X&ei=VC6BU8efIdGb1AWp-IHgDg&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBDgo#v=onepage&q=destroyer%20Alfieri%20matapan&f=false). "Fucilate gli ammiragli": 813 casualties (https://books.google.it/books?id=O_GCBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT124&lpg=PT124&dq=%22incrociatore+fiume%22&source=bl&ots=f5OP-TWXKQ&sig=A5xW3w7gTJYZOLpKDkHWupnmuu8&hl=it&sa=X&ei=BbPdVN3cFtjmarPPguAD&ved=0CCYQ6AEwATgo#v=onepage&q=%22incrociatore%20fiume%22&f=false).

As for Mezeviris, no matter who created the site: what is written there is the work of Admiral Mezeviris and I was directed to it by Francesco Mattesini, a noted naval historian. --Olonia (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for your reply; if it does not come by tomorrow evening, I will revert to my edit and add the above book sources as well.--Olonia (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

People do have lives outside of Wikipedia - a single day is not a realistic deadline to impose on an editing dispute. Nevertheless, I have added the figure from O'Hara's book.

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - which is to say that as a tertiary source, we must reflect what reputable secondary sources state, not what one person believes to be true. Bennett is clearly wrong in this instance (he's a Brit, and tends to tilt towards Britain in his books), but that does not make him less of an expert than the creators of the personal websites you posted. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Still, the creators of the personal website researched the crew list, which Bennett did not. And with or without a life, checking what I was saying took something like five minutes. I have found a few other sources that I think you'll consider reliable, meanwhile.--Olonia (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you please figure out how to match the existing citation format? I'd rather you stop creating more work for me to clean up. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Article deletion

I'm interested in the fakt that you deleted the page for Fred Goldman. He was a notable figure in one of the most notorious cases in world history. On top of that it was terrible what happened to his family, and it seems giving him some attention as a person would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweiner23 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that he's not notable apart from being Ronald's father. If he has no independent claim to notability as Wikipedia defines the term, he does not merit an article, regardless of what happened to his family. Parsecboy (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you forget about my GA review?

Did you forget about my GA Review? Cheers, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I had meant to look at it yesterday, but didn't get to it. Have replied there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I am finally finished. -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peyk-i Şevket-class cruiser

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peyk-i Şevket-class cruiser you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SMS Bayern

Hello. You might not be aware, but you're wrong regarding English-language place names. In fact, the use of English place names is specifically mentioned in the MoS. See here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Place names. To quote: "This is an English-language encyclopedia, so established English names are preferred if they exist." If you must use the German name, it would be appropriate to include it in parentheses beside the English name (or vice versa). If you insist, I will place this issue on the talk page of the appropriate article.-RHM22 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(watching) "Helgoland (Heligoland)" would look strange to me, however correct it would be in MoS terms. I confess that Heligoland also looks strange to me, - the first time I saw that I was sure it was a mistake, Hesse the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the parentheses personally, since they really aren't needed in this case, as both names are similar enough to avoid confusion. It may look strange (I'm not familiar with those cities), especially to German eyes, but the MoS is very clear about using the most common English name for foreign places, unless one spelling is more or less common depending upon the variety of English used (which is not the case here). Also, other English names are used in the article without translations provided, most notably Bavaria. Anyway, my biggest issue was with Parsecboy's blatantly false assertion that the MoS makes no prescription for using English-language place names except in unusual circumstances.-RHM22 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Helgoland is commonly used in English. All things being equal, I prefer the correct name. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If that is your belief, then why make a blatantly false and absurd assertion in your edit summary? Your preference has little value when it comes to standardized, well-established policy. If this is your belief, then I suggest taking it up on the talk page for Heligoland, which you must believe is mistitled, rather than randomly forcing your personal viewpoints into articles.-RHM22 (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, let's drop the histrionics. If you can't behave politely, you are not welcome here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've opened a discussion on the appropriate talk page, so that others can decide which is more appropriate. I don't have enough interest, and there aren't enough hours in the day to carry on minor disputes. I hope the other editors will choose to use the correct wording, rather than the wrong verbiage which is in place now.-RHM22 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is an awfully petty storm in a teacup. Google Ngrams show that while "Heligoland" was much more popular in the early 20th century, the two are now used almost interchangeably. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what they say about when the stakes are low...Parsecboy (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy: I'd like to apologize for my somewhat abrasive language above. I still believe that my preference is correct, but upon rereading, it is clear that I defended my position a bit too vigorously. I also do content work, so I understand the frustration when people "sweat the small things." I hope that I have not caused any undue stress.-RHM22 (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. No worries - water under the bridge. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Poke

Hello Parsecboy,

Just want to ask if you do a rerun over Battle of Malvern Hill after several recent changes have been made and infuse your FA experience over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive1. It may be worth it since you reviewed it for GA, did copyedits, etc. The discussion also seems to have dried up and I'd rather not have it fail for lack of consensus which would be utterly disappointing (I'd be starting almost from square one). Already has one support (and one pending support). Your input would be welcome. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to have a look later today. Parsecboy (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been about a week. Thought you could use another reminder. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I lost track of it - a far too frequent occurrence, I'm afraid. I think I'm going senile ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman battleship Abdül Kadir

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman battleship Abdül Kadir you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman battleship Abdül Kadir

The article Ottoman battleship Abdül Kadir you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ottoman battleship Abdül Kadir for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik

The article Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reşadiye-class battleship

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reşadiye-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik

The article Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reşadiye-class battleship

The article Reşadiye-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Reşadiye-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich Lützow

Do you mind me adding his name to the article SMS Hamburg? He was her commander from 27 September 1924 to 2 May 1925. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all! Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Braatz, author of Günther Lützow's biography (son of Friedrich Lützow), Hamburg was hit twice during the Battle of Jutland. Her captain was wounded and F. Lützow replaced him. He managed to bring the ship back to Wilhelmshaven. Does this sound reasonable? MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

More than likely - the ship was involved in the night fighting after the main fleet action - I should check Campbell, which I did not apparently look at when I wrote the article. He has good summaries of the damage sustained by all ships in the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peyk-i Şevket-class cruiser

The article Peyk-i Şevket-class cruiser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peyk-i Şevket-class cruiser for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Saida

Why does a ship called Helgoland appear suddenly, is it a typo? Keith-264 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it's a sister-ship, might it be worth labelling it at first mention?Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A good catch - thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Saida

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Saida you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Saida

The article SMS Saida you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Saida for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Saida

The article SMS Saida you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Saida for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman ironclad Mesudiye

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman ironclad Mesudiye you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman ironclad Mesudiye

The article Ottoman ironclad Mesudiye you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ottoman ironclad Mesudiye for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ottoman ironclad Mesudiye

The article Ottoman ironclad Mesudiye you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ottoman ironclad Mesudiye for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2 x 2 vs 4 x for naval guns infobox gun count

Hi there, My 10 cents : "4 guns in 2 twin turrets (2x2)" seems meaningful to me. Whatever works for the casual reader of 2015. To me, the modern barbette or turret layout rather than raw numbers is what is relevant about gun counts on predreadnoughts and dreadnoughts compared to previous "ship of the line" layouts. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

General characteristics
Armament	16 × 1 76 mm (3.0 in) guns

The problem to me is preventing clutter in the infobox - in my opinion, they should be kept as minimal as possible to make them easy to read. I think getting into layouts is too much for the infobox. Also, it runs into the problem of putting several numbers next to each other (for instance, is the line in the box eight 76 mm guns or eight 176 mm guns?), which can be difficult to parse, especially at a glance (which is what the infobox should be for - not a highly detailed attempt to summarize the entire article). Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 21, 2015

Hi Nate, Sturm and Ed. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work? Is there anything I left out of the summary you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Thanks Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Prinz Eugen

A friend of mine has uploaded several NARA images of Prinz Eugen here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to pull them over - but it looks like Flikr is blocked on my work computer :/ Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. There's some good ones in there, and I think(?) that they'll be PD. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WI article needed

Hey, your article on SMS Helgoland references the Italian cruiser San Giorgio being in Constantinople in 1924. Can you send me a copy of the article from WI so I can add that material for my GAN?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha, you wrote that Helgoland article ;) I was a little confused at first, because my Helgoland had already been cut up by 1924. Parsecboy (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Scheiss, they say that the mind is the first thing to go! That issue's in storage, so I can't look it over right now, so I'll have to add it to my list of things to copy when I make my next visit to the Navy Dept Library.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: - speaking of the mind going first... Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; thanks for catching that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Roma

My dear friend, I am getting quite tired of you arrogantly stating which books and sites are reliable and which ones are not, and reverting edits without wasting a minute of your "real life" to check that the 1849/1253/596 figure is wrong and the 2021/1393/628 figure is right. (I notice that with Fiume you were kept busy by "real life" for more than 24 hours from answering my question, yet if there's the smallest change on one of "your" pages you are ready to revert it within a few hours. Isn't it interesting?) Note also that your figure wasn't even sourced, as there was no citation at the end of the line. The Italian Navy website link did state that the casualties were 1,393 and not 1,253; and as I said, is it not up to you to decide which websites and books are reliable and which ones are not. If you want to further discuss the matter, let's take the discussion to the Battleship portal talk, or to whatever portal talk you prefer, so we'll see what other users have to say. If you instead will keep reverting edits unilaterally, I will do the same with your reverts. We can go ahead for a long time. Good night.--Olonia (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm getting quite tired of your refusal to adhere to policy or even format references properly. Please read WP:RS. None of the sources you supplied for the figures are reliable as Wikipedia defines them. And yes the figure is sourced, please consult the citation at the end of the paragraph. And if you are stating you are intent on edit-warring, I can assure you that you will be blocked quickly. Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Had a look at Bagnasco & De Toro - you may know that they are very highly renowned Italian naval historians, who wrote the definitive book on the Littorio class - and they state that according to the official inquest following the sinking, the RM determined that there were 1,253 fatalities and 596 survivors. I'll take the word of those two men (who are citing official documents) over the random websites and self published books you seem fond of. Parsecboy (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I surely know that Bagnasco and De Toro are higly renowned naval historians. But the results of the inquest they refer to are outdated (as explained also in the book I linked, which you surely did not bother to give a look at); they did not take into account the personnel of the command of the Italian squadron (or more precisely, only the officers and not the petty officers and seamen) which was not part of the "crew" but was aboard nonetheless. The 2021/1393/628 is the result of more recent search. The marina.it link states "Era il 9 settembre del 1943 quando la corazzata Roma, colpita da un aereo tedesco, s’inabissava con 1393 marinai nel Golfo dell’Asinara" which translates "It was 9 September 1943 when the battleship Roma, hit by a German aircraft, sank with 1393 men in the Gulf of Asinara". If you can't read Italian, I suggest that you do not write on pages on Italian matters. And for additional links to the Italian Navy site, stating that the casualties were 1,393 and not 1,253, see here: https://www.google.it/#q=site:marina.difesa.it+roma+1393. But maybe you're going to tell me that the Italian Navy itself doesn't know the casualties of its greatest tragedy, are you?

I'm not fond of "random webstites" or self-published sources, I am fond of facts. And the fact that you do not even want to check is that 2,021 men were on board Roma that day and 1,393 died. Interesting to notice how you refuse to move the matter to a talk page so that others may join the discussion... Threaten as you please, Wikipedia is not your little dictatorship and I am not going to be blocked by some arrogant obtuse boy.--Olonia (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, good for you - you won't be blocked by me, you'll be blocked by someone else. If you can't handle solving a dispute without edit-warring or slinging personal attacks, we're done here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Please disregard. I went with your edit summary only, and saw that the figures had been reverted. I did not see that you had attempted to also include the other figure. I was mistaken and for that I apologize. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Emperor of India

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Emperor of India you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind

For the second time this week, I read the entire context only after submitting a notification at AN3 and deleted it. I apologize.

When I saw just a "Revert" rather than an edit, I assumed that all reference to the 1,393 number was gone. Upon further review of the article, it does appear to be a fair treatment — and you're right, no sources make the claim I was making. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem - but you might want to look at the talk page before going through the trouble to report anyone the next time ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Howdy

Doing the American aircraft carriers...if I knew more about the barnstar system, I`d give you one for being exceptionally brave today. That is a hornet`s nest if ever there was one. I`ve been trying to limit the unnecessary use of the dab numbers in articles and I`ve met resistance just doing that. Article titles...I salute you! (P.S. Have a vacation planned because you're going to need it after all the talkpages you're going to have to respond to.) Llammakey (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) I think there's an assumption that because some articles need hull number dabs, they all need them - a belief for which I have little patience. Frankly, even a local consensus to use them categorically does not trump a broad consensus to use disambiguation only when necessary. I suppose we'll see how much flak I catch ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Heh, just got done doing the Arleigh Burkes (man, there are a lot of those!) and Zumwalts - still nothing ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Put me down for opposed to not including the hull number. I'm not going to move them back or initiate a drawn out discussion, but I believe that the hull number is part of the identification for the ship and not an additional way to disambiguate. Do as you must, but this was an unnecessary endeavor. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the hull numbers aren't part of their name, which is all most non-experts will know. But more importantly, WP:NC-SHIPS (specifically this note) is quite clear that hull/pennant numbers should only be used to disambiguate ships with the same name. There's no reason the only ship to carry a name should not have the primary location. Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I still find it astounding that page title use the hull numbers at all. With only some navies using them, why not just go with the date of launch—something far easier for readers to understand? (I know we do for navies without hull numbers, something that just underscores my point)

If you want to start an RfC on that, I'd be happy to help. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about hull numbers in general - they at least make more sense than pennant numbers, but I'm not wedded to them either. Year of launch is probably more easily placed in context by non-experts, which is an obvious plus. I think sometimes editors forget that we're writing an encyclopedia for a general audience, not a specialist work for experts. Parsecboy (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Lump pennant numbers in that problematic category as the British changed them from time to time. And they do little to disambiguate between ships as only the most well-read fans will know which ship of the same name had what pennant number at what time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to both of them. You're right to say that pennant numbers are even more crazy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S.N. hull numbers changed as well, more than some realize. With some Navy reclassifications the numeric changed along with the type designation. Take USS Algorab (AKA-8) which was USS Algorab (AK-25) for almost as long and SS Mormacwren from 1939 to Navy acquisition. I think some of this may have originated in the "Wiki industry" of cut and paste DANFS, with zero research into an auxiliary type's sometimes significant commercial history, with occasional odd formatting here. Note DANFS does not use hull numbers in titles (though the new mess at NHHC has no disambiguation!). That is why I would support a change to use launch year as the default with perhaps addition to all ship titles as they are created or worked since there are far more duplicate names out there than covered here. The hull numbers, as used in DANFS and other Navy historical documents, are just a part of a ship's changing status. The qualification is that during the period a ship holds a hull number many current operational documents will use it. Now, after picking it at random, I have to go make a couple of corrections to that ship's page. Palmeira (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Where was this change to carrier article names discussed? I hope you are not making what I believe will be a controversial change to dozens of articles with the only discussion being held on a iuser talk page, and a brief "discussion" at that - more of an announcement. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No discussion is necessary to put policy into effect - as I said above, local consensus does not override broad, community consensus. Besides, as a project, we have already decided that using excessive disambiguation is not appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It is quite literally in WP:NC-SHIPS. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not categorically opposed to removing the hull numbers, but you are making changes to a very large number of articles without any discussion. I have been editing Wikipedia for about 10 years and the hull numbers have been included in article titles as far as I recall for all of that time, certainly for most of it. That fact alone signifies a broad consensus to use the hull numbers. I consider it highly disruptive to be making broad scale changes to article titles without at least advising the appropriate noticeboards and project pages of your intent and allowing a reasonable amount of time for people to respond. High handedly and unilaterally deciding to make such a sweeping change is just not on. Gain specific consensus for your change first, then have at it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, in that if we started discussions before any sort of change that could be characterized as major, few things would get done. ;-) Why don't you open a discussion at WP:PRECISE? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no point in discussing something that has already been decided, both at WP:AT and at WP:NC-SHIPS. A local consensus to ignore those pages would be irrelevant anyway. As Ed suggests, you can start a discussion at WP:AT. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out that the guidelines you refer to are not policy. You have no authority to change a longstanding widespread practice without discussion in the appropriate venue. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

PRECISE is policy. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Which for me leaves only one real question that may need to be thought through. The issue of dates when we know or expect a ship name to occur multiple times in history. The only real problem I've found with launch date (personally I'd probably go for completion or delivery date but launch is established) so far is that even Lloyd's Register sometimes has a different date than accurate local shipyard information for actual launch year. (Does Lloyd's use completion? Initial survey?) Very occasionally I have run across two launches in the same year for a common name, though there was coverage of only one here if I recall. Is it better to preemptively use a date or go through the moves and adjustments when another vessel of the same name is covered? Palmeira (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, PRECISE is indeed policy, but it specifically allows for exceptions, such as the local consensus you apparently so despise. Regardless, this change effecting a large area of Wikipedia was made without prior discussion, and you should at the very least seek retrospective approval for the change you have made. This is not the appropriate forum for the matter to be discussed. Refusal to seek such approval in the appropriate forum(s) could be interpreted as an unwillingness to act collaboratively and strays into OWN territory. The ball is in your court, - Nick Thorne ^talk 19:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

PRECISE does indeed give exceptions, but in general those are to make unclear titles more clear (as in the Michigan highway example). Adding "CVN-68" to USS Nimitz is not useful to anyone besides experts, who in general do not need the hull numbers anyway. And either way, we as a project already have decided not to make an exception to PRECISE - please read the link I and others have posted several times now. And lastly, if you're going to wikilawyer, it would be helpful if you actually read the pages you're slinging around - OWN is completely irrelevant to this situation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Related to this, Parsec/Sturmvogel 66: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#On_hull.2Fpennant_numbers Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese battleship Kirishima, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuuk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his fine efforts in the February 2015 Military History monthly article-writing contest, placing first with 90 points from 10 articles. Congratulations! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Marlborough (1912)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Marlborough (1912) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Grand Fleet reaction to Scarborough raid

Been going through Jellicoe as you suggested and noticed that the Grand Fleet did respond en masse to the Scarborough raid, contrary to what you've got in Iron Duke. See page 179; the 3rd BS was only the first responder to the news. Make sure that you fix that bit on your other British dreadnought articles. Glad you pointed out Jellicoe, he's far more useful than I expected, although mostly at a squadron level rather than individual ships. And that's just fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A good catch - I probably skimmed over that bit. And yeah, Jellicoe is a gold mine for the first two years of the war - if only Beatty had produced a counterpart (or maybe he did, and it's just not on google books - I haven't looked into his memoirs). Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I "trout" you back?

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

In good fun regarding Peacham - please don't elevate process to where it drowns out common sense. Twelve days and one unanimous move request later, it's back to how it was, though five different editors (not counting yourself) had to put time into solving a no-brainer primary topic claim to resolve what could've been just left alone. It's not a big deal, and I wish you well here at Wikipedia and in life, but that was probably not a necessary thing for you to revert me, even though I was absolutely and admittedly out of process. Have a good day, though. Red Slash 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

But without the bureaucracy, how will Wikipedia survive? I had come to the situation via WP:MDP - at the time, Peacham was redirecting to Peacham (disambiguation), which is generally not advisable. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding me! Someone else must've intervened. Alas. My intent was never for Peacham to redirect anywhere but to the town, but I was sabotaged! Red Slash 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't stand it, I know you planned it Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Really. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean, Ed? Parsecboy (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me translate for you: "Did he really seriously just quote the Beastie Boys?" ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I stand by it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Emperor of India

The article HMS Emperor of India you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Emperor of India for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Marlborough (1912)

The article HMS Marlborough (1912) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Marlborough (1912) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

see talk page on Graf Spee

Please explain your recent reverts.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

SM U-66

Thx for that ... you weren't reverting me or any recent edit, I'm not sure who did that. I was wondering if that was some older convention ... apparently not. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It was this edit I was partially reverting ;) Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't an intel analyst for nothing ;) Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Research Invitation

Hello Parsecboy,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at [email protected].

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That's easy. We get people to do stuff by not doing it ourselves. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Melanesia - Stephensort

hi there

I posted a reply to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Melanesia re your query.

cheers Phenss (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll head over and have a look. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Littorio-class battleship

Hello. I think it would be best if I explained the reason of my intervention, so that we can sort it out in a proper way. I have the book that it was referenced, and I went to look at the reference. Here is what I read: [...] it should remembered (sic) that the Pugliese system was effective only against torpedoes fitted wit traditional contact fuses that exploded upon impact on the hull. It did not offer any protection against torpedoes with magnetic influence detonators that were designed toexplode slightly below the hull of the target; the serious damage suffered at Taranto in november 1940 by the Conte di Cavour and Duilio, each hit by an explosion of this type, demonstrates this. I think this highlights a rather important factor that otherwise is not considered in the evaluation of the system, the fact that it was simply not designed to counter torpedoes which could explode below the target's hull instead of having to hit it directly. Italianhistorian88 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Perhaps it would be useless to say that said book by Bagnasco and De Toro, other than being more recent of the one you referenced (which might have some value, since additional archival information might have been obtained by people who are likely to have better access to these rather than foreign historians), has an appendix which details damage suffered by the Littorio-class battleships during their lives. Perhaps you should give it a look. Italianhistorian88 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; perhaps I let my impulse get the best of me. What I meant to say was that, the point of the Bagnasco and De Toro's book wasn't that the system was perfect against contact explosions, only that it was designed against them, which does not conflict with the fact that it was not performing perfectly because of faulty construction and other factors; the most important point was that the system could do nothing against explosions happening under the hull, of the kind that happened to Taranto, because when it was designed and first tested such explosions from torpedoes were not possible. This is not a "vague and ambiguous claim" without substantial basis, it's a fact that helps to explain why the underwater defense of these ships wasn't as effective as it was hoped when they were first being designed. Italianhistorian88 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have Bagnasco & De Toro's book, it is already cited in the article. The point of the paragraph (or perhaps the point of how it's phrased) is to serve as an excuse for a design flaw in the ship class, which is unacceptable per WP:NPOV.

The other thing is, magnetic detonators were specifically designed to defeat all torpedo protection schemes, regardless of whether it was Pugliese's or the standard bulges and bulkheads. No system was designed to offer protection against them, so to point that out for Pugliese's design is out of place and not helpful to readers.

You will note that the Scharnhorst-class battleship article presents the faults of the underwater protection scheme, as well as an outdated armor layout, but it does not make excuses for them (when it could easily descend into hand-wringing about the Germans not having had experience designing capital ships since the 1912 Bayern class, or whatever). And the Iowa-class battleship and Yamato-class battleship articles similarly present flaws in the designs' armor layout. The Littorio article should be no different. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. I hadn't looked at it this way. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Italianhistorian88 (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I've written hundreds of these articles so perhaps it's a bit easier for me to look at them comparatively (though the only one of the above examples that I wrote was the Scharnhorst one). It looks like the_Ed17 protected the page, but I think we've settled th issue here, so I'll drop him a note. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And of course, we can't go too far in the other direction - we're not a reprint of The World's Worst Warships either ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on our "spent effort"

A new study out specifically cites our articles on battleships in how we aren't making 'efficient' choices in where to write articles. Sigh. See [1], esp. page seven, bottom right. cc Sturmvogel 66 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So not much different from TCO's analysis then? I didn't read the whole thing, just the paragraph where they mentioned us. Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet another fundamental misunderstanding; we should be servicing out "customers" rather than writing what we want to write.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The general gist is the same, Parsec. I actually theoretically agree with their analysis in that if our mission revolves around giving free information to the world, we should prioritize the most important of that information, but the authors don't seem to understand that this mission is subsidiary to other core interests in our minds. You or I aren't going to write an article on Katy Perry, for instance, because it's not something that we care about. They also completely disregard the increased difficulty factor in writing a top-level vs. mid-level article. There's a few good comments on all this here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The article (and TCO, for that matter) assumes that each individual has the same mission as the project as a whole, or that importance is an objective measure. We write what we want to write about - we're volunteers, afterall.

It also ignores the fact that it's much easier to build topics from the ground up - for obvious reasons, I don't touch a list until I've written all (or at least most) of the sub articles. I didn't write the High Seas Fleet article or bios like Reinhard Scheer until I had written most of the articles on the individual ships - eventually I'll get to even higher level articles like Imperial German Navy. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said I theoretically agree. Theoretically, we're here for the same core mission. In reality, we all have smaller things that motivate us. :-) And similarly, I only wrote South American dreadnought race after doing the daughter articles. Same problem as you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: D-class cruiser

The image just added comes from here. Different usernames. That said, the version uploaded (6000x2000px) does not exist on the Internet, and the language used is similar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into that for me. I'll drop him a note and see what he says. Is OTRS the route for him to validate that they are in fact the creator? I don't know much about it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a couple options, but having him/her email OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org might be easiest. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dropped him a line on his talk page, we'll see if he responds. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

TS Pretoria and Georg Lassen

I just stumbled across some articles linking Georg Lassen and the Pretoria. Apparently Lassen took command of Pretoria in mid-April 1945 and helped evacuate the coffins of Paul von Hindenburg and his wife. Can you confirm this story? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I know, the cruiser Emden carried the Hindenburgs' remains from Königsberg to Pillau in January 1945. April would have been far too late to remove them from the Tannenberg Memorial. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a few online books saying they were evacuated on Pretoria see Görings Revier: Jagd und Politik in der Rominter Heide page 172, or Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte page 558. But you are correct that Emden brought them to Pillau and Pretoria took them from Pillau to Swinemünde. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me now! Parsecboy (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

January-March 2015 Milhist reviewing award

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		For completing 11 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Ersatz Hessen

TY Parsecboy for sending Me the message about the Illustration concerning KMS Ersatz Hessen. My Legal Name is Eldan Douglas Fales. I live in Cheyenne Wyoming U.S. I have an account on War Thunder Live, as well as play the game along with several others. World Of Warships is one of them. My War Thunder Account is listed under the game handle of TwistedSister. I am writing a book about the designs of the Plan Z ships, and after it is published I plan to add more contributions to Wikipedia on the subject, in accordance with the guidelines and rules. I added a small contribution to the SpahKruizer article from source material from Kriegsmarine.DE I have purchased around 50 books that are directly and indirectly related to the WW2 Kriegsmarine, and or Plan Z in some way. There is allot of print that is conjectural, and guess work when it comes to these ships, and the Z plan in general so picking out the Real truth of some of it has been a real chore. There were several designs that had been drawn up in consideration for some of these ships, and a few of the ships that they did start to build had been bombed in air raida, and the plans and blue prints were destroyed. Or so it is claimed. I have been studying the ship designs, and blue prints for all of the capitol ships that Germany did build from WW1 on up to Battleship Tirpitz, along with any material that I can find on the Plan Z designs.

Most of the Plan Z designs are basic layouts, IE stats, with weights and number of guns, planed power plants and so on. almost all of the side view line profiles are what I term as (Close Conjecture). They are fairly derived somewhat accurate depictions of what the ships most likely would have looked like. I hope that any one who has drawn them has put as much time and thought into this process as I have. The M class cruiser is one of the only actual line drawings that has survived on through the war that I know of and they didn't get to the point of drawing in the port hole pattern on them. So again people can guess where, and how many there would be. The only good thing about this is that those line drawings do show the compartments of the ship and what they are, so one could make a reasonable educated guess as I have done with comparing it to how the Germans put them on other ships, like the Prinze Eugan, and Graf Spee. I also have been building a 1/72 scale model of the M class light cruiser and have pictures of it on several Model forums. The Jolly Roger Shipyard under scratch Build section is one of them.

I didn't figure out exactly who You were wanting me to E mail to confirm that I am both TwistedSister on War Thunder, and Haratio Fales on the Ship forums, and or that will be My pen name for publishing the afore said book. If there is any suggestions You have that to help me with this process further I welcome them. I would very much like to be able to ad any of or all of the 3D model line drawings to these articles as I believe that they would greatly enhance the understanding of these planed ships that never were. Thank You much, If you need My E mail address I think I have it authorized in My profile. [email protected] Thank You Again Haratio Fales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

TY again.

Thank You again. I have trouble with the linked E mail, because My Microsoft account is funky with the password at the moment since I switched to windows 8, however I did figure out how to send them an E mail with My aol mail, and did so. I mentioned

in brief our discussion and told them about My double id issue. You have done a great job on these articles since the ships never were built except for the basic laying down of about 3 of them. Much of the source material of these ships, and or

designs of them were, and are conjecture. I have run into many current fanboy alternate designs that are made by people recently as in the last few years, or decades that they claim Germany was planning. I have thought about writing an article on

Plan Z hoaxes. I am tempted to put a chapter in My book about it. One of these is the infamous KMS Furher. The ship in the hand drawing is 3 times the length of Bismarck, and just over slightly twice the breath. It has 40 inch main guns as the main

artillery. It is claimed to displace 600,000 tons. I have seen this a few times on the Axis history, and World Warship forum as a common re post. I posted it on the War Thunder Forum as a Fraud and people started asking about it in all honesty about if

Germany was planning to build it even though I clearly had posted it as a fantasy / hoax design. Anyway I get long winded and I need to write, and work on models. I would very much like to contribute any and all that I can to these articles, and I am

glad that You are here to help and or make sure that anyone don't just sneak crap into them. I am still trying to get used to some of the functions, IE when I did try to place the picture in the D class article, I was trying to put it at the bottom

in between the last paragraph of the article, and above the footnotes. as to not cramp up the statistics square. If We, and or I do get to the point where we can ad it I think it could go there nicely. What do You think? I still have some detailing to

do on the jpg of this Illustration. A few minor things like the Screws, and the aft flagstaff. I have been better redrawing the 28 cm triple turrets as You have seen if you have looked at the WT forum. I am going to start Illustrating the O class

Battle cruiser, and the P class panzership designs next before I move to the M class, and SpahKruizer. So TY again. Keep in touch Your Friend in German Naval History Haratio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank You for the revision.

Thank You for adding My line drawing map to the article. I think it is a lot sharper, and looks better that the old one, although you could have left that one in there for comparison. The biggest problem I had with it was it did not seem to reflect the secondary guns on the ship at all. I do plan Like I mentioned before to detail more highly the image of the ship by adding more things, like the Screws and shafts, which would be evident in the small photo. I need to add the Torpedo tubes to the top of the image. I thought I had done that but I either saved it under a different name, or I just didn't do that yet. I will send You an update when I do any revision and upload them on the commons. Thank You again for considering My input. I hope I can always help out. Haratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Salamis

What is the USNI reference referring to? There's an error in the |title= field, and there's no link so that I could fix it myself. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it - thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for your addition ;) Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Unelated question: in Battle of Odessa (1914), the Germans had three battlecruisers? That's clearly wrong... do you have the correct figures? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that would just be the one - no idea what whoever wrote that was smoking. Parsecboy (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they were referring to the two pre-dreadnoughts? I don't have any sources on the raid itself, so I don't know what ships were used... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Barbaros and Turgut were in pretty bad shape by 1914 and were moored on the European side of the straights to defend the minefields. I can check Langensiepen & Güleryüz later for the specific ships if you'd like. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know.

I added an update to the line drawing with added detail to the main turrets, I added the torpedo launchers to the top profile, and I added the propulsion screws and rudder to the hull. I also added a angled shot of the rear turret with a human figure to show scale. I have not attempted to edit them into the article. I thought I would let you look at the second picture and see what You think. The revision of the line drawing shows up when You click onto the small reference line drawing in the article, so that works good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 10:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Very cool.

I'm Happy that what I am doing is helping the article to be something more that just a paragraph of information. It has also motivated me to work more on these 3D projects so I can finish My book. I am leaning on Your judgment as to if the pictures are not detailed enough, or if I have posted to many on here or anything that doesn't seem right. I take my time when I am drawing and or measuring things to be accurate. I think the article looks good, but if we had a whole bunch of pictures it would be like a birthday cake with to many scoops of Ice cream on top. a few like it is now is just good enough so any one from a 6 year old to an 80 year old retired Naval officer can read it now and see the line drawing, and the detail pic with the scale figure and get an understanding of what this ship would have been like.

When I have a more detailed Crane drawn I will submit a photo of that section of the ship with the aircraft, and hanger. The cranes that are on there are something I threw together and need to revise, and there is no hanger modeled into the ship yet. I think logically the hanger would be mostly like the ones on the Panzerships, or real similar to the M class, or Sharnhorst. I plan to work on the P-class next so as I model those hangers, Ill see how they look on the D-class. After looking at how big these D classes would have been, it is apparent why Raider wanted to have another main turret, as the Italians built the Doria's that were about the same size and weight but carried 10 - 12 inch guns. The Italians didn't have to travel far ranges though, they just had to sail around in the Mediterranean with resupply ships, but the Germans had to sail half way around the world carrying what they needed for the whole trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I got in a hurry and forgot about the stereoscopic range finder doors on the turret but other than that its complete. I will add a revision shot when I draw in the doors. I am starting to draw the main turrets for the O class tonight so I can start on that, and the P class ships, I already drew their hulls and I hope as I go along that they get better with out so much revision. There is a lot more information on their layouts so they shouldn't be as hard as the D class was. I was also thinking about drawing the crests in Gimp like the one I drew for Hessen, the Alsace emblem is a bit harder but I think I have it. an interesting side note is that the ship names were Ersatz which is like saying primer or pre planed, as far as I can derive the names of the ship like this one would have been Hessen once built. I use the KMS designation, as did most of the navies at the time however the Germans them selves didn't use the prefix for ships. They just called them Heavy cruiser Prinze Eugan, or Battleship Bismarck and so on. Ty again, I like how the article feels like it fills You up just a tad more than it used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I read the article on the Heavy cruisers. It is well written. I am working on the O and P class drawings at the moment. I just received a book about the Gneisenau, and the Prinz Eugan in 3D drawings, that I thought was like 3D modeling but it is like the movies with the glasses. there is allot of good pictures that are not 3d though, they are about 80 pages of sections of the ships, and they show the cranes, and boats that are aboard much better. I Have about 40 books now that deal with German Capital ships from WW2 now. I always hated that they classified the Panzer ships as Heavy Cruisers even though I understand why. I do agree with the British that they were like little Battleships. The British only had a few ships that could cover them in reality. The Germans would have done better to carry diesel instead of fuel oil that had to be refined onboard those ships. Anyway I am getting long winded again. I will post the pics on the commons and send You a talk when I do. Thank You for adding them to the articles. Helping You with this is also keeping Me motivated to do the work to finish My book also. Then I get to go back to My model projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 02:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Diamonds for your fine work on SMS Dresden (1907), SMS Königsberg (1905), and SMS Gefion. Well done! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin

I went to self-revert after re-reading the entire context - but you beat me to it! DrFrench (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS New Hampshire (BB-25)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS New Hampshire (BB-25) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 71.255.159.22 -- 71.255.159.22 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS South Carolina (BB-26)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS South Carolina (BB-26) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Michigan (BB-27)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Michigan (BB-27) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ship naming convention reverts of May 22

Dear User:Parsecboy. Good show! Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wilcke

Hi, did the last change address you comment? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I had lost track of the review. Everything looks good now! Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/SMS Königsberg (1905) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Br'erly touch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Minnesota (BB-22)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Minnesota (BB-22) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Minnesota (BB-22)

The article USS Minnesota (BB-22) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Minnesota (BB-22) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Minnesota (BB-22)

The article USS Minnesota (BB-22) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Minnesota (BB-22) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS New Hampshire (BB-25)

The article USS New Hampshire (BB-25) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS New Hampshire (BB-25) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 71.255.159.22 -- 71.255.159.22 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS South Carolina (BB-26)

The article USS South Carolina (BB-26) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS South Carolina (BB-26) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Michigan (BB-27)

The article USS Michigan (BB-27) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Michigan (BB-27) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Bismarck and Oehrn

To my knowledge, it was Victor Oehrn who failed to set up the U-boat line which was supposed to draw the pursuers away from Bismarck. Is that correct? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Louisiana (BB-19)

The article USS Louisiana (BB-19) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Louisiana (BB-19) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests.
Message added 22:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mind checking the article "Spanish cruiser Conde del Venadito" again, since I have fixed all problems. Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin

The article German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sturmabteilung name change discussion

The name change discussioon was getting to be quite confusing as to who supported what, so I revamped the format and I'm asking all editors who already voted to return and recast their votes under the new format. [2] Thanks, BMK (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Conversion templates

Conversion templates between units of measurement are obviously being misused and misapplied by people all over Wikipedia. A bad state of affairs when slavish adherence to templates takes precedence over accuracy. Urselius (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Rhode Island (BB-17)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Rhode Island (BB-17) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Rhode Island (BB-17)

The article USS Rhode Island (BB-17) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Rhode Island (BB-17) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Rhode Island (BB-17)

The article USS Rhode Island (BB-17) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Rhode Island (BB-17) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Vermont (BB-20)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Vermont (BB-20) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Connecticut-class battleship

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Connecticut-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Connecticut-class battleship

The article Connecticut-class battleship you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Connecticut-class battleship for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Vermont (BB-20)

The article USS Vermont (BB-20) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Vermont (BB-20) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Vermont (BB-20)

The article USS Vermont (BB-20) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Vermont (BB-20) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Greek battleship Salamis

Regarding your reversion of all my amendments to this article, I have to ask how you are sure that the image I removed really is a supposed rendering of the ship as allegedly to be completed for the German navy - it CANNOT be, as the aft turrets are clearly widely separated, which was not the case with Salamis - but was certainly the case with Lützow. Also the funnels are EXACTLY as in Lützow - so it IS Lützow. I suspect that an image of Lützow was mis-labelled as an 'artists impression' of Salamis many aeons ago - but that does not mean that we should continue with this error in Wikipedia.

I cannot understand why you have reverted the section taken from Fotakis's article - it is a proper scholarly paper, and thus meets all guidelines for a Wikipedia contribution.

On the matter of the ship being used as an accommodation ship, a colleague informs me that no photographs of Kiel show her, and the description of the vessel in contemporary files relating to the court case (in the National Archives) make it clear that she was in no state to accommodate anyone!

I therefore request that you permit my revisions.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMDC (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@AMDC: - You are actually quite right - if you go look at the source for the image (page 250 here), it's rather obvious that the journal flipped the images of Salamis and Lützuw with the captions for the other - I'll upload the correct image shortly.

As for the material from Fotakis, we need specific page numbers for the content with in-line citations. As for whether or not she became a barracks ship, using the lack of her presence in photographs and contemporary descriptions amounts to original research, which we are not permitted to do. If Fotakis (or any other reliable source) contradicts the barracks ship claim, we can include it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: - I'd not seen the original source for the image - that explains a lot!

The Fotakis article mentions Salamis in a couple of places - but the exact reference to the 1928 events is pp. 376-78.

Pity that the rules of Wikipedia don't allow canards to be shot down until external publication has taken place (but I can see the logic) - the National Archives also have files of the Naval Inter-Allied Control Commission, which make it clear that Salamis never went anywhere near Kiel (the files list exactly what was in each port following the Armistice). Hopefully my archival work on Salamis will be out as part of a book next year ....

---

@AMDC: - I've added the material from Fotakis back into the article. I had a look at the online posting of the article, but the page numbers don't match up with what would have appeared in the print journal. Can you tell me the full page range of the article? There's material that can be incorporated into the Salamis article, and others I think - for instance, on the Lemnos, Kilkis, and Averof articles for starters. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: - The full page-range is pp. 365–93 - it's annoying when the online version of a journal does that! Yes, a very useful article which, as you say, has a number of things I'd not come across before.

---

Thanks, and yeah, you'd think they'd keep the page numbers the same. I'd like to be able to expand these articles up to the point where they could be Featured Articles, and I think this will help considerably. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Talk:Spanish cruiser Conde del Venadito.
Message added 12:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Kansas (BB-21)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Kansas (BB-21) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Bismarck

What do you make of this article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen that before - I haven't read Ballantyne's book, but it seems fairly dubious to me. The command team (Lindemann, Lütjens, etc.) were killed fairly early in the engagement, and I've never seen anything about Oels having issued an order to surrender, so it seems rather unlikely that anyone with the authority to surrender the ship actually made the attempt. It would seem much more likely that Mr. Byers incorrectly interpreted something else to be a black flag, which is understandable given the conditions. And I'd wager that Ballantyne figured that something as juicy as this claim would help him sell his book, and didn't bother to look into it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

SMS Blitz

Hello In SMS Blitz there is info "Missing or empty |title= (help)" in references. Can you fix templates in this article, please? Because I wanted to translate it to pl.wiki :) PMG (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Kansas (BB-21)

The article USS Kansas (BB-21) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Kansas (BB-21) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Kansas (BB-21)

The article USS Kansas (BB-21) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Kansas (BB-21) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Connecticut-class battleship

The article Connecticut-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Connecticut-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS New Jersey (BB-16)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS New Jersey (BB-16) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS New Jersey (BB-16)

The article USS New Jersey (BB-16) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS New Jersey (BB-16) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS New Jersey (BB-16)

The article USS New Jersey (BB-16) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS New Jersey (BB-16) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Georgia (BB-15)

The article USS Georgia (BB-15) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Georgia (BB-15) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his fine efforts in the May 2015 Military History monthly article-writing contest, placing first with 66 points from 9 articles. Congratulations! Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Virginia-class battleship

The article Virginia-class battleship you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Virginia-class battleship for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)